The problems of the EU
This morning I came across while reading my feeds on two contributions, each in his way, that address some of the key problems facing the EU at the moment. The excellent article in the Washington Post - "? As nationalism rises, will the European Union's fall" - points to the clearly visible signs of re-nationalization, the medium and longer term view of the time very successful project of the European Integration could in principle be questioned. The second, the evaluation of a recent Eurobarometer survey € describes the ever-diminishing confidence of citizens in the EU.
These problems are not new, they accompany the Union since the rejection of the Maastricht Treaty by Denmark in a referendum in June 1992 and have since repeatedly, not least in the negative outgoing referenda on the Constitutional Treaty in France and the Netherlands in 2005 or at the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by Ireland 2008 apparently become. Their causes, which I described some time ago elsewhere , are complex and extensively, but one of them, the lack of communication with some 500 million EU citizens, the inability to explain to them the benefits of the Union and for them to participate, should be particularly evident and significant.
If understanding and trust are missing, suffering not only legitimacy, but - if in the light of the unanimity principle in contract changes, only the lowest common denominator must be found - obviously the performance of the system. The disastrous record in the so-called third pillar on the basis of the rules of the Maastricht Treaty, only one of many examples of dar.
The solution - better communication policy
But back to my morning reading. Die schloss nämlich auch einen Beitrag ein, der beschreibt, wie die Lösung aus Sicht der Kommission – und nicht zuletzt der zuständigen Kommissarin, Viviane Reding – aussehen könnte. The magic word here is personalization, ie, connect the "EU-government," the commissioners and in particular the Commission President as closely as possible with substantive projects that provide EU policy, therefore, a face.
As obvious as this idea may be, it is in my opinion in a national language by the discussion fragmented areas dominated Union not help much and they can not seem particularly radical, because it remains on the surface. What does it do if a bill is associated with the names Barroso, but the action is neither understood nor could the people involved in it?
Why not an EU 2.0?
What surprises me personally greatly in this regard is how little the EU has been a means of solving their communication and image problem to a resource that more and more people - and companies - use a large scale and with success, and the elsewhere already changed policy and governance has the Web 2.0 ( detailed information about the Web 2.0 and examples for the use in politics and governance in the United States during see presentations, which can be accessed via the links, and that you are including Manuscripts can download to your notes pages).
Why the EU needs policies and governance 2.0 2.0
This fact amazed all the more so as the EU border due to their special features out for politics and governance 2.0 2.0. Policy is here because it is a consortium of 27 national states, even much further away from the citizens. It is because they by a one-form in this system, which resembles neither national nor international public policy, is to operate even more incomprehensible as a national policy. The already existing nation-state separation in 27 is reinforced by the fact that no reaching across the language barrier political discussions are possible, which would be urgently needed.
In all cases, even in overcoming the language barrier, could bring Web 2.0 tools and modern translation technologies significant progress. If I want to look into foreign languages, is by using Google Translate easily possible - the results are not perfect, but absolutely well understood. A foreign language can mail in my e-mail client, Gmail, translate with one click. Why do not at least attempt to create EU discussion forums and participation channels for which this is possible?
What has the EU done so far
... is manageable, which can be a current inventory of advised in work of Adrien Czar, "they participate." Electronic means of civic participation on the portal of the European Union "(MA thesis, Tübingen, June 2010) refer. Also, you can relax in the most recent document the EU on the subject, the "Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment , which was adopted at a major conference on the topic last November, learn about the future plans. In addition, I can related to the conference published anthology, "Understanding E-Government in Europe. Issues and Challenges " recommend that the article contains some very interesting.
What should the EU
If you look at the recent EU efforts to look, are, in very pointed, in my view, to recognize two fundamental shortcomings. Once, as in the title just mentioned the anthology is expressed, the concentration of E-Government in contrast to Government 2.0 and 2.0 Governance. This means in practice that citizens are regarded primarily as a customer, which will be offered via online channels, a better service. This is a laudable undertaking, failing to notice, however, that in politics is not about the services of a company to customers. Citizens in the policy, at least in democratic systems, the carrier, even when democracy literally, the lords of politics! So you want to join not only served, but they do, should and must be allowed, and governance 2.0 adds to the possibilities.
The second deficit is in my view to see that, for example in the above-mentioned book, Understanding E-Government, primarily discussed examples and experience from Member States , instead of once a more systematic thinking about which of them distinctive requirements of the EU, as we political scientists call it not in vain, "sui generis" to do.
conclusions can be summarized briefly say that the EU is just there again, to solve their basic placement and communication problems with the Concentration on personalization to jump too short - and once more to fall into the ditch.
Why not instead, about the experiences in the United States, New Zealand, which has progressed very far in this respect, or take in the United Kingdom informed, also a representative for gov20 summit, which the 07-08.09.2010 in Washington DC Send pending, and then think specifically and systematically about what it would be especially useful for the EU?
Briefly: Go Web 2.0, Viviane!
