FORMATION OF NATIONAL POSITIONS ON EU LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS IN SLOVENIA: WHAT ROLE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS?

AuthorLajh, Damjan
  1. Introduction

    When thinking about policymaking, we initially consider the question of jurisdiction --what the government has decided to do or not to do (Dye, 1972). However, the recent globalization and Europeanisation processes mean there is often more than one source of authority available. Probably the clearest case of the intertwined relationship of national and supranational policymaking perspectives is the European Union (EU). Successful participation in EU policymaking requires Member States to effectively formulate national positions prior to negotiating in the Council of the EU. Preparing strong and convincing national positions is an important challenge in terms of their efficiency and democratic legitimacy. In this article, we are thus interested in characteristics of the EU policymaking process from the national perspective, especially the involvement of 'civil society organizations (CSOs)' while formulating national positions before negotiations begin in the Council of the EU.

    EU policymaking never takes place in a vacuum, but instead in the context of multiple locations where policy issues are addressed, namely local to global levels and involving both formal and informal processes (Wallace, 2010, p. 90). With power divided vertically and horizontally, EU decision-making is affected by the combination of the multitude of access points and the demanding rules of governing decision-making process (Princen, 2009, p. 40), requiring that any differences between domestic and EU policymaking settings be overcome by streamlining and adapting national actions to the sectoral divisions and 'rhythm' of the EU policy process (Gartner, Horner and Obholzer, 2011, p. 80). Observations of EU policymaking must consider the multilevel setting of the EU. In many policy sectors, the EU is an essential--if not the most important--decision-making venue where governments play for high stakes. Decisions taken in Brussels can have far-reaching consequences for the Member States. Therefore, it is no surprise that at least in some policy areas there is particularly intense pressure on governments to effectively coordinate their activities with respect to EU policymaking (Kassim, 2001, p. 9; Fink-Hafner, 2007; Zurga, 2018). As such, national political institutions are vital components of the EU's institutional architecture. According to Wallace (2010, p. 89), national actors play important and influential roles at all stages of the EU policy process. Of course, the roles held by these actors here vary slightly from those they perform at the national level. National ministers, for example, sit together in the Council and have an important role in adopting legislation, albeit one where they represent their own interests and those of their constituents (Young, 2010, p. 50). Special importance is given here to the formation of national policy preferences and positions. Participation in the Council calls for coordination since meetings must be prepared and positions defended at different levels and across different sectors (Kassim, 2001, p. 10). However, the forming of national policy preferences does not take place in splendid domestic isolation, but is also subject to exogenous pressures (Kassim, 2001, p. 10), especially from various organized interests. However, opportunities for access and influence are not evenly distributed within Member States (Wallace, 2010, p. 89), forcing organized interests to seek different channels beyond the state (1) to influence the EU-level decision-making by way of either direct access to EU institutions or via institutionalized bodies (i.e., the Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions).

    Learning how to manage this extra dimension of national public policy has in the past 50 years been a key challenge for national governments (Wallace, 2010, p. 89). Especially the new Member States from Central and Eastern Europe face several specific domestic challenges that impede the efficient coordination of and effective participation in the policymaking process: a shortage of resources and expertise concerning EU affairs, financial constraints, the lack of certain skills among civil servants (i.e., insufficient knowledge of the formal/ informal working mechanisms and rules of EU policymaking, deficient language skills), the politicization of the bureaucracies, all occurring while governments (often coalitions) in those countries regularly change (Gartner, Horner and Obholzer, 2011, pp. 80-82), leading to frequent (institutional) alterations in how EU affairs are coordinated at the domestic level.

    In our analysis we focus on the case of Slovenia. We believe Slovenia is a good selection among newer Member States when looking at the inclusion of CSOs in EU policymaking from the (bottom-up) perspective of national administrations. Slovenia is a new democracy with a socialist past, a newer member often characterized as 'a good student' (Fink-Hafner and Lajh, 2008). Further, it is a small state with modest resources (Krasovec and Lajh, 2010), and a country with a vibrant civil society (Crnak-Meglic and Rakar, 2009, p. 240). With this study we want to contribute to the question how national positions are formed prior to starting negotiations in the Council from the perspective of the role of CSOs (2) in the domestic public sector, i.e. in the process of domestic coordination of EU affairs.

    The article uses varied methodology from secondary analysis of legislation that define the coordination of EU affairs in Slovenia, a survey conducted among national officials at Slovenian ministries working in the area of EU affairs (MZZ, Directorate for EU Affairs), analyses of two Stakeholder meetings (2015a, 2015b) and interviews conducted among national officials that cooperated in the preparation of national positions on the 20 most salient EU directive proposals (www.intereuro.eu; also see Beyers et al., 2014).

    After the introductory section, the article is structured as follows. The second section offers an overview of the current coordination of EU affairs in Slovenia and the ways CSOs are included in this process. The third section relies on survey data to analyze the inclusion of CSOs in formulating the national position regarding EU legislative proposals. Finally, the fourth section summarizes the main findings and evaluates how the Slovenian political system has been adapted to EU policymaking.

    The article argues that coordination of EU affairs in Slovenia does not anticipate the participation of CSOs in preparing national positions towards EU proposals. In this way, the expertise and information held by CSOs are neglected. Although national officials recognize the benefits of CSOs' inclusion in preparation of national positions, they also have reservations since they are afraid they would be overburdened, this will lead to more bureaucratic work and that such participation may lead to corruption and non-transparent practices. The national position is typically formed at a lower bureaucratic level and based on the European Commission's proposal.

  2. Forming national positions on proposed EU legislation in Slovenia: limited access for CSOs?

    CSOs can be relevant actors in the practice of forming national positions vis-a-vis EU legislative proposals. They can make the policymaking process more efficient since CSOs often encompass relevant information and expert opinions lacking among national officials and ensure the citizens' participation in the whole process (Saurugger, 2008, pp. 1276-1277). The ways CSOs are included in formulating national positions on EU legislation often depend on a particular country's system for coordinating EU affairs. After joining the EU, Slovenia has started actively participating in forming EU policies and legislation. Consequently, this aspect of EU affairs becoming part of domestic policies demanded changes be made to Slovenia's political system. The newly established relationship between the Slovenian and EU political systems was defined by amendments to the Constitution introduced in 2003 (3). A year later (in March 2004), the National Assembly--government relationship in decision-making on EU affairs was codified (4). The executive branch took over the role of representing and arguing Slovenia's position in EU institutions. The National Assembly, in contrast, is included in formulating the national position regarding EU affairs (5).

    EU membership was a turning point in the development of coordinating EU affairs at the Slovenian national administrative level. Following the initial polycentric stage, the coordination of EU affairs began to exhibit tendencies towards centralization. It started with the establishment of the Government Office for European Affairs (GOEA)' (at the end of 1997), led by a minister without portfolio, and the formation of the Negotiating Team of the Republic of Slovenia for Accession to the EU (Fink-Hafner, 2007, pp. 818-819). In the period of EU membership (coinciding with the change of government in autumn 2004), the central political coordination point in the hierarchy of the domestic management of European affairs shifted towards the Prime Minister, where it was finally consolidated during Slovenia's Presidency of the Council of the EU (Lajh, 2010). Following Slovenia's formal entry to the EU, EU affairs then became 'internalized' as a domestic matter. This process impacted the majority of officials at the national level, although the shortage of 'European specialists' in Slovenia's relatively small administration was quite evident during the phase of Slovenia's accession to the EU and has also continued in the country's EU membership (Lajh, 2012). The problem of limited staff became especially acute during Slovenia's Presidency of the Council of the EU (Fink-Hafner and Lajh, 2008). It is also noteworthy that a considerable share of so-called EU staff/ specialists have moved to either EU institutions or the Permanent...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT