Toespraak van Z.K.H. Prins Constantijn bij de derde Europese conferentie over kwaliteit van het openbaar bestuur, Rotterdam, woensdag 15 september 2004 (Engels)
Your excellencies, ladies and Gentlemen.
Very pleased to be able to address this distinguished audience here in Rotterdam today, where we have gathered to discuss ways of improving government. I have been asked to address this subject in the context of the EU.
In view of my experience at the European Commission where I was responsible for the relationship with the EP and my current work for the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs on improving the communication about Europe, minister de Graaf was kind enough to infer that I might have some knowledge of the subject. The premise of this invitation o speak is of course that government in the context of the EU needs improving&..the question is: what needs improving?.
To determine how we can 'improve government' we first need to define what 'good government' is. Here I see two general principles and a set of sub-criteria . First, for government to be good it should be accountable - In other words, government must be democratic and transparent in order to be legitimate, responsive and responsible.
Secondly, it must be effective. This means that government must develop as well as deliver policies that are proportionate, decisive and sustainable.
In the context of the EU I should add subsidiarity, which relates and contributes to both accountability AND effectiveness. Beyond these general principles government needs to portray a vision to which its executive, and the people can hold it accountable.
So , how does the EU score on these principles for good government? And how does this relate to the pervasively ambivalent, and even outright negative public perceptions of the EU.
To be very blunt and hardly original: Most people are relatively ignorant of what the EU does and how it works. If anything, the EU in the eyes of many citizens, is an ineffective, complex, undemocratic, non-transparent, bureaucratic, money-spending entity that is prone to irregularities and hardly delivering the policies they expect. The EU's processes and policies are often ridiculed and portrayed as intrusive and unnecessary.
Who bares much of the brunt for these negative perceptions? & More often than not, it is the European Commission (EC), as it is seen as the heart and government of the EU. So we as citizens and our governments often look to the EC for improving the EU government and its image. But is it fair and justified to single out the Commission for the perceived failings of the EU?
Looking at the facts, it is definitely not! And, measured against the criteria of good government, one could actually find the opposite: The Commission is clearly effective: It has shown a remarkable capacity to respond to new developments and to absorb wide ranging re-organizations in a complex institutional and political environment. It has designed and launched the Euro, mastered enlargement, built a common internal market, and reacted actively in response to the new information age.
If we could compare the EC to national governments we would find that it is more concerned with proportionality. It is also better equipped to ensure sustainability through a long term agenda and an elaborate system of inter-service consultations all the way up to the College of Commissioners.
On transparency, the EC's credentials are far greater than commonly acknowledged. As it is not a democratically elected body it has endeavored to compensate by being a frontrunner in communicating with its constituents through a very comprehensive web portal and providing all official documents on line, offering digital services and e-procurement ahead of most national governments. Also, it faces incomparable levels of scrutiny from the EP.
And on the score of accountability &. the EC installed an elaborate system of anti-fraud rules, reporting requirements and control procedures, which are continuously examined by the EP and the European Court of Auditors. If anything, the urge to avoid all suspicion of irregularities has gone so far that the administrative requirements are becoming a burden.
So again, looking at the criteria of what makes "good government", the EC performs quite well. And it should, given its centralized structure and the fact that it is not much bigger than a medium sized multinational. This positive rating does not mean that it has no shortcomings. .Of course it has; but these may not be the main driver of the institutions' perceived failings.
To determine "good EU government", we should always realize that the EU is not only the EC, and that the EC is largely dependent on the given political and institutional context. Therefore, in order to address the factual shortcomings of the EU it takes far more than bashing the Commission for its managerial weaknesses. It requires deep institutional and political changes that are not within the reach and competence of the Commission. Actually, it might not be within anyone's ability to satisfy all the expectations of 25 different member states, with as many political systems and interests. And with the absence of a real European demos, one might well doubt the feasibility of establishing fully functional transnational democratic structures and institutions in the near future.
Some of these structural issues have been discussed and adressed in the new constitution, and I will restrain my ambition to discuss this subject today. But leaving structural changes aside, there still remains a lot to be done to address the more intangible public perceptions of the EU's government and governance. Perceptions can become awfully real when they weaken citizens' approval of government, which in turn undermines its legitimacy to act. Reason enough to take perceptions seriously when discussing ways to improve government.
Often perceptions are also rooted in facts - even if the causal relationship between these two may be rather different than first meets the eye. Let me take you through just five drivers of perceptional issues to indicate how complex these are and how they are intrinsically linked to the EU's political context.
First, continuous change at the EU makes people suspicious of what the EU actually is and where it is heading. Adding to this is the rhetoric of certain member states on forming alliances and vanguard groups.
Second, the lack of knowledge about the EU at the level of citizens, media and even politicians, and, more importantly a lack of familiarity. Familiarity helps us to be more tolerant of shortcomings. The EU is a sui generis structure with a hybrid model of governance, which makes it difficult to compare with national governments. We are quick to declare its structures, processes and regulations complex and ineffective, whereas objectively we could easily state the same of many of our national governments' structures, processes and regulations.
Third, failure of national democratic structures, institutions and personalities to bring EU issues into the national public debate. Most decisions are prepared by national civil servants and rubberstamped by government officials, without much scrutiny of national parliaments. This breads the perception that effective democratic control is being circumvented and that the EU is all about backroom decision making where citizens have no voice. In fact, national officials benefit from the relative obscurity of the EU's decision making process to smear 'Brussels' or hail their successes when it is convenient.
fourth, when power politics gets the upper hand over law, credibility of the EU is seriously damaged. The EU can only exist on a basis of mutual trust and acceptance of generally binding principles.
Finally, there is a disconnect between on one hand the lofty targets and policy objectives drafted and agreed in European Councils by ambitious presidencies - often stirred by the politics of the day - and the capabilities of the EU and its member states to implement policies on the other. Too many unfulfilled promises risk turning the EU into an empty shell.
These are just a few of many issues that contribute to negative perceptions of the EU
I agree with those of you who say that perceptions are difficult to change. But none of these points are inherent to the EU's structure nor to the EC's practices of government - and addressing them is within the reach of a range of players responsible for "EU government". For instance&!.
Much can be done to raise interest in the EU through public debate, by politicizing issues and by allowing more transparency in the EU's decision-making processes. Through targeted communication, governments can show how the EU influences our daily lives, making Europe more relevant to the citizen. Most importantly, our governments should provide leadership by setting a positive European policy agenda in which the citizen's interests are reflected and where there is a clear value added in transnational policymaking.
A firmer grip on subsidiarity by all institutions and particularly the European Court of Justice would keep the EU focused on the areas where it has a clear and stated added value. In this context the subsidiarity article in the new constitution might prove a useful instrument. Education is another field in which we need to do more, so that future generations are better prepared to embrace the opportunities that the EU offers. And to allow them to pursue their full personal development as individual citizens of member states, living in an integrated space called Europe.
So as an answer to the question 'what needs improving', I would say& a lot. And it is encouraging to realize that a lot can actually be done, as the main actors on the political stage of the EU and the member states potentially control much of the solution. For this we do not need complex institutional changes. What is needed, is the will to act.
To end: I tried to highlight the relevance of addressing perceptions in the context of improving government. In the next two days you will be discussing the full range of challenges that governments face in providing better service to the citizens. That's where facts and perceptions come together. I wish you a very inspiring and constructive meeting.
Thank you very much