The White Paper on Governance and Its Critics

4.1 The White Paper on Governance and Its Critics

While theoretically motivated accounts of civil society are concerned with participatory democracy and authentic governance ‘by the people’, this does not always hold for the practical discourse on civil society in EU governance. The civil society discourse of the European Commission, for instance oscillates between output- and input-oriented conceptions of civil society and participation. This lack of determination is illustrated by the White Paper on European Governance (EC 2001 ) which sought to link effective problem-solving and authentic participation and invoked civil society for this purpose.

The White Paper was intensely discussed by EU integration researchers and scholars of democratic governance – a debate which is worth being presented in more detail as it reflects the political and academic debate on civil society and participatory democracy in the EU in a nutshell (see Joerges et al. 2001 ). At the same time, scholars of EU governance were invited to participate and provide input to the debate on European governance initiated by the Commission (De Schutter et al. 2001 ),¹⁴ thus themselves fertilizing the White Paper on European Governance.

It has been argued that the publication of the White Paper on European Governance was an important component of the new EU consultation policy which had evolved throughout the 1990s: Facing an increasingly critical debate on the EU’s democratic legitimacy after the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, the European Commission started to intensify and extend existing contacts with societal groups. It changed its policy from including interests directly affected by common market policies towards also attracting societal groups in fields such as social policy or migration (Kohler-Koch and Finke 2007 ; Smismans 2003 ).¹⁵

Stijn Smismans has highlighted the leading role of the Commission Directorate General responsible for social policy (then DG V) in this process. In dealing with issues such as gender, youth, social exclusion, disability and racism, DG V sought to establish contacts with interest groups which played a more important role in these issues than the social partners.¹⁶ At the same time, the civil dialogue was regarded as a means to “foster a sense of solidarity and of citizenship, and provide the essential underpinnings of our democracy” (EC 1997 , according to Smismans 2003 : 476).

This trend was more generally reflected in a set of documents the Commission developed to facilitate the cooperation with different types of interest groups (EC 1992 , 1997 , 2000 ). Drawing on a definition of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC 1999 ), the Commission came to allude to the whole range of interest groups it involved in its decision-making as ‘civil society organizations’ around the turn of the millennium. This culminated in the 2001 White Paper on European Governance which by then was the most comprehensive reaction to the perceived legitimacy crisis. The White Paper proposed ‘openness’ and ‘participation’ through the involvement of a European ‘civil society’ to enhance both input legitimacy and effective political problem-solving (see Kohler-Koch and Finke 2007 ; Kohler-Koch 2001 ).¹⁷

The academic assessment of the White Paper’s new focus on civil society is mixed and it naturally depends on the scholars’ research interest and their stance regarding state-society relations and the role of civil society. Scholars who take an analytical view on the White Paper argue that the Commission is trapped between opposing claims to legitimacy, namely input- and output-oriented legitimacy, which are difficult to reconcile: “One set of claims coming from the Monnet tradition of thought, where the stress is on unity, efficiency, responsibility and impartiality; and a second set of claims coming from the post-Maastricht critique of the Union, which highlight diversity, clarity and democracy” (Tsakatika 2005 : 193; see Curtin 2003 ; Kohler-Koch 2001 ).

Beate Kohler-Koch argues in a similar vein and contends that while the White Paper proposes strengthening civil society, structural deficiencies of societal representation in EU governance such as problems of collective action, missing yardsticks for representativity, and selectivity in the interaction of EU institutions and interest groups remain unsolved (Kohler-Koch 2001 : 157–158). These persisting deficiencies consolidate the European Union’s traditional emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness which reflects an output-oriented conception of civil society involvement in EU governance.

Some authors base their debate on the White Paper reforms on an output-oriented conception of civil society involvement (Schout and Jordan 2005 ; Schmitter 2001 ). But the tenor of academic voices who argue from a normative point of view has pointed to the insufficiency of output legitimacy and highlighted the significance of societal autonomy from EU institutions, thus demanding authentic participation and more governance ‘by the people’. Advocates of this viewpoint contend that equal access and popular control are at stake to face the EU’s legitimacy crisis but have not been adequately addressed in the White Paper (Eriksen 2001 ; Magnette 2001 ).

Paul Magnette, arguing in favour of governance ‘by the people’, suggests that civil society participation could become a fertile complement of representative forms of democracy and citizenship. This, however, presupposes the mobilization of average citizens and a politicization of EU issues which is unlikely to happen due to the persisting complexity of EU governance structures and the consensus oriented policy style of the Commission which forges compromises before public controversy can take place (Magnette 2001 : 31–32). He clearly draws on a dichotomous conception of state-society relations.

Erik O. Eriksen who considers civil society as an arena for voluntary action and for open and free public debate also invokes a dichotomous state-society relationship. He maintains that “the democratic division of labour between state and civil society is endangered when voluntary associations are used as mere instruments to implement policies more smoothly” (Eriksen 2001 : 63). Kenneth A. Armstrong takes this argument up and complains that the White Paper conceptualizes civil society as a provider of services rather than as a component of democratic governance (Armstrong 2001 : 98–99). However, he leans on an integrative conception of state-society relations when suggesting that the inclusion of civil society “could give strength and vitality to public institutions” (Armstrong 2001 : 98–99).

These authors have certain functions in mind they expect civil society to perform for the enhancement of the EU’s input legitimacy. They draw on theories of democracy which, I would argue, should be elaborated to better understand the democratizing functions of civil society as well as its promises and limitations for the democratic legitimacy of European governance.