European Movement: Democracy Alive: The Brussels Summit
6th of June 2023
I. Panel: Enemy at the gates: building an alliance to defend democracy and freedom featured:
- Alin Mituța MEP, Renew
- Domenec Ruiz Devesa MEP, Socialists & Democrats
- Valeria Ronzitti, Vice-President of EMI and General Secretary of SGI Europe
- Elias Dray, Vice-President, European Youth Forum
- Evelyne Paradis, Director, ILGA-Europe
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes” – a quote by Domenec Ruiz Devesa upon opening the first panel discussion of the European Movement, an organisation dating back 75 years. Far right and populism represents today what totalitarianism did back in those days. The so-called enemies are those who want to destroy democracy, that’s why we need now, more than ever, the victory of pro-European forces, and consolidated values under a stronger political union, according to Ruiz Devesa.
Alin Mituta stressed that the so-called enemies are not just outside, but also inside the EU. That’s why we need to protect democracy and most importantly the EU itself. To do that, the European Parliament and the involvement of European citizens are essential. Mituta stated that a permanent consultation mechanism is needed likewise, which could take place in the form of the European Agora – proposed at the Conference on the Future of Europe – gathering each year. He insisted that we need democracy to evolve – and adjust as well.
Evelyne Paradis talked about the violent impacts of authoritarian and far-right regimes. The LGBTI+ community is an easy target since their true acceptance never took place. Besides, addressing this issue is a “great tool” to distract people from real problems. The interesting thing is that the mentioned regimes managed to create division even between LGBTI+ and women’s rights groups – with the classic “divide and conquer” strategy. They do it at the expanse of people though. Evelyne expressed how she’s never seen the LGBTI+ community so tired and drained before. “But who will take part of the processes if people are only surviving?”
Elias Dray claimed that the rise of illiberal democracies brings confusion about the European values. Representing the youth, Elias worries that policy makers see young people only as beneficiaries instead of partners. Young people are interested in politics, but the civic space is shrinking. The youth organisations constitute the frontline which state actors should promote, but we see more and more democratic backsliding. “Maybe the real issue is that we need to make democracy sexy” – wondered Elias.
Ruiz Devesa added that the problem is that most of the times the narrative is “either/or”. For example, either representative or participatory democracy. When, in reality, they could and should mutually reinforce. Democracy is a conversation with people, and Ruiz Devesa believes that he can become a better elected member by these involvements. He also emphasized on the need for a code of conduct for the EE24.
Mituta declared the need for fresh ideas coming from the citizens. “It’s fundamental” – he said, and the follow up is a key factor too.
Elias remarked that the bigger the organisation, the further they are from the citizens. Another issue is that the EU doesn’t even realize the richness of its own civil society.
“It’s always about institutions and values… but what about the behaviour?” – asked Evelyne. According to her, accountability should be more important. There’s no honesty, admitting to mistakes – which is one of the main reasons of disengagement.
II. panel: Countering threats: The rise of authoritarianism in Europe and beyond featured:
- H.E. Ambassador Tom Hanney, Irish Permanent Representative to the EU
- Daniel Freund MEP, Greens/EFA
- Paulina Kieszkowska-Knapik, Member of the Warsaw Bar
- Sneška Quaedvlieg-Mihailović, Secretary-General, Europa Nostra
- Camino Mortera-Martinez, Head of the Brussels office, Centre for European Reform
Tom Hanney started the second panel discussion with the fact that right wing authoritarian regimes (like in Hungary and Poland) prefer to simplify things, for example that migration is bad. “We can’t simplify things” – underlined Hanney – “saying we are good, they are bad”.
Daniel Freund went more into detail saying that in 2019 everyone thought in the EU that “there’s nothing we can do about Viktor Orbán” – but now we see, there is. For the first time, the money will really be frozen, which might bring some actual changes.
Paulina Kieszkowska-Knapik explained that there’s a timeline of changes in Poland: now a member of the ruling party stands in every door and checks what’s happening. “It’s structurally impossible to win the elections.” Openly, democratically the ruling party wouldn’t have won, that’s why they started to change the rules. “There’s a very hard battle in front of us, not to be pessimistic” – joked Kieszkowska-Knapik.
Sneska Quaedvlieg-Mihailović stressed that our cultural heritage defines us. Authoritarian regimes are hijacking history though, using and mostly abusing cultural heritage arguments. These regimes – as we already know – are good at dividing, so we need to put the cultural heritage in a wider European aspect and fight back with positivity – proposed Quaedvlieg-Mihailović. “On values we cannot compromise.” Maybe Europe really needs a renaissance. Or at the very least a different approach.
Camino Mortera-Martinez expressed how some member states of the EU act like rights are compulsory, but obligations are not. The institutions have tried different ways to solve the problems, but they haven’t seemed to work. She proposed a new way: to rethink Schengen and the single market. More specifically to link judiciary freedom to the access to the single market and migration to the access to Schengen.
Freund added that we need to look out for three criteria: first, how much countries change their system to validate European values; second, how much other leaders follow the right path seeing the set examples; and third, what the rest of Europe thinks about the situation.
Hanney said that we must listen to the defences of Hungary and Poland, even if it’s hard to deal with them on a daily basis. The more we go after someone, the more they’re going to block. “Do we want that?” – asked Hanney. His other concern is that the conditionality will have enormous economic consequences – but if the money stops, the Hungarian government can blame it on Brussels. It’s up to Hungarian people to tackle their prime minister – he said. But Kieszkowska-Knapik responded that in these regimes, what people want is not valid anymore.
Mortera-Martinez deals with the Hungarian and Polish government in her everyday work. What they do is “institutional gaslighting” – she said. It is basically a systemic abuse and denial of that abuse. They don’t have honest discussions; they are also not honest about what they actually want. Everything they’re telling is “against” something.
Kieszkowska-Knapik stated that individually, the prices to pay are very high. Freund expressed how we can’t let Hungarian and Polish people fight alone; the EU must pick the fight. Sneska added that the European public space is crucial.
According to Mortera-Martinez and Kieszkowska-Knapik, the most important thing in the upcoming year is the Polish elections. Freund considers that the Commission must take a strategic approach. Hanney wants the war to end and enlargement negotiations to continue, while Quaedvlieg-Mihailović wishes to see Europe more confident about what it stands for.