(How) does the European Citizens’ Initiative work?
By Yza Schraal
One of Europe’s core values is democracy. In today’s world, where autocratisation is more likely to happen than democratisation, this core value becomes an even more important element in Europe’s society. One of Europe’s great achievements regarding democracy is the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), which offers citizens the opportunity to be more directly involved in the creation of legislation.
One of the most recent and successful examples is the My Voice My Choice initiative, which strives for safe and accessible abortions in the Union. This is not the first Citizens’ initiative, and certainly not the last. Therefore, now is the moment to reassess this procedure. How does this direct element of demos (by the people for the people) work? And does it work?
How does the ECI work?
The process of creating a European Citizens' Initiative may seem simple. The Commission explained it through a six-step guide. However, upon closer examination of the guide, it is more difficult than it seems. First, EU citizens need to have their initiative registered with the approval of the European Commission. Then the citizens need to gather support, with at least one million votes from at least seven member states. Maybe more importantly, they only have one year to find these signatures. After this is achieved, the member states will verify the signatures. Only the countries of origin of the signatures need to verify them. After this hurdle is passed, the initiative can be submitted to the Commission. Next, the initiators meet with the Commission to explain their proposal, and a public hearing of the initiative takes place in the European Parliament. Finally, the Commission will have to give its opinion within six months and decide whether to take action.
Statistics of ECI’s
In theory, this should be achievable. However, reality sketches a different scenario. As of today, a total of 129 initiatives have been registered, of which only 12 have been completed and answered by the Commission. If we look further into the answers by the Commission, it does not appear enthusiastic about proposing new legislation. Only two of the initiatives led to completely new legislation. The first-ever European Citizens’ Initiative to reach a million signatures was an initiative to create legislation to secure clean water and sanitation. The European Commission followed up on this by adjusting and creating new legislation. The other initiative on banning a type of toxin used in weedkillers led to new legislation on its risk assessment, rather than a ban on the toxin itself.
The majority of the completed ECIs did not result in new legislation. The European Commission argued in those cases that the legislation in place is sufficient. The improvements the Commission is trying to achieve happen either through other means (for example, a roadmap, better enforcement of the existing legislation, and assessments) or not at all. One initiative is still ongoing: the Fur Free Europe Initiative. The initiative even filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman because the Commission ignored their request for a meeting, which the Commission is obligated to grant them.
Does the ECI work?
The question of why so few ECIs are created and completed remains. Is it because citizens are not aware of the power they have? Or because the process is too complicated? The ambassador of the ECI argues it is because of the lack of awareness among European citizens. This is partly true, but other factors play a role as well. The process of an ECI requires a platform, a lot of time, and financial resources. Creating an ECI is like David fighting Goliath. Citizens do not have the same access, resources, and knowledge as the European Commission has.
There is an even more important issue, namely, the Commission playing a double role. When a person registers their ECI, it is the Commission that plays the role of the watchdog and decides if the proposal is deemed fit enough. Then, when the initiative finally achieves all the other criteria, among which is to gather and validate more than a million signatures within a year, it is again the Commission they face, but this time as the assessor of the initiative, who is more likely to dismiss their ECI than to take action.
Conclusion
In this article, it becomes clear that the European Citizens’ Initiative is lacking. But is it a problem of citizens not knowing or the European Commission working against them? The answer may be both. If the EU wants citizens to be more involved in democracy, it is important to give them the tools to do so. Knowledge is one element, but another one is granting them the opportunity to be actively involved in it, through more and better communication, opportunities to have their voices heard, and improvements in the ECI. Not only do adjustments to the ECI process need to be made, but there needs to be more willingness from the Commission to listen to its citizens and actually change and create legislation instead of dismissing them. ECIs should be seen as a leading element in the discourse between the Commission and the citizens, instead of a burden to deal with.
