Closer to people” “” “

Ever since taking office, the European Commission led by Romano Prodi had included among its priorities the drafting on a White Paper on “governance”, or the art of governing, at the European level. The French member of the European Council Jerôme Vignon was given the task of coordinating the work of the so-called “Governance Task Force”. The White Paper was published in July this year and aroused conflicting reactions. We interviewed Vignon on the progress of European governance in the light of the decisions taken by the European Council in Laeken. What exactly is meant by the term European governance ? And why a White Paper? “Each new Commission tries to find a particular profile with which to characterize its own term of office. The Executive presided over by Romano Prodi has wanted right from the start to put the emphasis both on the EU’s mode of government, and on the conduct of the Community institutions. The EU has in fact seldom showed much concern for the criteria – also in terms of political ethics – of the exercise of power. Governance relates, in short, to everything that describes the ways in which power is exercised by the European public authorities through the institutions of the EU. So, not only Brussels, but also the national and local Governments that may now boast of an often direct presence in the European decision-making process”. What in your view are the “strong points” of the White Paper? “The first in the question of consultation and expertise. The White Paper strives to make these practices more democratic. That is a fundamental question, because the European institutions are by their very nature far removed from the territory they are supposed to serve. The Governments, the Regions, the local authorities are present on the territory, but the organs of the EU will never, physically, be present there. The consequence is that the European institutions ‘don’t know’ the peoples of Europe. That’s why it is so important to implement a process of listening, of consultation, decisive for influencing and guiding the EU’s programme of action: especially that of the executive Commission, whose task remains the definition of common strategies. But Europe needs to learn ‘how to listen’, adopting such criteria as pluralism, transparency, ethical principles. Responsibility, however, is incumbent not only on those who decide but on those who hope to influence the Community decisions, be they experts, technicians or pressure groups”. How is the theme of subsidiarity, of which so much is spoken today, tackled in the White Paper? “The principle of subsidiarity is a key issue in the White Paper. Often, in fact, the EU is led to act, and later to justify its own intervention, rather than let the lower levels intervene on its behalf. Subsidiarity, in my view, is a political principle, in the sense that it should guide the conduct of those who want the motivations at the basis of European norms and regulations to be subject to criticism; even self-criticism. Thanks to evaluation, the individual European decision is increasingly permeable to external judgement. But there is also another question that is worth reflecting on: the quality of executive actions. Modern democracies have a tendency to underestimate the growing importance of the executive, i.e. the administration, to the advantage of the legislative power. In fact, the regulatory power of the administration counts for a great deal today. The European Union too is not remarkable for its clarity in distinguishing the two powers: from this derives the problem of rules applied in too heterogeneous a manner or rules applied without any respect for the decentralized powers”. What do you think of the process of consultation with civil society and in particular with the Regions? “In this regard, an unsatisfactory state of affairs is clearly expressed in the White Paper. How is it possible for there to be total failures at the level of the adoption of various legislative acts in spite of all the information, negotiations and consultations that preceded the decision itself? Several examples of this could be cited. Probably, the mode of listening is not sufficiently pluralist. The consultative process lacks in quality; it is transparent, but unequal in terms of access to the instruments to influence the Council, Commission and Parliament. Moreover, many lobbies or pressure groups do not at all represent the interests of what they claim to safeguard. The truth is that too much energy is expended in managing the processes and not in capitalizing on their results. In the case of the Regions too, the White Paper declares the quantity and quality of their consultation insufficient”. What are the next stages in the progress of “Governance”? “The consultation on the White Paper will continue till March 2002. The European Parliament reacted immediately to its publication, at times negatively. Up till March next year, therefore, there will be time to collect the contributions of the Governments, Regions and civil society. Nine months were not enough to listen to everything and to everyone; the consultation will help to enrich and improve the document. The presentation of a new report by the Commission on the question, moreover, is planned towards the end of 2002: it could be defined as one ‘of reaction’, and will contain specific proposals aimed both at the Convention and at the intergovernmental Conference. Finally, from the second half of 2002, the Commission will begin to translate into practice the provisions of the White Paper that directly depend on it, such as the consultation on communications or the tripartite contacts with Governments and Regions”. G.A.G.