The European Citizens’ Initiative brings contentious policy issues to Brussels: it is an opportunity for democratic politics

The European Citizens’ Initiative brings contentious policy issues to Brussels: it is an opportunity for democratic politics.

The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) has been in force for more than 8 years, and yet it still seems this tool has not yet displayed its full potential. The reason is that the attention and evaluation of the ECI usually does not focus on the essential aspect: unlike what has often been emphasised, the ECI is not a tool able to introduce new issues into the policy-making cycle but an opportunity to make policy debates more diverse and controversial. If the ECI is assessed from this perspective, it is impossible to underappreciate the effects it has already had in opening up opportunities to participate in EU policy-making. From this point of view, the judgment on its effects on EU policy making must stress that the ECI has created an opportunity for grassroots constituencies and more controversial issues to reach European debates.

After some initial interpretations pointing to the European Citizens’ Initiative as the first example of transnational direct democracy, consensus seems to have set around the fact that it is an agenda-setting device allowing 1 million European citizens to demand the European Commission to propose new legislation to the Parliament and the Council. This reflects that citizens do not directly have the final word on the result of the decision making process they launched – actually, not even the first as the initiative finishes once the Commission receives it and promoters cannot withdraw it if they disagree with the Commission's proposal – and their contribution is thus an invitation for institutions to act.

As a result, most authors have pointed out the weaknesses of the tool: its mobilisation costs – including legal background checks and data protection responsibilities even before engaging in a seven-country transnational campaign – do not meet potential gains since there is no guarantee that even if successful – out of 98 intended registrations only 5 initiatives have met the 1 million signatures threshold – the proposal will be tabled by the Commission. None of the initiators of the successful ECIs so far answered by the Commission has expressed satisfaction as to the result of their proposal, confirming the limitations of the ECI from the direct democracy perspective.

However, these accounts, even though accurate, do not tell the full story. The real question is why citizens and civil society organisations keep using and EU institutions keep reforming a tool that is so obviously unfit for purpose. The response must lay somewhere else. Despite its institutional limitations, the ECI remains a powerful tool in a campaign toolkit. Firstly, from citizens' consultations to deliberative panels, the EU institutions have invested some political capital in opening opportunities of participation in policymaking beyond "the Brussels bubble", and the ECI is a part of this strategy. In this sense, a campaign reaching Brussels on this platform levies more institutional and political clout than one relying on a higher number of signatures on online platforms. Secondly, the growing politicization of the EU is making the ability to reach and mobilise diverse grassroots constituencies on EU issues a rare and valuable capacity. For years Commission officials and MEPs have been distrustful civil society campaigners claiming to speak on behalf of certain causes, arguing that most Brussels-based activists are as much insiders to the EU bubble as themselves. Civil society organisations now have a recognised tool to demonstrate no only it stands for a cause but also that it can claim to a measure of social representativeness in the transnational European public sphere.

This is a double edge sword, since it can also be used to dispute the degree of representation of organisations that cannot organise this kind of campaigns or simply choose to support more strategic and policy-effective ways of operation. In any circumstances, the use of the ECI by grassroots organisations and groups operating as outsiders in Brussels to challenge organisations in the Brussels bubble. With Álvaro Oleart we have argued that this process was in operation in cases such as the anti-abortion ECI "One of us" and the unofficial signature collection "Stop TTIP" where established religious and trade policy activists in Brussels where almost as much of a target of the campaigns as the EU institutions themselves. Some of the networks that develop around an ECI become then established, thus contributing to make the discussion environment more diverse.

Figure 1 Insider - outsider challenge around 5 campaigns: One of Us, Rigth to Water, Stop TTIP, Media Pluralism and Wake up Europe

The ECI is also contributing to make policy debates closer to those happening in the EU public spheres. One of the consequences is that polarising issues arising in national public debates are also being Europeanised with questions such as banning prostitution, legalised drugs or the already mentioned abortion being funnelled via the ECI. Even though the mentioned institutional shortcomings of the ECI have so far prevented the subject matter of these initiatives to translate into substantial policy debates, this is contributing to bring EU policy making closer to more politicised debates. This is not good or bad in itself, but may contribute to make transnational linkages and campaigns more feasible than it was the case before.

The ECI is contributing to bring EU policy debates closer to grassroots public spheres by providing an avenue to groups able to bring politicized issues across different member states to the attention of EU institutions. This has not so far translated into new policy making; and this form of politicization does not necessarily benefit the EU. It may rather contribute to de-legitimate it if it systematically turns down divisive albeit successful ECIs.

The politicization of EU issues is not caused by the ECI, nor will it change by any institutional reforms. But the EU may want to make sure to make this tool count for those that may want to back policy proposals with a chance to be listened to in institutional fora with a measure of support in the public sphere in the form of 1  million signatures. In reform discussions EU institutions have decided not to give promoters more of a say in the result – which may be legally difficult or impossible – but they may want to consider an alternative: lowering the cost of failure.