JACQUES DELORS
Eski Avrupa Komisyonu Ba?kan› (1985-1995)
Former President of the European Commission (1985-1995)

This initiative by the Economic and Social Committee and its president, who has put so much personal commitment and determination into it, must be hailed: not just as a matter of courtesy, but because the concept of civil society has made great progress since its inception.

Some economic and social councils attempt to gain a wider public hearing by claiming they are the representatives of civil society: others speak more specifically of civil society organisations. Lengthy perorations have been pronounced on the subject of civil society, and we could have great fun seeing how some have borne aloft the banner of civil society as their entry to politics, just to behave like other politicians once they are in. But civil society was not born yesterday and what counts is that - even if this might seem a rather brutal way of putting it - we are today living through a period of democratic disenchantment even though - and here lies the paradox - democracy vanquished totalitarianism half a century ago. Who would not rejoice at this? The Vice-President of the European Commission mentioned enlargement, for the very good reason that these countries are attempting to rebuild civil society, now they are rid of unbearable state tutelage. Civil society has been the subject of much thought over many centuries. As the Economic and Social Committee's own-initiative opinion so rightly says, it crops up at the time of the Enlightenment, as the idea of the individual was gaining currency. Certain authors, however, were already voicing fears. I do not intend to overload you with quotations, but Adam FERGUSON, for example, writing in the 18th century, argued that civil society, with all its inherent liberating power, seemed to make individuals so isolated from each other as to lose any awareness of belonging to a wider entity. And the tension between the necessary and vital expression of the individual, freed from the constraints of the period, and the need for these same individuals to be represented, to be able to voice their views at all levels, has continued ever since.

As I mentioned earlier, civil society and civil society organisations should not be confused. For this reason, I shall begin by attempting to grasp how civil society has evolved before coming back to civil society organisations, which were so outstandingly defined in Mrs. SIGMUND's opinion. This opinion provides a crystal-clear basis to work from: civil society is typified by more or less formalised institutions to which individuals may freely decide to belong, operating within a framework of the rule of law, and is the place where collective goals are set and citizens are represented.

I. Civil society at the heart of change

Let us then look at how civil society has evolved, because I believe that all those who bear political, socio-economic or other responsibilities must not think that society simply responds to their acts. Society builds itself. Consequently, it must be constantly kept under observation, in order to see the problems created not only by its growth, but also by how its aspirations and needs are met in practice. The next step is to face up to this crisis of politics - or, to put it a little more mildly, democratic disenchantment, bringing us emphatically back to the need for civil society organisations.

Civil society is on the move. It lies at the heart of the current changes. To advance faster, we have struck out from the familiar shores of the industrial society and the framework of the nation-state. We are out in midstream, headed towards what some describe as the post-industrial society, others the digital society. We are also heading towards globalisation - although I am convinced that this will not do away with the nation-state. So, we are in midstream, and we must try to understand what is happening, first of all, in society. I want to look at a number of parameters - rather commonplace ones, for which I apologise - which although important, tend to be overlooked when discussing civil society organisations.

The first, which requires no comment, is the major phenomenon of the last fifty years: the improvement in women's standing. With all its consequences, not only in philosophical terms, but also in terms of how society is organised and of the needs it generates.

Secondly, the increasingly fragile nature of the conventional family unit. And the transformation in family relationships. If I mention this, it is not to launch into a general explanation of these new family relationships, or even of single-parent families. The point is to put a question to you: who nowadays represents families as a whole and in their full diversity? Who represents them, who can give voice to their aspirations? The third parameter, similarly unoriginal: the sea-change in religious behaviour in the wake of the secularisation of political institutions over the last two centuries. Belief, participation, the feeling of belonging: all are on the move, but not in one direction only. I mean not only sects, not only the decline in religious practice, but also a kind of quest beyond dwindling religious attendance, a search for meaning which emerges in various ways. The fourth parameter, which comes closest to the concerns of the organisations represented in the Economic and Social Committee, is represented by the radical changes to the employment market as a result, in particular, of the technological revolution. What type of representation will there be in the future, as the number of trade union numbers unarguably declines, what form of social dialogue, what different levels of negotiation? Are we, as some claim, moving towards an employment market where each individual will be his own boss, negotiating a work contract with the business owner? Will we witness the disappearance of collective forms of representation, knowing as we do that we have left the Taylorist society behind us, stepping forward into a universe where workers will become more independent? Workers are now expected not only to perform their tasks, but to supervise them too, and professionals are already beginning to appear on the global market who act in some ways independently of company constraints, and are in demand on the employment market. The differing situations of company employees, who have to adapt but still have work contracts and locate the added value of their efforts within the company structure, and all those others who are subject to the flexibility of the labour market must be a major issue for debate among socio-occupational bodies, employers' organisations and trade unions if they wish to continue legitimately claiming that they can express the aspirations and needs of those concerned. In the final analysis, it is the entire European model in its various forms of consultation and negotiation, which is in question. I am not saying that it is bound to vanish but it is in question and we cannot carry on as if nothing was happening and ignore it. Those who are thrown one way and another by the labour market do not share the same needs or safeguards as those who are sought-after professionals on the world market.

The fifth parameter in this evolving situation is the European town. This has been much discussed in our dialogue with our friends in eastern and central Europe over recent years. Beyond the differences created by the harsh historical imperatives which subjected these countries to communism, the cities and towns of Europe has remained - even there - an essential element in European civilisation and a common point shared by all, a form of expression of our civilisation and of our identity. Trading towns, cities of culture, towns displaying all the signs of the new forms of social exclusion, the city as a social arena or otherwise. The town, the lynch-pin of spatial planning. Will the Internet destroy the sociability which towns facilitate? Who represents towns and cities? Who speaks for them today? Mayors and city leaders, of course, but who takes account of these elements in the policies which are defined at our level. By this I mean spatial planning policy, but also social exclusion and many other aspects too.

The sixth and last parameter is the growth of associative activity. In our discussions with our friends from central and eastern Europe, we can see that this too is an issue for them: how to reinvent civil society actors. Of course, they are creative, they have their own traditions, but we do need to help them. It has been calculated that associations, mutual societies and cooperatives together have a membership of 250 million Europeans, of an EU population of 370 million. Looking at associative movements alone - I shall distinguish between associations, mutual societies and cooperatives later - almost 100 million people are involved. What is more, in comparison with the associative movements of 30 years ago, young people readily switch from one to another. They do not stay long in any one association. As citizens, they are trying to find the best way to express themselves. This emerged clearly by an investigation into the lack of interest in politics among young people, carried out by Tony Blair in Britain. These younger generations are aware of collective problems, but they no longer trust politicians to do anything about them. So, they attempt to commit themselves when they have the commitment and the time to resolve some of the problems which arise. It is not a question of unawareness or indifference, but a kind of distancing, for a number of reasons, from the political class, and a knowledge of the problems which must be resolved: it is what you do in a close-at-hand democracy. Moreover, these associations have already accomplished a large amount of work. My personal feeling, borne out by more careful and better qualified observers then myself, is that together with the Economic and Social Committee, associations lobbied hard for the Amsterdam Treaty. As a result, the Treaty contains texts on public services, on combating discrimination and even on combating poverty - although it is the poor relation of our activities - which owe much to the work of associations and the Economic and Social Committee.

I believe these are some pointers to understanding society to which I will return shortly, in connection with civil society organisations. We must feel the pulse of this society, we must try to understand it. Of course we are looking at this problem in the context of a crisis of politics.

II. Politics in crisis

This is firstly a crisis of meaning. You will remember how our thinkers, followed by the media, announced the death of God in the sixties, followed by the death of ideology - these latter managing to kill themselves off unaided. Now, people feel an emptiness: if this emptiness is not filled, there is a danger of - please excuse the expression - economics perpetrating a kind of hold-up on politics. Surveying the political scene, economics account for 70 to 80% of the issues and it is axiomatic among many politicians that if you don't have a good grasp of economic questions, you can forget about becoming prime minister. But politics is more than economic management. If economics comes to dominate politics, then where is the transcendental, synthesising role of politics?

A second feature which I feel to be of great importance: society has become emotional, under the influence - it has to be said - of the media. We see events in real time, and we tend to adopt the fast-food approach to them: quickly prepared, quickly eaten, quickly digested and quickly forgotten. The tyranny of the short-term looms over us: bereft of memory or heritage, without the traditions borne by your organisations, we cannot invent a future. The emotional society is probably one of the greatest dangers currently facing the consolidation of democracy. The third element, which is really a kind of counterpart to the second, is the emergence of a democracy of opinions. An intellectual once said that the 19th century was the century of parliaments, the 20th is the century of the masses and the 21st will be the century of public opinion. But the emergence of a democracy of opinion raises serious questions. What is the future for our parliaments? They pass laws, hold debates, but what influence do they have on a political leader faced with an opinion poll? The question needs to be asked, and not only in France, where our republican monarchy scarcely interests itself in parliament: I am speaking in more general terms. Secondly, what will become of the social ombudsmen that you are, as leaders of employers' organisations, trade unions, farm associations? What can they do? Will they do operate in response to opinion polls? As you know all too well, opinion polls are partly dictated by "hidden persuading". If you ask people "do you like porno films", they will say "no", of course. Would you like to work less? They will reply "yes" - a great help in understanding exactly what society wants and how it works. In other words, without ignoring polls, we must know how to reflect citizens' needs and aspirations. And that is the duty of civil society organisations. A fourth reason for crisis or confusion: the slowing impetus of social and economic models which previously worked, especially in Europe. These are models which the central and eastern European countries are attempting to build, at least in part, to replace the old subservient official unions, the lack of private businesses, etc. This slowing down firstly raises a philosophical question. Are our models, what I like to call the European social model, guilty only of getting the balance wrong between collective responsibility and individual responsibility? Are we not all tending too much to become State creditors? Where does individual responsibility fit into all this? This clearly concerns you too. Just as the expression of exaggerated individualism could be transformed with a sharper sense of individual responsibility. Let's take an example. Our young people will all have to face up to changes in their working lives. Everyone says so. Jobs change, businesses change. Faced with these occupational hazards, should the welfare state tell people "we'll look after it", or should individuals be effectively armed to cope with these ups and downs through an educational system based on equality of opportunity? All the efforts currently being made to try to reintegrate young people into society are based on the concept that they bear a responsibility to find their place on the employment market. And it is not just the fault of the state, the family or anything else if they cannot do so.

This raises the problem of a new balance between the global market, the open market and the institutions. By institutions I mean the state, the central banks and also the organisations which some of you represent. Lastly, it raises the problem of funding - which is what started us thinking - tied in with demography, lengthening life expectancy, a lower birth-rate, weaker economic activity on account of unemployment and with technological progress, all of which are making health policy ever more expensive.

Lastly, the final element contributing to the political confusion: the difficulty the nation-state experiences in keeping its bearings, pulled in separate global and local directions . Adding this to the democracy of opinions, the work before us becomes clear. Many of you "think globally": even I do sometimes. I try to explain what is happening in my country, in one sector of activity, in terms of the global shift, globalisation, the global financial market and so on. There is no point getting angry about it, it is happening. But the man and woman in the street "think locally". They are baffled by this global world which they cannot control. So, reconciling the local and the global is a vital element in restoring politics to its former position of prestige and efficacy. From a broader point of view, however, and since we are in Europe, we might ask whether the European Union is not the ideal intermediary between the nation-states, which are losing their means of exercising influence, and the "global" aspect. In other words, I am sure the history books will, in a few year's time, be looking at the European Union from two different angles. One will of course be the European Union according to the Treaty, according to the founding fathers of Europe, as a desire to establish peace and create a political Europe, a political project: the other will be the European Union as an example of a regional organisation which is helping to find its bearings in the never-ending inch-by-inch progress of globalisation: as such, it is already being imitated by Mercosur and in the future, I am convinced, by the ASEAN countries, which have understood the limits of simple informal consultation between their members, and who are considering how to create formal institutions.

III. The need for civil society organisations

These seem to me to be factors that call not just for political discussion but also for action and discussion by civil society organisations. These organisations, as I have said, and as Mrs Sigmund has clearly indicated, are not entirely free of the representation of what are sometimes corporatist interests. Civil society organisations must not give in to the temptation of saying they represent the general interest. They may identify the general interest in their discussions. But that is quite a different thing. As for the associative interests that flourish around the European Commission, it would be dangerous for those involved to become too much a part of the system; to believe they alone have the right to represent society. Associative interests move just as society moves, and care must therefore be taken not to ensconce privileged lobby groups while ignoring everything that emerges from society as it evolves. But I think that more than ever we are counting on the representatives of civil society organisations to have their finger on the pulse of society. And as I have said, not just through polls. My rather wry comment about the risk of associative interests becoming part of the system - which I trust will not be taken amiss - was simply a way of politely saying that this poses serious problems of representativeness. Political representativeness is achieved through elections, trade union representativeness through number of members, representatives elected to different authorities, but for other organisations things are a lot more complicated. Thus as new ideas can emerge outside of traditional contexts, a solution has to be found. I have noted that in its opinion the ESC proposes that a body be set up to liaise with those not represented on the Committee rather than waste its time discussing whether to create a fourth group. I would like this interactive formula to be open and not linked only to associations and groups that are already represented.

The second area where civil society organisations are necessary is the traditional need for mediation. This need is all the more essential in a democracy of opinions where political actors may be daunted by the gulf between them and ordinary people. Or they may be daunted when asked on television: "What are you going to do about such and such a catastrophe?" There is not even the option of asking for a breathing space. The answer has to be immediate. And it is impossible to give an immediate answer. There has to be time to think. Thus mediation by civil society can help to improve the governance of society.

The third justification for civil society organisations is the need for expertise, given the increasing complexity of problems, the enigmas of science, the obsession with zero risk, exacerbated by the emotional society. Somebody who smokes 30 cigarettes a day will demand zero risk in some other area of activity, forgetting that the risk they run is an individual concern. There is no such thing as zero risk. Life is an adventure, and everybody has to take responsibility for their own actions. This is not a reason not to try and understand the complexities of dioxins, mad cow disease, GMOs, etc., since these are certainly serious problems. I remember that in less complex times, in the 1970s and at the beginning of the 1980s, the Economic and Social Committee played a crucial role in creating the internal market. The ESC's opinions, on technical rules, on standards and harmonisation, were excellent opinions which were a valuable complement to the Commission's work.

We might ask whether today civil society organisations close to the Economic and Social Committee could give us some clues here. There is much talk of doping in sport. Obviously people are looking for scapegoats. The favourite scapegoat is the cyclist, the last of the proletarian sportsmen. But nobody has ever asked scientists what a cyclist or a football player needs in terms of food and supplements in order to recuperate and practise a very demanding sport, and at what point they start to cheat or put their own health on the line. I see nothing happening on this question, but it seems to me that there should be place where it can be raised. Not that politics should depend on science. The Chernobyl disaster happened while I was Commission President. A group of scientists met. Unfortunately some of the 12 representatives were more concerned about the interests of their own country than about scientific matters. So I have no illusions. But I still believe that civil society organisations must shoulder their responsibilities in this area to inform the general public and to allay certain pointless fears. If we distance ourselves from these issues we can clearly see how many mistakes have been made and stupid remarks made.

The fourth need of civil society is to seek a new synthesis between the market and contracts. The market is open, but as everyone knows it has its limits, it is short-sighted, it does not consider long-term interests in respect of collective assets, it does not express needs, it does not direct activities as well as we would wish. We therefore need a minimum number of ground rules. I would rather not use the word "regulation", which might annoy some, but we do at least need ground rules. Which implies concertation and negotiation. And basically the Economic and Social Committee is well placed to propose these new ground rules.

Finally, my fifth and last point, to justify this need for civil society organisations, is the contribution to better functioning of the European Union. Mrs Sigmund's opinion is very clear on this question, though it is somewhat hard. The European Union faces a lack of confidence among its citizens, who accuse it of being inefficient, point to democratic deficits and demand to be more involved in decision-making. So how can we help to improve matters? Of course institutions must adapt, responsibilities must be clarified, subsidiarity must be better applied in both directions and not used as an excuse. A charter seems to be needed, as the Commission's Vice-President reminded us, which will be the responsibility of a task force. This German initiative, taken up by the Finnish Presidency, will be referred to a preparatory body, but it brings us back to the golden role for striving to achieve improved functioning of the EU: listen, listen, listen to what society says, interpret what it has said clearly and then when responsibility has been assumed, also by civil society organisations, inform, inform, inform.

I believe that the task of making European integration a joint and participatory undertaking for those who want that is a daunting one. To achieve this, we need European statutes for your organisations. I know that it is extremely difficult for cooperatives, as there is a huge difference between the big cooperatives like Crédit Agricole and Rabo Bank and the small cooperatives. I know that it is very difficult for mutual societies, because here we are looking at the question of "Europeanising" social security systems, and we have not reached this stage yet. But there should at the very least be a European statute of association in order to avoid complex procedures, pointless expense and to make associations take on more responsibility, notably vis-à-vis the European Commission, which gives them a lot of support. It seems to me that these things are what justify civil society organisations. The Economic and Social Committee has decided to be the new pioneer of European democracy, with all the risks that this involves. In order to play this role, civil society organisations must, if they want to succeed, be constantly in touch with civil society in the widest sense of the term. This is why I started my speech by some thoughts on the changes in civil society.

JACQUES DELORS: "DEMOKRATİK HAYALKIRIKLIĞI YAŞANAN BİR DÖNEMDEYİZ"

Bazı ekonomik ve sosyal konseyler, sivil toplumun temsilcileri olduğunu iddia ederek kamuoyunun ilgisini çekmeyi amaçlıyor. Sivil toplum ortaya yeni çıkmadı. Yüzyıllardan beri sivil toplum üzerine düŞünce üretiliyor. Ancak sivil toplum ile sivil toplum kuruluŞları birbirine karıŞtırılmamalı. 1. DeğiŞimin kalbinde yer alan sivil toplum

Toplum kendi kendini oluŞturur. Bu oluŞumun getirdiği sorunları görebilmek ve gerekli ihtiyaçların karŞılanabilmesi için toplumu sürekli gözlemek gerekir. Sivil toplum Şu anda hareket halindedir. KüreselleŞmeye, dijital toplum olmaya doğru bir hareket. Toplum içinde olup bitenleri anlayabilmek için bakmamız gereken parametrelerden en önemlisi, kadınların toplum içindeki durumudur. İkinci olarak da, geleneksel ailenin konumu gelmektedir. Üçüncü parametre ise, siyasi kurumların sekülerleŞmesi neticesinde dini davranıŞlardaki değiŞikliklerdir. Teknolojik devrim sonrasında ortaya çıkan istihdam piyasası da, dördüncü parametredir. BeŞinci olarak bakılması gereken, Avrupa kentlerinin içinde bulunduğu durumdur. Son parametre ise katılımcı faaliyetlerin durumudur.

2. Kriz dönemlerinde siyaset

Günümüzde insanlar kendilerini boŞluk içinde hissediyorlar. Bu boŞluk doldurulmadığı takdirde ekonominin siyaseti bütünüyle etkisi altına alması kaçınılmaz. Ancak siyaset yalnızca ekonominin yönetimi demek değildir. İkinci bir husus da Şu: toplum, medyanın etkisiyle daha duygusal hale geldi. Demokrasinin yerleŞmesinin önündeki en önemli engellerden biri de bu meseledir. Bir diğer konu da görüŞler demokrasisinin ortaya çıkıŞıdır. Daha önce baŞarılı bazı sosyal ve ekonomik modellerin etkilerinin azalması da krize sebep olan bir baŞka etkendir. Burada, global pazar, serbest piyasa ve kurumlar arasındaki denge sorunu ortaya çıkıyor. Siyasi anlamda karıŞıklığa sebep olan son unsur da, ulus-devletler döneminde edinilen deneyimlerin yetersiz kalmasıdır. Yapılması gereken, 'global düŞünmek' ve yerel ile küresel arasında bir uzlaŞma sağlayıp siyaseti eski itibarlı ve verimli konumuna geri getirmektir.

3. Sivil toplum kuruluŞlarına duyulan ihtiyaç

Bu kuruluŞlar, genel menfaatleri temsil ettikleri yanılgısına düŞmemeli. Yaptıkları tartıŞmalarda toplumun genel eğilimlerini tespit edebilirler, ancak bunu yalnızca anketler yoluyla yapmamalılar. Sivil toplum kuruluŞları ayrıca aracılık görevi görmektedir. Sivil toplumun siyasetçiler ve halk arasında yapacağı aracılık, toplumun daha iyi yönetilmesi ve yönlendirilmesi için gereklidir. Sivil toplum kuruluŞları, halkı genel anlamda bilgilendirmek ve yersiz korkuları gidermek konusunda üzerlerine düŞeni yerine getirmelidir. Piyasalarla, kural ve düzenlemeler arasında yeni bir sentez bulmak da sivil toplum için son derece önemlidir. Piyasanın istediğimiz yönde faaliyet gösterebilmesi için en azından bazı temel kurallara ihtiyacımız var. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Konsey de bu yeni temel kuralları önerebilecek bir konumda. Avrupa Birliği'nin iŞlevlerini daha iyi yerine getirebilmesi için de sivil toplum kuruluŞları gerekli. Toplumun taleplerine çok iyi kulak verilmeli ve bu kuruluŞlar yoluyla toplum çok iyi bilgilendirilmelidir. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Komisyon'un, Avrupa demokrasisinin baŞını çekebilmesi için sivil toplum kuruluŞlarının, sivil toplumla bağlarının çok sıkı olması gerekmektedir.

Elegans'a mail