The European Citizens‘ Initiative: Democratic Innovation or Just ‘Bread and Circuses’? Lessons Learned from the Initiatives Right2water and Ban Glyphosate

The growing success of right-wing, populist parties all over Europe as well as an ongoing crisis mode are symptoms for the European democracy deficit and a widening gap between the EU’s institutions and its citizens. In order to bridge this gap, the Lisbon Treaty introduced the European Citizens’ Initiative. This participatory tool, new and unique at EU level, enables citizens to propose a subject for consideration on the EU agenda, if they collect one million statements of support. Provided that the organisers meet the initiative’s requirements, which concern e.g. the number of signatures per member state, and the application area, the European Commission is invited to make a legislative proposal in favour of the initiative – however, she can’t be forced to do so. The ECI directive only requires that the Commission explains her measures and actions. Consequently, the Commission holds a significant amount of power and room for interpretation, which has been criticised intensively by Social scientists, politicians and actors in civil society. Although the ECI often has been framed as an innovative democratic mechanism, this paper argues that it contributes to the stabilisation of existing power structures and imbalances in the EU. This is largely due to its institutional design and burdensome requirements. Almost six years after its inception, the ECI has had a sobering track record: Only four out of 66 submitted initiatives have been successful, meaning only four initiatives met the formal criteria. Only two of those four – right2water and Ban glyphosate – have led to any legislation. However, even these initiatives were unable to succeed in their principal demand. The ECI right2water did not succeed in its aim to commit the EU to implement a mandatory human right to drinking water, and Ban glyphosate failed to realise its aim to ban the pesticide glyphosate. Bearing in mind that both demands contradicted with the Commission’s mainstream agenda, the ECI seemingly strengthens existing deficits in the EU. Instead of fostering a growing trust in EU institutions, the ECI poses the risk of reinforcing the existing disenchantment with Europe. This paper contends that the asymmetry between the stringent requirements on an ECI’s organisers on the one hand and the Commission’s wide scope of decision-making powers on the other hand creates frustration and distrust among the EU’s citizens. Using the case studies right2water and Ban glyphosate, this paper analyses who actually benefits from this innovative democratic mechanism and claims that the ECI is more of an instrument to entrench the current power infrastructure. Methods used to reach this conclusion included semi-structured interviews with involved experts, document analysis and linguistic analysis of the Commission’s communication. The results contribute to debates on the issue of whether democratic innovations necessarily democratise political systems, and address the democratic deficit of the EU and potential solutions. Moreover, this paper adds to reflections on the conditions of civic engagement at an EU level.