Abstract
In the current economic and social crisis affecting Europe, dialogue is of great importance. The reaction of the EU to the present situation is evident from various discussions and documents. Following the ambitious Lisbon Strategy, a document created during a period of economic growth for most of the Member States, we now have before us the Europe 2020 Strategy. In this article, the author explores the contents of this strategy in light of the implementation of its goals of multilevel governance.
Introduction
Multilevel governance is an important issue that needs to be addressed both in the light of the past and in anticipation of the future. Time will show how the implementation of multilevel governance, like everything else, will be affected by the events taking place at the very time when this article was prepared. Multilevel governance also affects the financial stability of the European Union and should thus raise doubts among those who advocate a primarily centralised method of governance in the EU and are sceptical about multilevel governance and decentralised methods of governance. However, I would like to begin by pointing out that, as in the case of fiscal federalism, it is precisely in the financial sphere that the risk that multilevel governance could go too far is all too real.
If the Europe 2020 Strategy is to provide multilevel governance with valid credentials, it must not remain a theory on paper. Instead, we must not only overcome an overly technocratic way of thinking, but also incorporate into decision-making processes instruments that can prevent multilevel governance from being misused. We must pay particular attention to decision-making processes to ensure that they are not prolonged and abused. A particular danger may lie in the temptation of decision-making bodies to give unconditional support to the most vociferous, albeit small, groups of citizens. I point this out because we know that this course of action is often politically effective but is not necessarily in line with the public interest and general welfare.
Despite the potential pitfalls, one cannot ignore the fact that open dialogue and transparent decision-making represent the best tools for reaching any democratic decision. By making one's case and testing participants’ arguments and viewpoints, we can reach a decision, sometimes with consensus, but more often through compromise.
When entering a sphere of multilevel governance that involves dialogue and established rules of negotiation, there is a presupposition that the participants must make an effort. This applies both to the initiating body (e.g., the European Commission) as well as to those taking part in the process. The task of the Commission is to try to understand a particular situation and how it evolved, and the participants’ task is to contribute constructively to the most appropriate outcome. This outcome must be acceptable to the participants in the discussion as well as to the wider public to whom the outcome is aimed and to those who, although not involved directly in the decision-making process, will ultimately evaluate it. This participation can be hindered by the fact that various state, regional and local bodies, institutions and associations have different powers, as well as different human and financial resources. One need hardly add that dialogue is important, both at the European level and at the national level.
Looking to the past for answers to the questions of today and tomorrow
Since the inception of the European Union, when the six Member States established the European Coal and Steel Community, to the present day, the heterogeneity of the EU has increased substantially. Today, 27 EU Member States comprise more than half a billion citizens. After the latest enlargement, we feel that any further enlargement should proceed more slowly so that our previous harmony can be restored and, like the different instruments in an orchestra, we can be brought into tune with one another. Despite occupying a relatively limited geographical area, the European Union represents exceptional historical, territorial, political, economic, social and cultural diversity. Notwithstanding all their internal differences, the Member States must be able to present themselves more coherently to the world—individually through their bilateral relations, and collectively through the EU. If we are to meet the demands made by our intensified activity in core areas, we must use the challenges posed by globalisation as a driving force. Potentially this means allowing global action to have a greater influence. There are two preconditions. The first is that various groups must be given access to decision-making processes. The second is that these groups must be interested in being actively involved—not only sitting around the same table, but also taking a proportional part of their responsibilities.
Representatives of core forms of governance, leadership and decision-making (both in terms of the topics and territory they cover), with competencies and legitimacy in particular areas (regionally and locally, associations and interest groups), potentially bring added value in both decision-making itself and the governance of particular areas. Such a prospect raises several important questions: Can their contribution be secured entirely through multilevel governance? Does a complex decision-making process that is shaped by a number of factors and takes place on several levels also mean higher quality outcomes? How do we influence the time frame of the decision-making process? And, as an important objective, is this process likely to reduce the democratic deficit in the EU?
Even though it has been only a few years since contributors to such debates concluded that multilevel governance may not always be greeted with open arms yet is also difficult to ignore, we can now see that the system has acquired a concrete formal framework thanks to the Committee of the Regions White Paper on Multilevel Governance [1–3].
What is multilevel governance, and where does the idea come from?
Multilevel governance at the European level has evolved out of an aspiration for better legislative procedures that would allow better decisions to be reached, with the widest possible support, through stronger cooperation among the European Parliament, national parliaments, regional and local authorities and other bodies.
It is important to distinguish between government and governance. 1 By government, we mean formal structures and institutions that deal with various matters affecting individuals, matters that fall within their areas of competence (local, regional, national, international, etc.). The term governance refers to a wider, more open idea, involving alternative systems and procedures. It includes any activity—group or individual, public or private—that is managed through informal or formal administration. If multilevel governance is to be discussed as a total system, it is important to recognise both the horizontal and vertical components.
We must bear in mind that in different countries this idea may be understood differently. When the term governance is translated into the languages of the Member States, we may encounter difficulties in understanding its meaning. For example, the Slovenian equivalent of governance suggests administration, rather than a political decision-making process.
The concept of multilevel governance began to evolve in the early 1990s and informed the debate surrounding the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. While it is not easy to pinpoint how and when this idea came about, it is quite clear that the phenomenon of multilevel governance has been most noticeable in EU structural and cohesion policies.
Most of the credit for developing and establishing multilevel governance—its content and its practical implementation—goes to the German states (Länder). The Länder strongly objected to being ordinary administrative units and to taking part in EU affairs only within German territory. They insisted on having a say in creating European policy. It soon became evident that multilevel governance was a wider concept and in fact the antithesis of the state-centred model. However, this did not mean that the attitude of the Länder towards the central role of Member State governments became negative. In fact, the Länder and national governments continue to play a key role in multilevel governance.
So what purpose does multilevel governance serve? Chiefly, it addresses the fact that supranational bodies—first and foremost the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice—cannot and should not act as stand-ins for governments at the national level. By the same token, it cannot be forgotten that sub-national entities often play a role in national government and it is often sub-national competencies that have been transferred to the supranational level. Therefore, it can be stated that sub-national entities have a vested interest in supranational governance. Multilevel governance theory espouses the basic idea that if decisions are to be widely accepted and complied with, a number of protagonists from the political, economic, social and environmental spheres must be included in the decision-making process.
Making changes to the European constitution and legislative procedure means that further changes must also be made to legislation in the Member States, with implementation and execution of individual measures extending down to the lowest level. This would strengthen the efforts of regional and local authorities to participate in the process of creating policies.
As the European Union has developed and assumed ever greater competencies, the role of various actors influencing policy has increased through several EU transitions: the first direct elections to Parliament in 1979; a greater formal role for Parliament in relation to the Commission in 1999; and the Maastricht Treaty, which on a constitutional level established conditions for multilevel cooperation. In 1994 the Committee of the Regions was established under the Maastricht Treaty. Since its creation, this European Union assembly of regional and local representatives has been working to make Europe more democratic, transparent and inclusive.
The latest step forward has been the Treaty of Lisbon, through which Members of the European Parliament gained additional powers and multilevel governance became more extensive. The new treaty pursues this goal by requiring that decisions be made in a more democratic manner, with the participation of regional and local authorities and taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. Building upon the Committee of the Regions, this emphasis on the role of the European regions and cities is significant. Apart from economic and social cohesion, the treaty marks the first time in the European Union's history that it has named the ‘territorial dimension’ as a basic objective. In fact, Article 3 explicitly emphasises that the EU should encourage economic, social and territorial cohesion among Member States. The changes that the Lisbon Treaty brings to the Committee of the Regions relate to its mandate, which is brought in line with the European Parliament's five-year mandate. The President of the Committee of the Regions and the Bureau will now sit for two and a half years. The Committee is now involved in the whole legislative process, as the consultation procedure is now mandatory not only for the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, but also for the European Parliament. Most importantly, the Committee now has the right to petition the European Court of Justice to protect its powers or to nullify EU legislation that infringes on subsidiarity.
The Committee will work with national, regional and local authorities and with associations of regions and cities, analysing the local and regional impacts of EU laws and ensuring that Member States apply them correctly.
What the Europe 2020 Strategy adds to all this is to confirm that no Member State will have to cope with the difficult challenges of globalisation alone. Only by acting together on the basis of a common vision will Europeans attain more than just a collection of individual measures. The strategy emphasises that it is possible to pursue objectives only through partnership and that specific goals can be achieved only by engaging all levels of government. The active support of all participants, such as social partners and civil society, is explicitly encouraged, and has the potential to raise the level of active citizenship.
It is evident from past experience, however, that it is much easier to write aspirations on a piece of paper than to act upon them. The Europe 2020 Strategy will have to be made known to national parliaments, regional and local authorities and citizens, especially as these last are entitled to call for a referendum at the European level. We have the opportunity to utilise multilevel governance to reduce the democratic deficit we are facing as a Union. At the same time, we must also be honest and ask what has caused this deficit. Are the Member States not responsible for it? Our scrutiny must inevitably focus on the state of democracy in the Member States themselves, and in the institutions of particular countries, as the sources of the problem. The same scrutiny applies to multilevel governance. We cannot expect the people to utilise all the democratic mechanisms they have available to them to exert influence on the decision-making process in the EU if they are not already using them routinely at lower levels (national, regional and local). Such engagement is not just a matter of being informed of the possibilities but, even more, a matter of long-term education in democratic culture. We have to bear in mind that the latter is particularly diverse, mainly due to differences in democratic traditions among Member States.
Implementing multilevel governance is primarily up to the Member States, a point also emphasised by the Committee of the Regions and one which we should applaud unreservedly, since it affirms the role of regions and local communities. As mentioned above, representatives of the German Länder led the way in introducing multilevel governance. They developed a method of getting involved in European politics in the most influential and effective way: The method requires that when a proposal for new legislation is being prepared, the Commission must inform the national policymakers (in Germany, for example, this includes the second chamber and therefore the Länder) in order to uphold the principle of subsidiarity, taking into account the economic, financial and administrative burden that the legislation places on the Member State, regional and local bodies, business and citizens [4, Article 5]. The method provides additional assurance that the principle of transparency will be respected when European policy is drafted.
Regional authorities and parliaments should be involved in EU matters that affect national legislation; their involvement should include participation by upper chambers, which are often made up of representatives from local jurisdictions. In contrast to Germany and its powerful Länder, some states (e.g., Slovenia) lack an intermediate level of government or have regional governments that lack the legislative power of federal states such as in Germany; a way must be found to work with such states. Without active local participants, multilevel governance ceases to have any effect.
We live in a world in which different groups, organisations and countries divide, unite, disagree with one another—and yet complement each other. This tension often arises in decision-making processes. Can multilevel governance serve as a mechanism for channelling tensions towards a constructive dialogue, achieving a better result not just at the decision-making stage but also in the implementation of the resulting decisions? Could greater involvement in the decision-making process result in governance with a greater impact?
Whether such questions are answered positively or negatively depends on the manner in which participants approach dialogue and on whether we succeed in bringing about cooperation at all levels—from the highest to the lowest, from the elected representatives at regional and local levels (councillors and members of regional parliaments) to administrative advisers and officers. All of these participants must have daily access to changes in European legislation and must be involved in presenting well-founded reasons for different viewpoints, conclusions or legislative proposals once they are put forward by the Commission or any other EU institution. It is also necessary to raise the awareness of local and regional governments and administrations so that they ‘think European’. There should no longer be topics that are classified strictly as European or national. With modern communication technologies offering efficient access to information, there is no room for claiming that other views, information or opinions are not available.
Political debate will need to be encouraged and organised at all levels in order to strengthen the involvement of citizens in EU affairs, albeit indirectly. A Eurobarometer poll in February 2008 showed that most Europeans (eight out of ten) are in favour of regions playing a role in the choice of strategies and projects at the European level, and that they support the subsidiarity principle. Shaping EU decisions at the regional level was particularly favoured in Malta (89%) and Slovenia (88%). These figures are even higher than in Germany, the country that has made the most significant contribution to multilevel governance; there, the percentage was the same as the EU average (80%). The lowest, but still high, support was registered in Sweden. Respondents also strongly supported the inclusion of various participants—such as local business associations and unions and organisations—that encourage equal opportunities and protection of the environment. Data from the same poll showed that support for such inclusion was the highest in Slovenia and Malta (92% in both cases) and lowest in Greece (74%), while Germany, at 84%, registered just above the EU average of 82%. This strong support not only raises the question of what form of governance is most suited to accommodate these expectations, but can also be understood to indicate a perception of the strength of democracy in the European Union. One could go as far as to say that people's idea of democratic governance is obviously transitioning from a representative democracy model to more indirect forms of governance. In a way this is paradoxical, as representative democracy was introduced to deal with the challenges posed by increasingly heterogeneous societies. Now, as society becomes even more diverse, governance has to be invented anew, and multilevel governance is a very plausible solution.
When considering multilevel governance and the future of EU, one cannot ignore the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany on 30 June 2009 [5]. This ruling is extremely important for the future European integration process. At 150 pages, the Court presented its findings on the constitutional implications of the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon for German law and on the accompanying law on the rights of the lower and upper chambers of the German Parliament, the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. The ruling is relevant not just for Germany, but also for all other EU Member States. The direction in which the EU will move from now on is quite clear.
In its ruling, the German Constitutional Court asserted
that there is a danger ‘of a structural democratic deficit at European level’;
that the demands of the right of the Bundestag to participate in the decision-making process should be clearly spelled out in law and should thereby ‘effectively secure German citizens’ right to vote’ and ensure that the European Community ‘does not exceed the authority that it has been granted’;
that without a common European nation the European Parliament in Strasbourg does not have real political legitimacy of its own, since its legitimacy arises from nation states (i.e., from the Member States);
that the primacy of European law is not absolute; the German Constitutional Court reserves the right to block any particular European law, thus preserving its sovereignty and ‘constitutional identity’, something that is also written into the Treaty of Lisbon regarding the European constitution;
that Member States are sovereign over certain exclusive spheres of authority: justice and criminal procedure, police, military and taxation;
that for the formal establishment of a European federal state, and for the transfer of state authority, the German constitution would have to be changed and a referendum would have to be held.
This ruling ended the federalist ideal of an ‘ever greater union’ which the Treaty of Rome had advocated since 1957. The future of the EU is no longer guaranteed; it must now enjoy the support of the peoples of the Member States in order to succeed.
Conclusion
Cooperation among various partners within the EU and the further development of their partnership are necessary. In the future, the pressure to implement multilevel governance will be considerable, not least because the number and importance of public–private partnerships is growing and because powerful lobbying is on the increase. Given its general and specific limitations, multilevel governance will be accompanied by advantages and pitfalls. We shall have to search for the path that will maximise the positive effects and minimise the negative ones. Even more difficult will be the tasks of measuring the effects of multilevel governance and of changing our actions accordingly. The role of politics will therefore be especially important as we make the right choices in response to the varying opinions and demands of different stakeholders.