The EU Citizens’ Dialogue in Passau was one of three interactive cross-border Citizens’ Dialogues designed to increase citizen engagement with the EU. The dialogue was conducted with Czech, Austrian, and German citizens as well as various EU, regional, and local politicians [1].
Problems and Purpose
Euroscepticism is on the rise, with many EU citizens viewing the union as distant and undemocratic. With elections taking place only once every five years and few to no other ways for citizens to have a direct voice, most citizens feel that the EU is unrepresentative of their beliefs and interests. The EU Citizens’ Dialogue project is one way to combat this. The Dialogue in Passau was organized around the topic, “The future of Europe: What holds us together?” Within this topic, participants discussed cooperation in the border region, European social policy, and European refugee policy [2].
Background History and Context
In an effort to increase citizen participation in the EU, the EU Commission held over 1,100 EU Citizens’ Dialogues between January 2018 and April 2019. Most of these dialogues were structured as plenary sessions, but the interactive cross-border dialogues deviated from this structure to test out innovative ways to increase transnational citizen participation. These dialogues randomly selected citizens from multiple EU countries, were more interactive, and used special interpreting techniques to aid multilingual communication [3].
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The dialogue was organized jointly by the EU Commission and Bertelsmann Stiftung. At the time of writing, no further information could be found [4].
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The Passau Dialogue recruited approximately 38 citizens from each of the Czech Republic, Austria, and Germany, coming to 114 citizens total. These citizens were chosen randomly in order to ensure a diverse range of demographics and perspectives on the EU. In Germany, citizens were chosen using the official Civil Register, and then invited by telephone or letter. There were also quotas to guarantee representation of certain groups. For example, to guarantee gender parity, the randomly selected women were only considered for participation once half the places had been filled by men [5].
In order to facilitate direct interaction between citizens and politicians, a number of politicians also participated. These were: Prof. Dr. Martin Selmayr, Secretary-General of the European Commission; MEPs; and local and regional politicians from the three border regions and the three countries involved [6].
Methods and Tools Used
Methods
The Dialogue was formatted as an interactive World Café in order to foster equal and intensive participation amongst citizens. The discussion between citizens focussed on the exchange of experiences, information, and ideas, followed by reflection and consolidation, and then prioritized those ideas into concrete proposals and questions for the politicians. This ensured that when the citizens and politicians met in plenary, the citizens brought forward only those ideas that were relevant to all participants [7].
Tools
The tools used were [8]:
- Small groups of not more than 10 citizens, mixed Czech, Austrian, and German citizens, to increase engagement and participation
- Professional moderators and table rules to ensure the discussions were conducted fairly
- Information materials and experts to lay a factual basis for the discussions
- Professional interpreters provided simultaneous interpretation
- Q&A
- Opinion poll among the entire citizens’ group via Sli.do (digital voting) and green/red voting cards
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
Dialogue between citizens of the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany [9]
- Arrival and registration
- First round of table discussions by citizens in mixed groups. Discussed:
- As a citizen of my country, how do I experience the situation?
- What challenges do I foresee for tomorrow’s Europe?
- What would we like to change?
- Second round of table discussions after a table switch. Reflected and consolidated on:
- What are the citizens at the next table discussing?
- What ideas have citizens developed at the other tables?
- Third round of table discussions in mixed groups. Discussed proposals and questions, and prioritized ideas surrounding:
- Which topic is especially important for us at this table?
- Which topic can we agree on?
- How should the EU promote the topic?
- What implementation proposals do we have? What question do we want to ask the politicians?
Citizens’ Dialogue with EU experts and politicians [10]
- Table discussion between citizens, EU experts, and politicians
- Presentation of citizens’ experiences, ideas, and proposals. Discussion with the table guest, a representative of the EU Commission or an ambassador
- Plenary discussion with Secretary General of the European Commission
- Presentation of four proposals by citizens and questions on the three topics: border region, refugee policy, and social policy
- Response from Secretary General and follow-up discussion
- Opinion poll among the entire citizens’ group
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
In a feedback poll after the dialogue, participants reported that they felt they better understood EU politics and its decision-making structures. They also felt they identified more strongly with the EU as a result of cross-cultural interaction and were more satisfied with it and its politicians. Some said that they had previously decided not to vote in the 2019 European Election but changed their minds after the dialogue [11].
Analysis and Lessons Learned
The dialogue was a successful adaptation of the classic plenary dialogue. The diversity of participants and their viewpoints enriched the discussion; the interactive approach with professional moderators and supplemented by factual information and expert input facilitated fair and reasonable conversation; and the opportunity for citizen-politician interaction on an equal footing demonstrated politicians’ recognition of their citizens. The transnational nature of the dialogue was particularly crucial for helping build a European, as opposed to national, identity [12].
While the multilingual, cross-national, and interactive aspects of the dialogue were very successful, they were logistically difficult to execute. The multilingual dialogues required professional moderators, special interpreting procedures, and a clear structure for the discussions. All of this also incurs additional costs, and the funding requirements were comparable to those of international conferences [13].
See Also
References
[1] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[2] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[3] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[4] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[5] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[6] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[7] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[8] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[9] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[10] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[11] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[12] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.
[13] Bertelsmann Stiftung. "New ways to increase citizens’ participation in Europe." Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://conference-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZD_Increasing_EU_citizens__participation.pdf.