The latest Eurobarometer surveys in March and Autumn 2018 show a slight increase in satisfaction of EU citizens with how (parliamentary) democracy works. One wonders whether the previous demands for direct involvement of actors from civil society and experts in EU policy-making finally take effect (Kohler-Koch 2010). Already in 2001 the European Commission (EC), in its White Paper on European Governance, responded to the “decreasing popular support for the European integration project” by promoting a wider participation of civil society for the purpose of democratic and efficient governance (Kohler-Koch 2007: 255). In the follow-up, a number of direct participatory policy tools, such as the European Citizen’s Initiative (ECI), were launched. The ECI, however, fell short of expectations. In response to the Commission’s efforts, this paper looks at the involvement of civil society in the European Parliament (EP). While the Commission has always been eager to engage with European civil society, the EP’s approach to organised civil society has been characterised by “a degree of ambiguity” (Greenwood 2007: 184). On the one hand, the EP “enjoys direct democratic legitimacy based on elections” (Kohler-Koch 2010: 108). Unlike the Commission, it does not depend on CSOs as its social constituency. On the other hand, the EP received in the past far less attention from interest groups and civil society than the Commission holding the sole right of policy initiation (Eising 2016). The EP’s legislative empowerment over time, however, makes it today a key player within the EU institutional system, and thus an important partner for civil society. Consequently, this paper analyses CSOs engagement in the Parliament. In particular, it focuses on EP Intergroups and thereby explores a phenomenon that thus far received only little attention in EP-civil society research. Intergroups are informal cross-party/cross-committee groupings bringing together MEPs from different political groups, parliamentary committees and member states as well as representatives of civil society and other EU institutions. The 8th EP (2014 – 2019) recorded 28 officially recognised Intergroups, focusing on topics, such as ageing, climate change, social economy, disability, public services and trade unions. Drawing on original empirical data from 11 qualitative interviews conducted in February 2019 with CSO representatives co-operating with Intergroups in the 8th EP, this paper explores Intergroups’ potential to act as a participatory tool that contributes to democratic input legitimacy (pluralist interest representation and intermediation).
References
Eising, Rainer (2016): Interest Groups and the European Union. In: Cini, Michelle/Pérez-Solórzano Borragán, Nieves: European Union Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 179-194.
Greenwood, Justin (2007): Organized Civil Society and Input Legitimacy in the EU. In: DeBardeleben, Joan/Hurrelmann, Achim (eds.): Democratic Dilemmas of Multilevel Governance: Legitimacy, Representation and Accountability in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 177-194.
Kohler-Koch, Beate (2010): Civil society and EU democracy. ‘Astroturf’ representation? In: Journal of European Public Policy 17, 1, pp. 100-116.
Kohler-Koch, Beate (2007): The Organization of Interests and Democracy in the European Union. In: Kohler-Koch, Beate/Rittberger, Berthold (eds.): Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union. Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 255-271.
