Informal groups – the pros and the cons

The Blok collective, based in Warsaw, Poland, aims to build a local platform for engagement between artists and citizens. It runs exhibitions, breakfast meetings and art workshops for local people. Blok member Anna Pelc reveals the early experiences of this informal group.

by Ania Pelc

Informally dynamic

We are freelance, flexible, constantly evolving, grassroots, responsive. We have a will to act, participate and share. And we are totally informal. In recent months, during our first activities, we have experienced many of the pros and cons of working as an informal group.

As an artistic collective, our aim is to establish a space for dialogue between artists and citizens, as well as to deliver arts to those who are excluded (not always legally; e.g. lately we have shown guerrilla video from the Museum of Modern Art in New York).

Need for space

Our neighbourhood lacks studios for artists, and our space cannot be donated because we are informal, so we rented a 65 sqm basement. This is the Blok studio, our space for activities and meetings. However, we pay much more than city-centre organisations that are supported by the city government. We pay a similar amount of money as our neighbour – a commercial company selling gas guns and weapon.

Our activities often take place in the open air: in parks and public spaces. For example, we look after an old orchard nearby and use it for the performance arts (we also collect apples along with our neighbours in the autumn!). Parks and open spaces can be considered as a kind of living-room, while the studio serves primarily as our kitchen – for cooking up and preparing our meals (our activities and meetings).

Time, money and trust

If you want to take action, what do you need, apart from the will and the idea? The time required. This is why young people, students and older people are generally more able to engage in informal activities.

Raising funds also takes time. Sometimes informal bodies can cooperate with formal ones. Blok is occasionally supported by a local government and the Association of Creative Initiatives ‘ę’ (which introduced me to the I AM EUROPE project). There is also the option of crowd funding, a way of supporting cultural projects that is increasingly popular. The idea is based on trust and shared enthusiasm; small amounts of money can be donated and combined to produce quite large amounts. Ironically, the problem with crowd funding is its very popularity; it gets more and more difficult to collect money. Last but not least, projects need to be low-cost.

Motivation based on shared emotions

Strong motivation based on strong emotions is needed. Our group is organised in a very natural way, based on friendships and common interests. If we need to rest, we rest together watching movies we like or speaking about topics we share an interest in. We promote our meetings on the Internet and invite people to join us. The social networks are crucial. To inform people in general about our activities, we use traditional forms of promotion like A4 posters printed low-cost in our studio.

No doubt we will encounter problems, but we are confident that they will be small compared to the benefits of our activities both to ourselves and to local society. 

Spanish Popular Party refuses to budge as people fight for their lives

The seizure by banks of thousands of homes in Spain has led to massive anger and distress. Many people whose homes had been repossessed have committed suicide. What can citizens and citizen groups do in such a crisis?

by Alfons Lopez, Catalonia 

May 17, morning: Members of the Spanish Mortgage Victims Platform (PAH) stand a few meters from Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy as he opens the Barcelona International Motor Show. They want to talk to him face to face. Rajoy, however, keeps away from them.

Such actions, known as escraches (Argentine slang for ‘denunciation’), were inspired by Latin American human rights campaigns in the 1990s. People meet in front of politicians’ homes or in public places to approach them and shout slogans. The activists try to impress the reality of the housing crisis on the politicians, and make them aware of people’s anger about the apparent lack of sensitivity and political failure to tackle such a serious crisis,

Citizens believe that the Spanish government has treated housing as a financial product rather than as a right that should be guaranteed, that it has sought to rescue the banks without taking measures to tackle the huge problem of indebtedness and to ease the social consequences, such as homelessness.

Nearly 1.5m signatures ignored

The PAH, born from neighbourhood associations in Barcelona, includes numerous activists who had suffered indebtedness or eviction. In 2010 PAH began its ‘Stop Evictions’ campaign, which halted more than 600 evictions. While judges sent riot police, citizens set up human barriers to prevent their neighbours from being evicted.

The movement has three demands: a new law to allow those who have had their homes foreclosed to write off their debts by handing the property over to the bank, a backdated halt to evictions, and the turning of houses owned by banks into social housing.

With these objectives, PAH together with some partners launched a Popular Legislative Initiative for Decent Housing and gathered nearly 1.5 million signatures. The Spanish parliament needs only 500,000 signatures to accept a people’s initiative. However, in response the government immediately approved a law that perpetuates the current model and protects the interests of the banks. No amendments from other parties were accepted. The demands of the activists were completely ignored.

Housing: basic right or object of speculation?

Housing is at the centre of the social and economic crisis in Spain. In 1998 a dramatic increase in construction began, strongly financed by banks and a wide range of new financial products. Between 1998 and 2007, more than 600,000 homes were built per year, as prices rose at a much faster rate than salaries. Housing became an object of much speculation. Low interest rates, foreign investment and mortgage conditions fed the bubble, while public policies kept on discouraging rental as an option.

As the economic crisis broke out and unemployment soared, foreclosures and evictions began. The bad banking practices that proliferated for years were revealed. However, the political response was dismal and the social emergency was ignored. According to the Spanish General Council of the Judiciary, nearly 300,000 foreclosure proceedings were initiated between 2007 and 2011.

Thousands of people were forced to live in the underground economy. When banks take homes at 50% of their original value, they ask families to pay the balance plus interest and legal costs.

The PAH escraches provoked a furious response from the government. The campaigners were accused of harassing members of the ruling People’s Party (PP). Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said: “We all have a right to defend our ideas, but intimidation can never be a form of participating in public issues."

On the other side, it’s pointed out that a huge number of large and peaceful protests – often by tens of thousands of people – that have taken place since the crisis began have had limited impact on the government. And the collection of nearly 1.5 million signatures prompted a new law under which only a tiny proportion of those facing eviction will be covered, and that does not apply to existing eviction orders.

The PAH, however, insisted it would not give up “because there are lives at stake”, adding: “We will continue to fight to prevent social exclusion for life for thousands of families. Yes we can!”

--------------------------

Evictions and citizen actions across Europe

Bulgaria

In Bulgaria, winter 2013 was marked by civil protests countrywide. The protests were provoked by the extent of poverty and corruption, and the inadequate response of institutions. In one month no fewer than seven people committed self-immolation and three of them died. The self-immolations symbolise public anger and despair as unemployment soars and a high proportion of population live in poverty, with retired people especially suffering.

Germany

In April a woman died in a homeless shelter in Berlin after eviction from her home, despite neighbours’ attempts to prevent it and medical reports arguing that the woman would not survive the stress. She had not been able to pay monthly rent of €350 and had lived for her last few months without heat or electricity. This case sparked demonstrations and civil-disobedience actions against forced evictions. Several social movements are trying to set up networks to prevent evictions.

Ireland

“Evict the troika not the people,” reads a sign outside a home in the west of Ireland belonging to a family threatened with eviction. Seamus Sherlock, who fell into arrears on his €300,000 home loan when his business closed, says: “I would die defending my home.” Mass evictions would provoke a massive response from Irish citizens – and there have been very few, but the troika of international lenders has warned that the mortgage crisis is jeopardising Ireland’s economic recovery following its property crash in 2010. The government, in response, has introduced legislation whereby banks must seek to cut deals with customers in arrears – rather than evict them.

Roma

At a transnational level, Amnesty International has launched a campaign against evictions of Roma settlements across Europe. Roma people are regularly evicted from their homes. Loss of housing also involves loss of social contacts, work and access to basic services such as education and health. Amnesty has documented cases of forced evictions of Roma communities in Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, France, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Czech Republic, Romania and Serbia.

How to leap the gap between citizens and decision-makers

by Agata de Latour, Poland / Belgium

Interview with Dirk Jacobs, professor of sociology and political sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles

Agata de Latour: What is citizen participation all about?

Dirk Jacobs: In political science and in sociology, we distinguish electoral participation from other forms of political participation, like demonstrating, writing letters, signing petitions, and even wearing buttons, putting up stickers or not buying products – all kinds of actions that go beyond your personal life.

What is the situation as regards participation in the EU?

One of the challenges is what is often called ‘the democratic deficit’ – the gap between decision-makers and ordinary citizens. There will always be some gap between those who specialise in a task of representation and those who are represented. But in the case of the European policy area, an additional difficulty is that the political system is very complicated. It’s difficult for ordinary citizens to understand things.

Furthermore, national politicians, if they have to take unpopular measures, tend to say that everything is decided by the EU. They omit to point out that member states can use their veto. So national politicians and the media have a big responsibility to make clear to citizens that Europe is not something ‘unreachable’.

What can we citizens do to fill this gap?

It would be unfair to ask citizens to make all the effort. The main responsibility lies with elected representatives and the media to give more attention to the relevance of European decision-making processes. They should play the role of translators and go-betweens.

The second step is to make the institutions simpler and more understandable for citizens. Further, participation in European elections can be increased. And what about voting for the European commissioners or for European president, in an open election? This would at least be strongly symbolic.

So you think it would be good to increase electoral participation?

Yes, because what people need is a sense of what is called political efficacy – the belief that one’s personal act makes a difference, that voting has an impact. Many people don’t actually see why it matters to vote in the European Parliament elections, for instance. They don’t see a direct link between electoral participation and European policy. Voting for European Parliament members is of course very important for its composition, but it is only one part of EU policy-making. In the end, the important decisions are made by the Council of Ministers, the representatives of all our member states. There is also the role played by the Commission. It’s difficult for citizens to understand and feel connected.

Participation is not easy!

Well, remember that a lot of people participate without knowing they do, for example by having conversations with others, signing petitions, participating in demonstrations. They tend to disconnect this activism from electoral politics, but actually it’s a continuum, all part of one entity. A lot of people feel that the level of citizens and the level of politicians are disconnected, and this feeling seems to be increasing.

We’ve many more options now to express ourselves interactively on Facebook, Twitter, all kinds of social media, newspapers, blogs. We can easily comment and voice opinions, and often in a very hostile way. But we lack the capacity for effective dialogue, debating together for the common good.

But the social media can be a good tool for gathering people …

Such participation is certainly increasing, and the social media play an important role in this. But if you look at the content on Facebook or Twitter, a lot of it is very negative. That was one of the motivations when a group of people in Belgium two years ago started a large-scale ‘deliberative democracy’ project (I was one of the initiators), called G1000. For example, we looked at the problem of many politicians being trapped at a purely electoral level, so what is important for them is to be re-elected – and that blocks them from ‘doing policy’ with a long-term perspective.

Can the G1000 methods be applied in a wider context?

Yes, with G1000 we showed politicians that, if given the tools and sufficient information by experts, citizens can listen to each other, discuss, debate and argue in a rational way, and come up with recommendations for long-term solutions. Deliberative democracy has also been used on a small scale, for example in the Citizens’ Dialogues. It would be interesting to see it organised in various member states, so citizens can use the model to debate what kind of future they want for Europe. Of course, deliberative democracy should not replace representative democracy. It’s a complementary way of engaging citizens.

In our experience with G1000, everybody agreed that listening, dialogue and interaction are crucial. It’s not about saying ‘I am right, you are wrong’, and exchanging insults! People must really listen to others and try to find a common goal at the level of society. The challenge is to do this not only at the local but also at the European level. 

Extremism looms as trust in EU plunges

by Antje Sachs, Germany

In times of crisis (whether financial or political), populist, racist and fascist movements come to the fore. Right now, we have Golden Dawn in Greece, the Identitiere Movement in Germany and Jobbik in Hungary. When existentially threatened, people look for a scapegoat; they want someone to blame for all their troubles, and that’s usually an ethnic group, immigrants, foreigners – some easy target at which to aim all grievances, resentments and hatreds.

Euroscepticism was once seen as a particularly British ‘disease’, but it’s spread across the continent at an astonishing rate. Trust in the whole European project has dropped even more rapidly than growth rates. The four biggest eurozone countries now have even lower levels of trust in EU institutions than Britain did back in 2007.

Since the start of the crisis, trust in the EU has plunged from +20 to -29 points in Germany, +10 to -22 in France, +30 to -22 in Italy, +42 to -52 in Spain, -13 to -49 in the UK, and +50 to +6 in Poland.

Euroscepticism in the past was mainly a perception that decisions were being taken by unaccountable institutions rather than elected governments. But the current anti-EU surge also involves sharp divisions between northern and southern Europe. To many citizens in southern Europe, the EU is seen rather as the IMF was once seen in Latin America – as an anti-democratic body imposing rigid policies. In northern Europe, the EU is seen more as having failed to control effectively the policies of the southern countries.

Whatever the reasons for the negativity towards the EU, euroscepticism can be a healthy thing. Questioning leads to necessary improvement. But the anti-EU campaigning of those who camouflage their true ideologies with vague, simplistic solutions and promises of prosperity needs to be avoided.

Enthusiasm for the EU will not be restored unless the EU profoundly changes the way it deals with member states and its citizens. The challenge for European citizens is to beware of populist propaganda, to embrace diversity, to be constructive, to constructively criticize, and to further improve the largest-ever European project – the European Union.

Citizen participation: ‘Get rid of the barriers’

The world’s first transnational, digital right of initiative – the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) – has been running now for over a year. But there are many problems. It costs at least €1m to organise an ECI. The regulations for collecting signatures are complex, and differ from country to country. And an ECI is not even binding. 

by Kita Boncheva (Bulgaria/Germany)

The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) process is so complicated, time-consuming and expensive that, just one year after its launch, one of the ECIs actually challenges the ECI itself.

So far, 25 ECIs have been proposed, of which 16 have been registered and 14 are ongoing.

Bruno Kaufmann, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe, says: “A key area for development is the removal of barriers to access ECIs. The tool’s power should be strengthened by promoting Europe-wide awareness of the ECI. One option is to send a letter to every household in Europe, informing them about the ECI, along with the info about the forthcoming European parliament elections.”

A further move, he suggested, would be to ensure that ECIs could result in EU treaty changes.

Another issue is the language barrier. Mr Kaufmann said the ECI should be translated into all 23 European languages.

An ECI must gather 1m signatures. But that does not suffice. There are different regulations and quotas for each EU member state. It’s complicated to initiate an ECI. An organisation can’t do it. A ‘citizens committee’, consisting of seven EU citizens resident in at least seven different member states, must be set up. They then register the ECI with the European Commission – and registration takes at least three months.

Expensive and slow

The online signature registration process also needs to be improved, say ECI campaigners. Member states have different rules for signature collection. Most countries apply complicated data-protection rules and citizens are asked for detailed personal information, such as ID number and address. In some countries, certain EU citizens are not even allowed to participate.

ECI organisers also say the online systems for collecting 1m signatures are expensive and time-consuming. The Commission did set up an online system, but there are problems with its design and speed.

What is more, the costs for small organisations are overwhelming, while much time and civic engagement is needed.

Once the 12-month collection of signatures is over, ECI organisers submit the ECI. Validation takes about three months. Every signature is checked. There is a public hearing at the European Parliament and the Commission responds – but it is not obliged to take action or to propose any legislation.

The ECI tool was put forward as “a new right for EU citizens … You can set the agenda!” But campaigners say it lacks power.

The ECI, as a move towards real participatory democracy, in its infancy. There are many criticisms, but there are also moves to make it work better: for example, proposals to establish a single data-protection authority, and regulation to remove the ID requirements for signature collection, while some member states suggest creating an e-card for voting.

It’s clear that even 1m citizens can not yet put real pressure on the Commission – and set the agenda.

-----------------------------

Moves to simplify ECI requirements – by just five countries

The call for simplification of European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) procedures and rules has provoked a response at last.  

Five member states – Luxembourg, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland – have announced that they will ease the cumbersome data requirements.

ECI campaigners have struggled to get the ECI signature form simplified and the ID requirements eliminated.

The ECI has been plagued by technical problems. Campaigners have complained that EU citizens living outside the EU cannot sign initiatives, while people are generally reluctant to sign ECIs in countries that require IDs.

Eighteen member states require that citizens provide personal identification numbers when signing an ECI. Such intrusive personal data requirements are often not necessary, raise privacy concerns, deter support, and demotivate potential supporters of ECIs.

Welcomed

ECI organisers have strongly welcomed the latest developments, in particular those in Luxembourg, and urged all member states to follow suit.

·         Luxembourg has dropped the ID-number requirement for all running ECIs (once the new annexes are adopted).

·         France is reducing the list of ID requirements, but adding ‘place of residence’ and ‘date of birth’.

·         Spain is removing the address requirement and adding the NIE (Número de Identificación de Extranjeros, or ID card for ‘foreigners’).

·         The Netherlands will allow Dutch people living abroad to sign.

·         Ireland is reviewing its criteria.

The changes in these countries indicate that politicians at national level recognise the ECI as a powerful tool for citizens to influence EU politics. But most member states still need to change their requirements and remove the blocks to fuller citizen participation.

EDITORIAL - You too are Europe

by the entire  I AM EUROPE  team,

The European Year of Citizens – 2013. How timely! Citizens throughout Europe are not exactly in love with the European Union these days.

The EU is divided, riven with conflict; as the Irish poet WB Yeats put it, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold … the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”. People lash out at their chosen scapegoat: from political parties and national governments to immigrants and ethnic groups, from Germans to ‘lazy southerners’, from ‘Brussels’ to the EU as a whole to international finance.

If one believes in simplistic, irrational solutions (‘Brussels’ is the source of all evil, get rid of all immigrants, etc) it is easy to be single-focused and passionate. However, the citizens in the I AM EUROPE project believe that lashing around in blind or blinkered anger will take us precisely nowhere; that hard, critical but constructive work is needed to come up with wise and workable solutions to improve European democracy.

A return to economic growth is unlikely to remove the division and distrust. The EU needs to profoundly change the ways it deals with its citizens. But we are Europe; therefore it is we who must change. Living democracy is a way of life, a civic culture in which citizens participate creatively in public life, achieving solutions that combine insights from diverse perspectives and experience.

Democracy is not what we have, but what we do. And I AM EUROPE is all about doing democracy. Over the past three months, the citizens involved in this project have met in the four corners of Europe, exploring how citizens may truly participate in the processes of EU decision-making. This newspaper – produced by citizen journalists from eight countries across the EU, from Belgium to Bulgaria and from Poland to Spain – is intended to give you a taste of our many hours of discussion and debate, the numerous questions we’ve asked ourselves.

You, too, are Europe. Without you, we cannot build a better Europe …

Closing conference of the I AM EUROPE project in Brussels, Saturday, 22 June 2013. Feel invited!