The EU Civil Society Policy in the EU’s Enlargement to CEE

The experience in CEE suggested that enlargement locates the EU in a position to shape large part of applicant states’ domestic structures and various policies. In this context, for the first time, the EU explicitly promoted civil society in its enlargement strategy. As previous EU Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn stated, from big ban enlargement onwards, civil society took place at the heart of the EU’s enlargement agenda. Rehn (2008:3) defines the role of civil society and its importance in the enlargement process as follows:

You (civil society) are the bridge between the EU institutions, national authorities and citizens...raise awareness of the successes and challenges of EU enlargement...strengthen confidence between citizens in the EU and the aspirant members. …support the reforms... civil society organizations have spread the European sprit by promoting the basic values of democracy, human rights, good governance and the rule of law.

For these reasons, civil society has become an increasingly important actor in the EU’s enlargement policy. The involvement of the civil society in the process of European integration advanced on the grounds of promoting democracy. The analysis of policy documents show how the EU has employed a twin-track approach to civil society through projects in civil society programs both in CEE and Turkey within the context of enlargement.

In 1993, the European Council set out the Copenhagen criteria, making democracy, the rule of law, human rights and protection of minorities and a functioning market economy central objectives of the EU enlargement policy. The EU has based its approach on the assumption that vocal civil society is key for democracy. In this context, democracy assistance under political criteria supports the development of civil society not only as a part of the democratization process but also the Europeanization process. This suggests that civil society has to democratize, therefore Europeanize, as a condition of EU membership.

Financial assistance has been at the heart of the EU’s civil society development policy towards CEE. Now, the EU follows the same pattern in the current enlargement policy for candidate countries, in various policy areas for member countries, and in the European Neighborhood Policy. The EU’s assistance to CEE and direct funding to civil society showed how financial assistance to civil society has become an important instrument in the accession process. The EU has been a key contributor in the region both through Poland-Hungary Aid for

Restructuring Economy (PHARE)¹¹ and non-PHARE programs. This is the most straightforward way for external actors to support the development of civil society;

however, as discussed extensively in Chapter 2 the appropriateness of this approach and effectiveness of external funding has been questioned both by academics and policy makers.

The following section shows the way in which EU promotes civil society in its enlargement policy, and the EU’s approach to civil society development through the examination of the civil society programs in CEE. The policy documents illustrate that the EU’s twin-track approach, which originates from the EU level has been transferred to the enlargement context. Section 3.2.1. demonstrates how the EU operationalizes its approach through its policy documents in CEE.

3.2.1. EU Support for Civil Society Development in CEE

The development of civil society in CEE is understood as a part of the democratization process. In order to help the candidate countries to meet the Copenhagen political criteria, the EU works closely with civil society organizations and assists civil society.

The main mechanism to support civil society was through the PHARE program. There were two types of civil society development programs: multi-country programs that were managed from Brussels and made aid available to similar NGOs and their counterparts in the EU and national programs that were run locally by foundations, and governmental bodies (Local and Regional Development Planning 1998: 31).

Three Programs that Support Civil Society

The first program, called The Democracy Program, was established in 1992 to support civil society activities that strengthen pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights in CEECs (Local and Regional Development Planning 1998:31; Raik 2003: 206). The program supported parliamentary practice and organizations, transparency in public bodies and management, development of NGO representative structures, civic education, human rights and minority rights (Local and Regional

11 The PHARE program is the EU’s main financial instrument to assist the CEECs in their transition from centralized systems to a decentralized economic system and democratic society. The program was started in 1989 first for Poland and Hungary and then extended to all applicant countries in the region.

Development Planning 1998: 31). This program was run by the Human Rights and Democratization Unit and worked closely with Link Inter-European NGOs (LIEN).

The program regarded civil society as an important component of democratization and supported democracy related activities. Yet, the support for democracy has constituted about one per cent, a small amount of the total PHARE assistance (Local and Regional Development Planning 1998: 31; Smith 2001: 49; Wedel 2001: 87).

The second program, entitled “The PHARE Partnership Program” was initiated in 1993 and focused on socio-economic development and cooperation among the private sector, local governments and NGOs and supported the reform process in the region (Local and Regional Development Planning 1998: 6). The EU has encouraged partnership both with state institutions and their counterparts in the EU countries. In this program, the EU has supported various types of NGOs¹² as well as small number of organizations such as universities, institutes, private organizations and public bodies (Local and Regional Development Planning 1998: 6). In later stages, with the experience of the implementation and transition process, there was strong emphasis on “local and regional development”, “the promotion of civil society” and “increased access for civil society” rather than economic development (Local and Regional Development Planning 1998: 32).

The third program, labeled “The LIEN” was established in 1994 and was designed to promote integration of disadvantaged groups such as the unemployed, women, handicapped, elderly, and homeless people in the population (Commission of the European Communities 1999b: 42). In particular, the aim of LIEN was to support NGOs to work on behalf of the marginalized groups, to improve permanent support and to encourage their inclusion into the society (Commission of the European Communities 1999b: 42). The main fields of activity were chosen according to EU expertise. The EU’s expertise is very strong in these areas. As I will illustrate in Chapters 5, 6 and 7, focusing on EU’s expertise has implications on the EU’s compulsory impact on civil society development in applicant countries. The fields of activity for EU assistance have been based principally on the EU’s priorities such as sections of the acquis as well as the Copenhagen criteria rather than their original expertise in the candidate countries. This sometimes led the countries to shift their original focus to obtain the EU funding.

12 The program includes trade associations, trade unions, chambers of commerce, environmental organizations, educational and training organisations.

In 1999, the Partnership programs and the LIEN were merged into a new program titled “ACCESS”. ACCESS was an institution-building program to strengthen civil society in the candidate countries and prepare them for EU membership. Therefore, EU assistance became more specially focused on pre-accession strategy- the EU membership process. As a consequence, primarily civic activities that were related to adoption and implementation of the acquis in the area of consumer and environmental protection, and social and health issues have been given priority. The second priority was to promote social integration of the marginalized groups. This does not only show how program towards civil society have been shaped by the EU priorities but also reflects the way in which the EU sets the agenda of the civil society organizations in the candidate countries.

3.2.2. The Approaches to the EU Civil Society Policy in the Context of the CEE Enlargement

As the presentation of the main civil society development programs shows, there was an active EU approach to civil society in the context of the CEE enlargement. The previous enlargements before CEE did not call for an active EU policy approach to civil society. This is both related with EU’s internal developments;

i.e., the discussions on democratic deficit and the potential of civil society to remedy this deficit and the prominent role of civil society in the accession process; i.e., the EU uses civil society as an agent to Europeanize candidate countries by promoting its values and principles. The EU has done so in pursuing principles of democracy, human rights, particularly promotion of minority rights and dialogue between stakeholders. These principles are evident in various programs, implemented in projects and reflect the rationale of the EU’s policy on civil society.

The civil society policy in the CEE context was explicitly based on development of civil society to promote democracy and allow countries to become active partners in the EU policymaking processes. On the one hand, it is assumed that a vibrant civil society perpetuates the EU’s principles and values and provides a linkage between the EU and candidate countries. In this respect, civil society organizations are valued for strengthening mutual understanding. For example, as shown in section 3.2.1. , the PHARE Democracy program and ACCESS relied on this understanding. On the other hand, civil society is articulated as a partner in European governance. The EU promotes partnership with the state and other actors to involve

them in political processes. Therefore, civil society as a partner of the state is included in policy making, cooperating with the state and implementing and observing EU policies. For instance, the EU has promoted the partnership model through the ACCESS program. This conception of civil society envisages a model of participative civil society in decision-making processes.

Equally important is the increasing focus on the promotion of dialogue in EU civil society policy. Both in multi-country program and national program, there was an emphasis on communication and networking between civil society organizations for an effective civil dialogue. As part of this dialogue, the principle of partnership is promoted between the EU and candidate countries in civic activities. For example, the PHARE partnership program is intended to promote dialogue.

As this section illustrates, civil society is expected to contribute to democratization in candidate countries. That is, civil society acquires a role and acts as a connecting point between the EU and candidate countries. Moreover, civil society is expected to engage and influence decision-making processes as a partner in European governance. Despite the differences in instruments, there are considerable similarities in the EU’s rationale for civil society engagement across the EU level and the enlargement context.

Although the EU is motivated by a certain logic, the ambiguities and inconsistencies in the EU’s enlargement strategy have restrained the potential of the EU’s policy towards civil society. Several studies note that CEE enlargement was characterized by a tough approach including annual monitoring processes of development, the implementation of larger acquis and stronger political, economic, legal and human rights conditionality (Smith 1999; Pridham 2005). However, fast adaptation of the EU legislation came at the expense of the marginalization of society.