Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'The role and contribution of civil society organisations in the building of Europe'
Date: 1999-09-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Movement, European Political Union, European citizenship, civil rights

C 329/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.11.1999

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘The role and contribution of civil society
organisations in the building of Europe’

(1999/C 329/10)

At its plenary session on 28 January 1999 the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3)
of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘The role and contribution of civil society
organisations in the building of Europe’. In accordance with Rules 11(4) and 19(1) of its Rules of
Procedure the Committee set up a subcommittee to prepare its work on this subject.

The subcommittee adopted its draft opinion on 30 August 1999. The rapporteur was Mrs Sigmund.

At its 366th plenary session (meeting of 22 September 1999) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 116 votes to 2, with 13 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
On the initiative of its president, Mrs Rangoni Machia-
velli, the ESC will hold a conference in October this year to
discuss the role and contribution of civil society organisations
in the building of Europe. Specific proposals are to be drawn
up by three working groups. The topic chosen is a logical
follow-up to the approach developed by the Committee in its
1992 opinion on a Citizens’ Europe (1). The conference is not
therefore intended to be a ‘one-off’ event, but a prelude to the
Committee’s programme for the next few years.

1.2.
The present ESC opinion has been prepared by a
subcommittee so that the event can be facilitated through
appropriate preparatory work. The subcommittee members
did not see it as their role to propose ready-made solutions;
rather they have tried to organise the subject matter, identify
the key players and define the institutional framework for
concrete proposals. The final part of the report contains
specific proposals that could serve as a basis for discussion in
the conference’s working groups.

2. General comments

People at the end of the 20th century are experiencing
2.1.
far-reaching changes which affect not just the substance but
also the structure of their lives.

The end of 19th century saw the creation in Europe of
2.2.
social laws which would lead in the 20th century to the welfare
state. Their importance for peace, political freedom, economic
performance and social cohesion is unquestionable. But there is
also a need to respond to new challenges, such as globalisation,
though many questions as to the form and content of these
changes remain unanswered.

(1) OJ C 313, 30.11.92, p. 34.

A reform debate is of course also taking place at
2.3.
European Community level. The evolution of objectives
between the time of the founding treaties and the Amsterdam
Treaty necessitates structural reforms that should be set in
train without delay.

2.3.1.
It should not be forgotten that the driving force
behind European integration was not the economic dimension
alone, but the desire to safeguard peace, which is indeed the
first thing mentioned in the preamble to the ECSC Treaty
(safeguarding world peace; contribution which an organised
and vital Europe can make to civilisation; helping to raise the
standard of living).

Accordingly, the remit of the European Union has
2.3.2.
since expanded to embrace not
the original, purely
economic, spheres but also the environment, health and
consumer protection, as well as education, social policy and
employment.

just

2.3.3.
All this illustrates that European integration should
be seen not as a single event, but as a process that is not only
subject to change but also capable of responding to change.
This is how we should interpret the preamble to the Maastricht
Treaty, in which the European Union is not defined for all
time, but the process is deliberately left open by referring to
‘an ever closer Union’.

2.4.
The European Union must currently address such
sensitive and sometimes very emotionally charged issues as
enlargement, common foreign and security policy and a whole
host of institutional matters. At the same time it faces low
confidence among its citizens, who accuse it of inefficiency,
point to democratic deficits and call for greater responsiveness
to grassroots opinion. European integration needs the commit-
ment and support of ordinary people more urgently than ever
before, and at present it does not seem to have enough of
either.

2.5.
It is precisely in connection with this issue of (inad-
equate) responsiveness to grassroots opinion that the notion
of ‘civil society’ is constantly being mentioned. This concept is
cited and invoked in the most diverse contexts, and its

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/31

relevance is not always obvious. It is almost as if ‘civil society’
has become a vogue expression that is often used without any
clear indication of what the speaker really means. Experience
has shown that a discussion is only fruitful if agreement is first
reached on the basic premises. The subcommittee therefore
felt it was essential first to describe the historical background
and development of civil society, and then, using scientific
theories, to provide a definition of the concept (1) that actually
reflects political reality.

political sphere: liberalism saw civil society as the stronghold
of individual freedom and contractual relations, socialism saw
it as the expression of oppression and the class divide.

3.6.
Since the 19th century, however, a number of political
and social thinkers have been trying to transcend this clash
between an ‘ancient-medieval’ and a ‘modern-bourgeois’ ver-
sion of civil society, and, within the latter, between the liberal
and socialist versions.

3. Historical overview

The concept of civil society in Western political
3.1.
thought has undergone differing interpretations throughout
its history. It is important to transcend these now by providing
an all-embracing definition.

3.2.
Until the Enlightenment, civil society denoted a par-
ticular form of political organisation, namely one that was
subject to the rule of law. For Aristotle, the koinonia politiké
was a dimension of society that encompassed and prevailed
over all other dimensions. Cicero talked about a societas civilis.
This political definition of civil society still applied in the
Middle Ages, although it took on the new connotation of
the antithesis to religious community. The term was thus
secularised. It is interesting to note that according to this
interpretation, ‘civil society’ and ‘state’ are virtually synony-
mous. Thus good citizenship is the moral value associated
with civil society, which in the Roman tradition means
members of civil society fulfilling their duties as citizens.

3.3.
From about 1750 onwards the expression came to
mean almost the opposite. Civil society was no longer bound
up with the notion of the state, but increasingly represented a
counterweight to the state. This was because the emerging
bourgeoisie with its liberal world view appropriated the
concept to denote a social sphere separate from the political
sphere, comprising the market and people’s private lives.
The associated moral and social ethic was no longer ‘good
citizenship’ but ‘good breeding’, i.e. good manners and impec-
cable social conduct.

3.4.
It was this liberal approach that Ferguson had in mind
when he sang the praises of civil society. It was precisely
this apolitical
interpretation that disturbed 19th century
philosophers such as Hegel and Marx, who attacked it for
being biased and one-sided. They identified civil society
largely with the bourgeois individualistic world view and the
formalised regulation of relationships through civil law.

3.5.
Liberalism and socialism crossed swords over the
concept of civil society, now defined as the antithesis of the

(1) See points 6.1 and 7.1.

A new interpretation of modern civil society, inspired
3.7.
by Tocqueville, Durkheim and Weber, is emerging, based on
four principles:

— Civil society is typified by more or less formalised insti-
tutions: this institutional network forms an autonomous
social sphere that is distinct from both the state and
from family and domestic life in the strict sense. These
institutions have many functions (not just economic, but
also religious, cultural, social, etc.) and are crucial to social
integration;

— Individuals are free to choose whether to belong to civil
society institutions: they are never forced to join any of the
associations, businesses or groups which make up civil
society, either through a political commitment or suppos-
edly ‘natural’ allegiance to a particular group;

— The framework of civil society is the rule of law: the
democratic principles of respect for private life, freedom
of expression and freedom of association provide the
normative framework of civil society. Although civil
society is independent of the state, it is certainly not an
area outside the law;

— Civil society is the place where collective goals are set and
citizens are represented: civil society organisations play an
important role as ‘intermediaries’ between the individual
and the state. The democratic process could not take place
without their mediatory role.

— Civil society introduces the dimension of subsidiarity, a
concept derived from Christian doctrine, which opens up
the possibility of establishing levels of authority which are
independent of the state but recognised by it.

4. Civil society: the common denominator for demo-

cratic movements in Europe

4.1.
Social changes in Europe have helped to provoke a
broad international debate over the past few years, in theory
and in practice, about the term ‘civil society’. Remarkably,
citizens’ groups and movements from western and eastern
Europe are addressing the matter together, despite their very
different histories. This has become a much-debated subject in
that offers a middle way
the search for a social model
between unbridled individualism and the trend towards total
authoritarian collectivism.

C 329/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.11.1999

4.2. Whereas in western Europe and the United States the
main question was how ordinary people could rebuild a sense
of solidarity and so strengthen the social
ties which a
community needs, the initial concern in central and eastern
Europe was to dismantle the central government control
inherited from the Communist system.

4.3.
The difficulties currently besetting both western and
eastern European countries are not purely economic, social
and financial. They are mostly related to internal changes in
the way civil society is organised, and to the limits of state
action in a complex society.

4.4.
The countries of central and eastern Europe had not
succeeded, and in certain cases have still not completely
succeeded, either in building confidence in the new institutions
or in creating the necessary structures for the existence of a
strong civil society. This situation is particularly relevant for
the European Union in the context of enlargement. The ESC,
too, has launched a large number of initiatives to support this
reconstruction process in the CEEC, and these activities have a
high priority in its current work programme.

5. An attempt to define civil society

There is no hard and fast definition of civil society.
5.1.
Because the term is so closely associated with specific historical
developments in individual societies and so normative, it can
be defined only loosely, as a society that embraces democracy.
Civil society is a collective term for all types of social action,
by individuals or groups, that do not emanate from the state
and are not run by it. What is particular to the concept of civil
society is its dynamic nature, the fact that it denotes both
situation and action. The participatory model of civil society
also provides an opportunity to strengthen confidence in the
democratic system so that a more favourable climate for
reform and innovation can develop.

5.2. Some components in the concept of civil society

5.2.1.
The development of civil society is a cultural process,
and ‘culture’ (1) therefore determines the definition of civil
society and has a bearing on all the concepts listed below. If
we take the very broad definition of culture as a code of values
that apply to the members of a society, then culture also
shapes the areas in which civil society operates.

— Pluralism:

In a pluralist society every member of the
community determines his or her contribution, and the

community tries to improve the conditions of co-existence.
This applies not only to the substance but also to the form
of action taken; thus civil society also links diverse social
groups through the way in which ideas are exchanged and
social contacts established, thus lending some stability to
their communication efforts. What is remarkable is that
this public discourse is not purely factual, but that the
parties involved also exchange value judgements. However,
this co-ordination of different views and perspectives does
not happen automatically, but requires a constant will to
achieve consensus. In a pluralist society, all individuals
recognise each other as having equal rights and engage
with each other in a public debate. All this takes place on
the basis of tolerance and free will. An example is the
democratic culture of the multiparty political system.

— Autonomy: Ordinary people determine the pattern of their
social actions themselves. These must take place, however,
within a state that has been fashioned by its citizens, a
state that provides the framework for society to function
through basic rights anchored in a constitution. But
autonomy also requires independent institutions that pro-
tect non-material values — such as education, religion and
culture — that guarantee human dignity, a basic right of
which the state is not the sole guarantor.

— Solidarity: Civil society is underpinned by a ‘culture of
solidarity’, which manifests itself in a willingness to place
limits on one’s own interests and take on obligations as
the prerequisite for acting in the common interest. People’s
actions are determined by their own lives (culture, upbring-
ing, education, experience) and they benefit from their
interaction with others.

— Public awareness: Civil society establishes a climate of
communication and so creates a social context of ‘political
awareness’. This political awareness is characterised by
very grassroots-oriented patterns of communication. The
information society has become very relevant to such
awareness. Even if, as a kind of ‘non-organised civil society’,
the information society is still to a certain extent an elite
community, it is likely to provoke radical changes, not
only in the shape of civil society but also in the way it
operates.

— Participation: in a flourishing democracy there are two
ways in which citizens can be politically represented or
active:

1)

through a range of political institutions at different
levels: citizens participate mainly by taking part in
election debates and subsequent ballots;

(1) In broad terms culture can be said to define the past and presently
prevailing system of values and needs (material or not material);
culture determines the hierarchy of values and needs as well as
the ‘means’ by which values are served and needs are satisfied or
met.

2)

through the action of interest groups and citizens’
initiatives: people belong to groups that build up expert
issues in
and grassroots knowledge of

the social

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/33

question. These bodies also participate in public infor-
mation and communication processes, so helping to
create a general perception of the common good. The
term ‘civil society’ implies this type of participation.

— Education is a fundamental element of civil society. The
basic values of human society are communicated through
education. Those involved in education establish the
principles according to which civil society develops. On
no account therefore should education policy be the sole
preserve of the state.

are

rights

exercised:

— Responsibility: civil society is not just the place where
individual
are
accompanied by obligations in the common interest. In
fulfilling these obligations, members of civil society must
be accountable to the other members. This is why civil
society is the ideal context for practising a particular type
of ‘good citizenship’, because it is a community of interests.

rights

these

— Subsidiarity: The grassroots level plays a primary role in
this political and social system; higher authorities only
come into play when lower levels cannot cope. In the
context of civil society, subsidiarity must also be under-
stood as an external factor, i.e. as a recommendation that
citizens themselves should be left to deal with matters that
concern them.

5.3. Civil society in the current debate

5.3.1.
approaches:

The theoretical discussion is broadly based on three

— The liberal tradition sees the citizen as an economic,
rational element of society defined primarily in terms of
his or her rights and duties. Citizens organise themselves
in interest groups and ensure that the state guarantees
universally valid,
freedoms. Civil society is
realised through the broadest possible application of
individual rights. The focus is on applying liberal principles.

individual

— According to the theory of communitarianism, citizens are
members of a community established on the basis of
values they themselves have defined. People must adapt
their behaviour to the objectives of the community, which
for its part must act as a system of links between individual
and state.

— The third theoretical approach is discursive democracy,
which lies somewhere between the liberal and communita-
rianist positions; this theory is based on the concepts of
communication and interaction: civil society creates a
‘political awareness’ in which democratic debate not only
generates opinions, but also establishes standards, so that
the information process also becomes a decision-making
process through which civil society agrees on common
values. These values — for example in the sphere of justice
or protection of minorities — must then be implemented
by the democratic institutions (the state).

6. State, market and civil society

6.1.
There is no doubt that the social state based on the
rule of law has enhanced the development of political freedom,
economic strength and social cohesion. The typical dual model
of former political and economic theories, which revolved
around the two poles of ‘state’ and ‘market’, more or less
ignored all relationships outside that context, relationships
that most closely reflect human and social reality.

The concept of civil society is thus very important as
6.2.
the third component of the state system. Whereas the ‘statist
society’ model sees the citizen first and foremost as a citizen
of the state (in relationships determined by the state), the
‘market society’ model sees the citizen as a market player. The
citizen as a member of civil society (homo civicus) mediates
between the two, by embodying all three aspects (homo
politicus, homo economicus and homo civicus).

7. Civil society organisations

7.1.
Civil society organisations can be defined in abstract
terms as the sum of all organisational structures whose
members have objectives and responsibilities that are of
general interest and who also act as mediators between the
public authorities and citizens. Their effectiveness is crucially
dependent on the extent to which their players are prepared to
help achieve consensus through public and democratic debate
and to accept the outcome of a democratic policy-making
process.

7.2.
Civil society organisations can also be viewed dynami-
cally as a locus of collective learning. In complex societies,
which cannot be run on a centralised basis, problems can only
be resolved with active grassroots participation. Various forms
of social experimentation and forums for pluralist discussion
are a prerequisite for an ‘intelligent’ democracy that can
generate an ongoing process of social learning. In this sense,
civil society is a ‘school for democracy’.

7.3.
This also applies by analogy to the Community sphere,
where the role of the nation state is also relativised by the
process of European integration and people increasingly sense
that the nation state’s traditional claims to sovereignty no
longer reflect social reality. Employment and environmental
problems and issues of welfare and social justice can no longer
be dealt with exclusively at national level.

8. Players in civil society organisations

8.1.

Civil society organisations include:

— the so-called labour-market players, i.e. the social partners;

C 329/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.11.1999

— organisations representing social and economic players,
which are not social partners in the strict sense of the term;

— NGOs (non-governmental organisations) which bring
people together in a common cause, such as environmental
organisations, human rights organisations, consumer
associations, charitable organisations, educational and
training organisations, etc.;

— CBOs (community-based organisations, i.e. organisations
set up within society at grassroots level which pursue
member-oriented objectives), e.g. youth organisations,
family associations and all organisations through which
citizens participate in local and municipal life;

— religious communities.

9. The role of civil society organisations at Community

level — the civil dialogue

the role of voluntary organisations and foundations in
Europe’ (1), the Commission took up this suggestion and set as
a political objective ‘the building over time of a strong civil
dialogue at European level to take its place alongside the policy
dialogue with the national authorities and the social dialogue
with the social partners’. In its opinion on this Communi-
cation (2),
the Committee discussed the question further,
‘By organising themselves, citizens provide
observing that:
themselves with a more effective means of impressing their
views on different society-related issues on political decision-
makers. Strengthening non-parliamentary democratic struc-
tures is a way of giving substance and meaning to the concept
of a Citizens’ Europe.’

9.4.
Civil dialogue is set to become the communication
forum for Community-level civil society organisations. How-
ever, it would be wrong to see it as providing an alternative to,
or as competing with, the social dialogue. Rather, civil dialogue
should be considered a necessary complement to the social
dialogue, in which the social partners — depending on the
areas to be dealt with — will participate just as all the other
relevant players in civil society. It is in Europe’s interest to
improve and develop all structures which allow its citizens to
participate in the common project of European integration.

9.1.
In the context of European integration, civil society
organisations have also been set up at Community level,
though their make-up and representativeness vary. These
organisations range from ad-hoc lobby groups to highly
organised associations, all claiming representation and co-
decision rights for their particular area of interest. However,
only those with a certain basic organisational machinery and
which are qualitatively and quantitatively representative of
their particular sector can be expected to make a positive
contribution to European integration.

9.5.
A political awareness must be developed in Europe that
provides transparency and requires cooperation. In modern
societies it is the mass media above all that create such political
awareness, but the media tend not to be very interested in
European issues. Reports are generally limited to topical
matters and allusions to incompetence which are intended to
boost sales. So it is hardly surprising that people’s distrust of
‘Brussels’, which they equate with aloof bureaucracy and
opaque decision-making structures, has grown. ‘Out of touch
with ordinary people’ and ‘democratic deficit’ have become
catchwords associated with Europe.

9.2.
One common feature of these civil society organis-
ations at European level is the intermediary role they which
they have taken over from the national level. The European
social partners are a case in point, having employed their
communication strategies in a Community-level institutional-
ised negotiation process. This social dialogue is essentially a
decision-making process based on consensus; since the coming
into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the parties in this process
act on a quasi-constitutional basis. The importance of social
dialogue in core areas of social policy, especially labour
relations, is undisputed. Of particular interest, however, is the
fact
for applying a form of
communication intrinsic to civil society, in which dialogue is
a constantly developing, goal-oriented process. The social
partners have thus set standards for a new type of political
culture which should embrace areas outside the social dialogue.

it serves as a model

that

9.3.
There have already been numerous efforts to set
up structures for democratic discourse alongside the social
dialogue at European level. In the Commission, Directorate-
General V plays a key role in promoting civil dialogue at a
level. It initiated the first European Social Policy
practical
Forum, held in March 1996, where the concept of ‘civil
dialogue’ was introduced. In its Communication ‘Promoting

9.6.
Civil society organisations at European level therefore
have the important task of contributing to a public and
democratic discourse. Through its remit as a forum for civil
the Committee can ensure contact
society organisations,
with grassroots concerns and contribute to the democratic
policy-making process. Its members speak directly for civil
society organisations, and together they represent that network
of interactions, the ‘real world’, that forms the necessary basis
for action in a civil society.

In this connection the Committee regrets that both the
9.7.
communication ‘Promoting the role of voluntary organisations
and foundations in Europe’ and the report on the Second
European Social Policy Forum 1998 mention only the Com-
mission and the European Parliament as forums for civil
dialogue, omitting any reference to the Committee.

(1) COM(97) 241 final.
(2) OJ C 95, 30.3.1998, p. 99.

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/35

10. The Economic and Social Committee as the represen-

tative of civil society organisations

a forum not
for European
for national delegations but
organisations with similar interests. Thus the Committee also
sees itself as speaking on behalf of civil society organisations.

10.1.
By setting up the Economic and Social Committee,
the Rome Treaties gave sectoral interest groups access to the
European decision-making process and made the Committee
the representative of civil society organisations at Community
level. Hence, the Committee can trace its special role as the
representative of civil society organisations back to both its
institutional status and remit, as well as its membership. It
should therefore set a clear course for the further development
of civil dialogue at the conference in October.

10.2. Committee members

10.2.1.
Under Article 257 of the EC Treaty, the Committee
comprises ‘representatives of the various categories of econ-
omic and social activity,
in particular, representatives of
producers, farmers, carriers, workers, dealers, craftsmen, pro-
fessional occupations and representatives of the general public’.
This purely indicative list is deliberately left open, as best befits
the evolving nature of civil society organisations.

It is not clear whether current membership of the Committee
really reflects social changes that have taken place over the
past 40 years.

10.2.2.
Committee members are generally nominated by
national organisations, but they are not bound to follow
those organisations’
instructions. In other words, they are
independent. But members naturally reflect in their work the
reasons for which they were nominated. In this way they
represent the pluralist interests of civil society organisations.
In addition, the Committee’s members must respect their duty
to serve the common interest: ‘The members of the Committee
may not be bound by any mandatory instructions. They shall
be completely independent in the performance of their duties,
in the general interest of the Community.’ (third paragraph of
the EC Treaty). This means that political
Article 258 of
decision-making in the Committee is not
the automatic
outcome of competition between interest groups, and its way
of working more or less reflects the modus operandi of civil
society organisations. The particular process for drafting
opinions in the Committee (study group — section — plenary
session) is also consistent with the principle of consensus,
which is the basis for negotiated action in civil society. Thus
any lack of diversity in the membership of the Committee is
partly offset by the rules governing the exercise of their
activities and the form of the decision-making process.

The Committee’s legitimacy as the representative
10.2.3.
body of civil society organisations derives not only from its
status as an institution of the European Community, but also
from the existence of
its three Groups. The Committee
incorporated this right to form groups from the Council’s
nomination guidelines of 1958 into its Rules of Procedures, in
the first place presumably to simplify its work. But
the
intention was also to make clear that the Committee was

10.3. Role of the Committee as a Community institution

10.3.1.
The Committee’s role as a consultative body is best
summed up in terms of its relationship with other bodies,
particularly the European Parliament: the Committee guaran-
tees the implementation of the participatory model of civil
society; it enables civil society to participate in the decision-
making process; and it helps reduce a certain ‘democratic
deficit’ and so underpins the legitimacy of democratic decision-
making processes.

10.3.2.
Democracy manifests itself through the will of the
people, which is expressed through majority decision-making.
For the minority to accept the will of the majority, there must
be a degree of agreement between them: they must have a
common identity. This is not usually a problem at national
level, where (in a broad interpretation of the ‘demos’ concept)
this identity is defined by a common nationality (or residence
in a particular area), and a common culture, language and set
of values.

10.3.3.
However, when it comes to democratic policy-
identity criteria are
making at European level, additional
required to create a European identity. If European Union
citizenship is defined simply as the sum of all national
citizenships, then a ‘European’ must be the sum (or synthesis)
of several national identity criteria, which all derive from a
common tradition and the values of democracy and human
rights.

This means, however, that the democratic process
10.3.4.
at European level — even more so than at national level —
must provide a range of participatory structures in which all
citizens, with their different identities and in accordance with
their different identity criteria, can be represented and which
reflect the heterogeneous nature of the European identity.

10.3.5.
The European Parliament is elected by Europe’s
citizens in their capacity as national citizens (residing in a
particular Member State), i.e. exercising their democratic rights
as part of their national (territorial) identity.

10.3.6.
But people’s identity is also defined by membership
interest groups in the diverse shape of civil society
of
organisations. These identity criteria, relating to people’s role
in civil society organisations, are not covered by representation
in the EP. It is precisely these identity criteria, however, which
are taken into account by the Committee as the representative
of civil society organisations; this enables the Committee to
promote democratisation at the European level, and to show
Parliament
it provides genuine added value in the
democratic European decision-making process. The Com-
mittee cannot compete with Parliament, in power terms alone,
but it complements Parliament’s legitimacy in a way that
makes sense.

that

C 329/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.11.1999

11. Measures to support the role of the Committee

11.1.
Cooperation with the Commission: The Committee
currently maintains close working contacts with the Com-
mission which both sides feel to be satisfactory. Contact should
nevertheless be established with individual Commissioners so
as to ensure that the Commission requests an opinion from
the Committee at an earlier stage in its decision-making
process. Particularly in matters concerning its interest groups,
the Committee should be consulted as early as possible so that
it can decide to draft an own-initiative opinion if it wishes.

11.2.
Cooperation with the Council: Each Presidency gener-
ally lays down certain programme priorities. The Committee
should build on the already effective cooperation during the
preparatory phases and organise accompanying measures
during each Presidency (own-initiative opinions, hearings and
local events, and joint initiatives with the presidency-in-office).

11.3.
Cooperation with the European Parliament: The
Treaty of Amsterdam empowers the Parliament (or its com-
mittees) to ask the Committee for opinions. The interinsti-
tutional working group on ESC-EP relations has a key role to
play here, with far-reaching political
implications. If solid
foundations can be laid for future cooperation, people’s
current feeling of remoteness from the European institutions
could perhaps be reduced, and citizens could be reminded,
through their representative organisations, of their responsi-
bility for Europe and motivated to become involved.

Cooperation with the Committee of the Regions: local
11.4.
and regional representation of interests in the COR does not
conflict with sectoral representation in the Economic and
Social Committee; on the contrary,
is
complementary. Mutual benefits could be won here too. A
first step in this direction was taken by the Bureau this July,
when a liaison group with the COR was set up to monitor the
follow-up to a Committee opinion on ‘Exploitation of children
and sex tourism’ (1) and implement with the COR one of the
proposals in this opinion,
the setting-up of a European
network of child-friendly cities.

in many cases it

The Committee should do more to encourage such practical
forms of cooperation.

also to be conducted with those civil society organisations that
are not currently represented in the Committee. This would be
a crucial contribution to developing the model of participatory
democracy.

12.2.
organisations meet.

The Committee is the institution in which civil society

It is therefore proposed that an appropriate ‘civil society’
organisational structure be set up to introduce initiatives in
the following spheres, under an action plan to be implemented
in the near future:

— events within the Committee, as well as hearings outside
the Committee, which could give more people the oppor-
tunity to participate. The possibilities this would provide
for opinion-forming and goal-setting through dialogue
could represent a valuable contribution to the development
of civil dialogue;

— interinstitutional contacts could also be consolidated and
developed within this framework, with round tables of
outside experts preparing joint opinions;

— there is also considerable scope to make more use of
contributions from experts, which are often of high quality.
Working up these contributions — where they address
civil society issues — into press or scientific reports would
not only further the knowledge of Committee members
but could also be of interest to the wider public.

12.3.
The ESC is the forum for development of a European
identity: as already mentioned, European identity has many
levels and comprises different criteria, first among which is the
acceptance of a common code of values based on respect for
human dignity and human rights.

— The German Presidency of

the Council

launched an
initiative to draft a Charter of Basic Rights. At the Cologne
summit,
the German Minister for Justice noted that
establishing a common code of values is of such fundamen-
the highest
tal
possible degree of democratic legitimisation is desirable.

importance for Europe’s citizens that

12. Creating a ‘civil society’ action plan in the Committee

The Committee is the right

forum in which to
12.1.
further broaden civil dialogue, and it should therefore make
appropriate arrangements as soon as possible for this dialogue

(1) OJ C 284, 14.9.1998, p. 92.

— As the representative of civil society organisations, the
Committee can make a decisive contribution to this
democratic legitimisation. It will prepare an own-initiative
opinion on the subject, and will also give its views during
the committee procedure for drawing up a list of basic
rights, which will be determined in more detail under the
Finnish Presidency.

— Even in the preparatory stages the Committee can ensure
that as many as possible of the relevant players from civil
society organisations are involved, by organising its own
consultation procedures and hearings.

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/37

12.4.
organisations in the context of EU enlargement:

The Committee is the bridgehead of civil society

— In the run-up to enlargement, the Committee’s involve-
ment in helping to set up civil society structures in those
countries that do not yet have them, or in which they are
not yet complete, cannot be overstated. As well as legal,
integrating new
economic, social and political action,
members into the Community requires comparable struc-
tures, in order to actually implement the shared value
system referred to above.

— The Committee has already done a lot of work to facilitate
the setting-up in the candidate countries of bodies similar
to the Committee, or to the national economic and social
councils: it is working in joint consultative committees
with those authorities in the applicant countries that are
responsible for setting up these bodies. It is organising
exchange programmes and in certain cases is also provid-
ing assistance with technical and administrative matters.

With the help of the relevant sections and other adminis-
trative departments concerned, more positive steps could
been taken in this direction through the action plan
proposed in point 12.2.

13. Summary

New types of political entity — and the European Union in
the post-Amsterdam period is such an entity — call for new
ideas. In times of change, the so-called paradigm shift that
characterises our present era, there is a need for visionary ideas
and joint efforts to implement them. For Europe in particular
this period preceding a possible enlargement poses a major
challenge: to establish a common European identity based on
a common value system,
in addition to achieving major
socio-economic goals.

The Committee has the opportunity to support this process
of development and contribute to European integration as
envisaged in the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties.

Brussels, 22 September 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

C 329/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.11.1999

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

(in accordance with Rule 47(3) of the Rules of Procedure)

The following amendment was rejected but received more than 25 % of the votes cast:

Point 12.1

Insert the following after the 2nd sentence:

‘The various activities occasioned by this broader dialogue should also help to boost participation for non-ESC
members from organisations currently represented in the Committee.’

Reason

In addition to the problem of organisations for which the ESC is currently unable to find room, we have trouble
spreading the message of what the Committee actually does even within our own organisations. Moreover, some of
the expertise within our organisations remains untapped in the ESC’s regular activity. It should be possible to harness
this expertise in various internal or external arrangements, thus making the people involved more aware of our work.

Result of the vote

For: 27, against: 40, abstentions: 11.