Enlarged Complementarity: How an ECA Should Relate to Other Institutions and Actors
Lucile Schmid (La Fabrique écologique, Paris)
In her introductory essay to this debate, Kalypso Nicolaïdis proposes creating a permanent, transnational, and itinerant assembly of 300 randomly selected citizens, whose mandate would be renewed by thirds every six months. Unlike other citizens’ assemblies that have ruled on specific topics in Ireland (abortion, same-sex marriage), in France (climate), or in Iceland (rewriting the Constitution), this assembly would have general jurisdiction and work in interaction with the European Parliament. Free from political parties and interest groups, it would implement deliberative democracy, complementary to representative democracy and direct democracy. The European Citizens’ Assembly (ECA) would benefit from a favourable ecosystem, supported by NGOs, transnational activism, and solution-based journalism. It would act as a bridge between society and other institutions and would allow for new alliances, for example between European civil servants and citizens. It could also propose resorting to direct democracy by calling for a referendum, as was the case in Ireland. The objective of this reform would be to strengthen European citizens’ sense of institutional belonging.
I participate in this forum as a co-founder and Vice President of the think tank “La fabrique écologique,” which closely followed the work of the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate. This national convention was a very important step to acknowledge the legitimacy of citizens’ assemblies in France. But it was also a disappointment as the following reforms did not match expectations. This is why in my contribution I will focus on a central element, the interaction of a citizens’ assembly with existing institutions. This observation on an experience at the national level needs of course to be transposed to the European level. It might be even more relevant at that stage as European institutions are always on the quest of enhancing their legitimacy. I am also a member of the journal Esprit, which has long been committed to European engagement.
I have been impressed by the quality of the arguments exchanged in this discussion, in which I am intervening somewhat late. Though no contributor put into question of the proposal of creating an ECA, there was a strong dividing line between them on its status and thus the place to give it in the institutional scheme. Cristina Lafont & Nadia Urbinati, and Richard Bellamy are clearly rather sceptical about its role. The discussion has addressed a wide range of issues, concerning 1) the initiative itself – legitimacy of random selection versus election), the role of the Citizens’ Assembly, concerns about an “apolitical democracy,” general versus specialised competence, visibility versus invisibility; 2) the institutional context – the imbalance caused by the dominance of national executives, the interaction between the Citizens’ Assembly and the European Parliament (cooperation, conflicts), links between deliberative/representative/direct democracy; and 3) political challenges – the rise of populism, democracy 3.0, new transnational and decolonial activist movements.
Why Complementarity is Key
In my response to Nicolaïdis’ essay, I will focus on the complementary relationship she envisions between the future Citizens’ Assembly and the European Parliament. Several contributors contest or are sceptical about this complementarity, preferring to see the ECA as a mediating body between institutions and society. Moreover, how can we imagine that those in power within the institutions would agree to share it? This is a difficulty not to be underestimated, given that the Parliament, the Commission, and the Council of Member States are often in a competitive rather than complementary mindset.
Nevertheless, complementarity is a key element. It is the foundation for the ECA not being just a simple citizens’ panel, but a full-fledged institution. This justifies its permanence and general competence. This concern for an institutional foundation is directly related to Nicolaïdis’ reference to Hannah Arendt’s idea that “power is not a zero-sum game.” By creating an ECA that complements the European Parliament, the bet is that this new institution will alter the institutional landscape and generate new dynamics. Complementarity between the European Parliament and the ECA could trigger broader institutional complementarity within the European institutions. The bet also assumes that the citizens who are members of the Assembly will be on equal footing with the members of other European institutions. This is a fundamental point, especially since the division between elites and the people is being highlighted everywhere by populists and resonates particularly when it comes to how Europe functions. It is also a point of caution because, in most cases, when citizens are given a voice, there is an asymmetry in rights: citizens participate, but elected officials decide. This traditional division of roles must at least be challenged.
But how do we define this complementarity? If the competence of the ECA is general, this does not preclude choosing an agenda that prioritises current issues, on which feedback from citizens would be useful to the institutions.
Putting the Green Deal on the ECA Agenda
In concluding her contribution, Sandra Seubert observes that issues related to the Green Deal could offer interesting material for a future European Citizens’ Assembly. Yves Sintomer, Alvaro Oleart and Daniel Freund also address this question. Environmental issues are a topic on which the European Union has long been engaged and possesses substantial internal and external expertise. However, the current situation is paradoxical. Adapting Europe to climate disruptions is urgent. Yet, climate-skeptic discourse is advancing everywhere. As we have recently seen with the European Nature Restoration Law and the agricultural mobilisations, there is a risk that, out of fear of social protests, the European Union may suspend some of its commitments to the Green Deal.
These challenges are directly linked to the incapacity of the current institutions to tie social and environmental issues together. Regarding the social consequences of the Green Deal and the definition of public mechanisms to address them, it is particularly necessary to create a space for deliberation with representatives of European society. The ECA would enable this. Pragmatically, it is worth recalling that, on environmental issues, there are a large number of associations and NGOs that could mobilise and support the creation of an initiative like an ECA, in connection with supporters within the European Parliament. Finally, it should be noted that the work of the European Commission’s services in support of the Green Deal has been of high quality and offers all the necessary knowledge and expertise on these issues.
Moreover, if we refer to the example of the French Citizens’ Climate Convention of 2019/2020, it is striking to note that it was the failure to account for the complementarity between this citizens’ convention and other institutions – the parliament, the government – that caused misunderstandings that were never resolved. The French President had promised a “filter-free” implementation of the Convention’s proposals, which was impossible within the institutional framework unless a referendum was organised (direct democracy). However, given the Convention’s broad mandate, it was not possible to submit all these proposals in a single referendum. In any case, failing to organise collaboration between Parliament and the citizens’ convention from the outset, and not recognising their complementarity, fueled conflicts and mutual resentment.
The possibility to include MP associates as early as possible in the process would then be mutually beneficial for citizens and representatives. It should be properly defined so that citizens keep their freedom of discussion and recommendation. But there could be particular moments in the convention for organising acculturation on both sides. This is currently even more important as there is a growing distrust between citizens and their representatives. Developing a common view and language between both sides could be an objective for the ECA.
An Expanded Vision of Complementarity
It is therefore clear that thinking about complementarity from the outset is essential. Furthermore, this complementarity must be envisioned in an expanded way. In addition to the initial complementarity with the European Parliament, a broader vision of complementarity should include the services of the Commission, the Commissioners, the European Economic and Social Committee, NGOs, associations, and trade unions. This would be a sort of complementarity-mediation. A permanently functioning ECA could not operate in isolation from the world; as Nicolaïdis suggested it should interact with local actors, give voice to people not having a right to vote like migrants, it would need to engage with other actors and work with society in the broad sense. Nicolaïdis’ approach of openness could be a way to respond to arguments contrasting minipublics with the people as a whole. If there is interaction and openness the deliberative process would gain legitimacy. This would be different from the rules applied to certain thematic citizens’ conventions, where external contacts were strictly regulated -in Ireland for example the citizens could not have contacts with the press. Permanence and general competence must be coupled with openness. But it means that modalities of openness should be defined in the functioning of the ECA. Otherwise it could result in weakening the responsibility attached to membership.
Recognising that “complementarity” would benefit institutional dynamics and would ground the legitimacy of the ECA does not exhaust the subject. How, indeed, should we define what we mean by complementarity in this specific case?
Complementarity is first considered here in terms of the composition of the two assemblies (randomly selected citizens on one side, elected deputies on the other). It is also considered in terms of functioning—deliberative democracy versus representative democracy. But this remains a point of discussion, as ensuring more deliberation within elected assemblies is still an objective.
I see the main complementarity between the European Parliament and a Citizens’ Assembly as revolving around how political responsibility is concretely experienced. In her contribution, Seubert is concerned that a Citizens’ Assembly might encourage a form of “apolitical democracy”. The experience of the French Citizens’ Climate Convention shows rather the opposite, with citizens who, once the Convention ended, created a follow-up association (Les 150) and, in some cases, became active politically or in unions, often at the local level. They took their role seriously and with responsibility. This can, of course, also be seen in the case of elected officials. But in that case, the sense of responsibility is sometimes diluted by party membership, the desire to be re-elected, and difficulties of listening to the other side. In a permanent ECA with rotating membership these drawbacks would be less likely to happen. But what is central to prevent these distortions is the deliberative process. Developing arguing skills is key in keeping democracies alive and giving citizens the desire to be active. This is why the concern for deliberation should be promoted everywhere inside the institutions as well as in the ECA.
Finally, I believe that, as European texts and regulations are increasingly openly attacked and largely misunderstood by citizens, there is a strong need to explain and make understandable both the process and the usefulness of European law-making and the rule of law. I feel that the ECA could be the proper institution to contribute to this aim and could, in that way, serve the development of a common language among Europeans. Due to its composition and the fact it does not participate directly in elaborating the texts themselves, it would have an advantage compared to other institutions. Another way to prove its complementarity to them.
In conclusion, it is time to reverse the usual way of thinking and promote a complementary institutional approach in opposition to a competitive institutional approach. When the people feel more and more distant from their elected representatives, the latter should understand their interest in creating a European Citizens’ Assembly and back it. It might be the most promising way to relegitimate their own institutions.