Communicating Europe

In October 2005, the European Commission published its “Plan D on Democracy, Dialogue and Debate”, with the aim of “encouraging national debates on the future of Europe” and “reinforcing dialogue, public debate and the participation of citizens”. In October 2007, the Commission recommended a “partnership approach in the field of communication”, this time specifying a triple objective: “improving the access of citizens to information, reinforcing their understanding of the European, national and local dimension of Community policies, and involving citizens in an ongoing dialogue on European questions”. “Debate Europe – The Word to Citizens” has begun in recent weeks. It’s an initiative aimed at “fostering a general and ongoing debate between citizens of all horizons, at the national and European level, on the future of the European Union”. Is it the coherent implementation of an effective strategy of communication or a response to what is perceived as a failure? European Commissioner Margot Wallstrom limits herself to noting the change of context: from the obscure “period of reflection” in 2005, following the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by the citizens of France and the Netherlands, to the prospect of the European elections in 2009.Succeeding in effectively communicating its own message to those who have never shown any interest is the Holy Grail of politics. Public information serves almost exclusively as self-justification and not just for the political parties, and so “communication” is based on “public relations”. Citizens therefore so easily see this information as propaganda, which in turn represents a fearsome challenge for those who have the task of explaining complex realities in our media-determined world of slogans and sound bites. Perhaps it is just for this reason that the intensity of electoral campaigns seems so empty. The American electoral conventions are embarrassing for those who observe them from the outside, but local elections are no better. In 2006, some electoral posters placed not far from our offices in Brussels showed the agreeably smiling face of a woman candidate and her slogan “Priority for action!” (OK, Madam, but what action?”).However, when the political system is, as is that of the European Union, rather opaque in the eyes of the public, the need to communicate well is simultaneously both a need and a problem. It’s a need, because the Union must try to stem, or divert, an incessant flux of hostile articles published by the nationalist press of various countries. It’s a problem, because the necessary terminology (a centralized “participation”, an “ongoing dialogue on European questions”) is frankly demoralizing. The new initiative “Debate Europe”, including its splendid website (http://europa.eu/debateeurope/index.fr.htm completed by its own video space on YouTube, the so-called “EU Tube”!), is a new and extremely useful attempt to present the objectives and institutions of the European Union. But it is nothing more. completed by its own video space on YouTube, the so-called “EU Tube”!), is a new and extremely useful attempt to present the objectives and institutions of the European Union. But it is nothing more.In a clear-cut context, such as that of a parliamentary election, public information of value could be established on the basis of three criteria. Citizens must be sufficiently aware of the most important questions that need to be tackled, of the feasibility of the alternatives, and of the major political orientations of the various parties. “Debate Europe” in no way cites political groups; it contains no links to them, and does not present their points of view. The website is detached from any collective political structure, with the exception of the European Union itself: it is the politics of an apolitical age.