Private Interest Representation or Civil Society Deliberation? A Contemporary Dilemma for European Union Governance
| DOI | 10.1177/096466390301200103 |
| Published date | 01 March 2003 |
| Author | Deirdre Curtin |
| Date | 01 March 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
PRIVATE INTEREST
REPRESENTATION OR CIVIL
SOCIETY DELIBERATION? A
CONTEMPORARY DILEMMA FOR
EUROPEAN UNION
GOVERNANCE
DEIRDRE CURTIN
Utrecht School of Governance, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
The European Commission’s White Paper on Governance in July 2001 focused atten-
tion, in a rather preliminary manner, on the role that ‘civil society’ could and should
play in the process of further democratizing decision-making in the European Union.
‘Civil society’ has itself been trying to make this point for some years in the European
context and now seems to have acquired some institutional allies in that regard. The
European Economic and Social Committee has in particular been very focused and
vocal in recent years, maintaining that the institutional ‘home’ for civil society should
be within its putatively deliberative and inclusive structures. This rather corporatist
view of fitting increasing civil society interest and activity into the existing interest
representation model of the EU, which is shared by the Commission, risks ignoring
the much more political role that certain strands of civil society are seeking: namely
a space in which deliberation can publicly take place on values and policies.
INTRODUCTION
THE TERM ‘civil society’ has quickly become a fashionable catchphrase
in recent discourse on the European Union. Politicians vie with one
another to acknowledge the need to listen to civil society as they
attempt to bridge the gap between the citizens in various member states and
the political and bureaucratic elite operating in the context of the EU. Talk
of civil society in the context of EU governance has become popular among
SOCIAL &LEGAL STUDIES 0964 6639 (200303) 12:1 Copyright © 2003
SAGE Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi,
www.sagepublications.com
Vol. 12(1), 55–75; 030844
40P 03 Curtin (JS/D) 20/1/03 11:08 am Page 55
diplomats, civil servants, parliaments, non-governmental organizations and
others, to the point where the words themselves (and their synonyms) are as
fickle as they are fashionable. Like other vocabularies with a political edge,
their meaning is neither self-evident nor unprejudiced (Keane, 2001) and can
be wielded both for purposes of descriptive interpretation and normative
promise. On the one hand, the words can refer to the descriptive that is both
non-profit and non-governmental, embracing QUANGOs (Quasi-NGOs),
GONGOs (Government-organized NGOs), BONGOs (Business-
organized NGOs), GRINGOs (Government-run/initiated NGOs) and
AGOs (Anti-government Associations) (Wolf, 2001). Alternatively, the
words ‘civil society’ can be used differently according to political predilec-
tions and inherited understandings. Support for civil society can be seen as a
kind of political laissez-faire, as a way of minimizing the role of the state in
society – both as a mechanism for restraining state power and as a substitute
for many of the functions of the state (Anheier et al., 2001). On the other
hand, use of the term ‘civil society’ can designate a political project which is
not about minimizing the state, but is rather about increasing the respon-
siveness of political institutions and which covers the idea of an active citi-
zenry who take an interest in public affairs and share a commitment to
common human values (Keck and Sikkink, 1998).
There is empirical evidence pointing towards the increasing interest of
citizens in theme-related information and theme-related activity as an
alternative form of political engagement at a time of declining levels of trust
by citizens in their political institutions (Pharr and Putnam, 2000) and in
political parties (Mair, 2000). For example, in the Netherlands, the level of
activity among citizens in organizations and associations has increased in a
striking fashion over the course of the past decade (Social and Cultural
Planning Board, 2000). In the European Union, too, the growth in the exist-
ence and activity of citizens in the civil society sector in and around the struc-
tures and processes of EU governance is increasing very steadily (Economic
and Social Committee, 2001). The fact is that, for a not insignificant number
of people, membership of a non-governmental organization provides a vital
means through which they can express their sense of citizenship and demon-
strate an active concern for fellow citizens and society at large. The term ‘civil
society’ has, however, given rise to a confused terminological jungle of
multiple terms that may be identified as what is essentially the same
phenomenon: organizations pressing government to act (or not, as the case
may be). These include lobby, political interest group, special interest group,
voluntary association, pressure group, organized interest group, non-
governmental organization, non-profit group, policy network, etc. Given
the terminological and conceptual confusion, even the most basic features
of this ‘sector’ – its size, its internal structure, its financing and its
relations with other sectors – are not known in a solid empirical way (Salamon
and Anheier, 1997).
The European Commission in its recent White Paper on governance in the
EU uses the rhetoric of ‘civil society’ rather liberally, stressing in the process
56 SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 12(1)
40P 03 Curtin (JS/D) 20/1/03 11:08 am Page 56
To continue reading
Request your trial