Łukasik-Duszyńska M. (2014). E-Communciation. European Union and its citizens. In: Servicios en el...

Sermed Servicios en el Área de Libre Comercio Euromediterránea. Libro de Actas Euro-Mediterranean Services Congress

487 Euro-Mediterranean Services Congress. 9-11 abril de 2014 Fac. CC. Económicas, Empresariales y Turismo. Universidad de Alcalá. Madrid. España. ISBN: 978-84-695-9987-7

Author: Monika Łukasik-Duszyńska

University of Social Sciences and Humanities

Faculty in Wroclaw (Poland)

Email: [email protected]

Title: E-COMMUNICATION. EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS CITIZENS

Abstract:

The Author of this study is discussing the problem of the Internet - as a medium for

exchanging information between the EU institutions and its citizens. The question put forward

is whether the Internet is a platform for debate, or is it only used as an information,

propaganda tool by politicians for the presentation of their policy decisions. In the publication

she presents the tools that EU citizens can use to make known their needs, expectations and

give their support for the political decisions taken by the decision-making bodies of the

European Union.

KEY WORDS:

communication strategy of the European Union, citizens, integration,.

Introduction

The essence of democracy is not only a well - informed citizen, but also an

informative and responsive to social needs - politicians. That is why, the flow of information

from the bottom to the top of the social ladder, from citizens to the decision-making elite and

political institutions is very important. It should not be limited only to the participation of

mailto:[email protected]



communities in the elections or referendums, but also should take the form of wide

consultation and broader debate.

Communication is also an important process in European Union (EU) policy between

societies of Member States and the policies of the EU institutions. Increasingly, there are

opinions that without support of its citizens, the integration will not go any further.

Meanwhile, the lack of interest in EU matters, means European Community as such hardly

exists in the hearts and minds of its citizens. The European Parliament (EP) already in 2010

drew attention to the fact that although websites have vast resources of information, the

Europeans are not interested in the integration process. Also, during the last few years there

has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout in the elections to the EP . And a lack of support

of the citizens in referendums for subsequent treaties adopted by the European Union This

political project is in a poor state. It seems, that the flow of information between citizens,

media, politicians and representatives of the EU institutions and their mutual perception,

depends on the efficiency of communication. It has a direct impact on the functioning of the

European Union.

In this study I present how the Internet is used - as a medium for the exchange of

information between the EU institutions and its citizens. The problem whether the Internet is a

platform for debate, or is it only used as an information and/or propaganda tool by politicians

for the presentation of their policy decisions is discussed. I present the tools that EU citizens

can use to make known their needs, expectations and support for the political decisions taken

by the decision-making bodies of the European Union. This essay is a heavily abbreviated

English version of my Polish book European Union and Its Citizens. Online Information or

Communication? (Unia Europejska a jej obywatele. Informowanie czy komunikowanie się w

internecie?) (Wydawnictwo Naukowe Katedra 2014).



The Communication Strategy

The results of the public opinion surveys conducted among Europeans indicate that

most of them do not want to be involved in the political process of the European Union. The

deepening of the integration is rejected by societies in referendums of successive treaties as

well as the declining turnout in elections to the European Parliament meant that the EU

institutions began to apply more and more attention to creating an easy access to information

about the functioning of the European Union. In time, it was noted that the information is not

sufficient to change the attitude of society and it is necessary to take other actions that could

influence social activation and participation in the debate on the future of the Union. So

European Union began to develop a strategy for communicating with citizens.

In the main documents signed after 2000 the emphasis has been put on the fact that the

EU policy needs to be more open, easier to follow, and understand (European Commission

2001b). Commission was the first institution, which began redefining its relationship with the

media and developing the communication strategy. In June 2001 a memorandum was

adopted: Towards the e-Commission: Implementation Strategy 2001-2005 in which the

Commission (2001a) stresses that it wants to “serve citizens and business better and to

interact and communicate more quickly and efficiently with partner institutions and public

bodies”. Significant for this document was the drawing of attention to the modern

technologies that opened up unprecedented opportunities for the Commission. The

Commission has progressively introduced internet technologies as the fastest and most

efficient means of informing the outside world of its policies and programs.

Soon after the White Paper (14-15 December 2001) in Laeken the European Council

adopted Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union. In it the demand “to

become more democratic, more transparent and more efficient” has been stressed.

Additionally in the next years it has been stated that the vision of the future of Europe must be



built on a clear understanding of citizen’s needs and expectations. To achieve this goal, the

Commission must stimulate a wider public debate on the role and the functioning of the EU.

Efforts had been made to be more responsive to the citizens so that the European Union could

address the concerns expressed by them. It has been stressed that the EU citizens are entitled

to have their voices heard. Very important was the document Action plan to improve

communicating Europe by the Commission adopted in 2005 by the European Commission.

The three main slogans of the plan were: careful “listening,” better “communicating” and

connecting with citizens by “going local” (p. 4). In the plan the emphasis has been put on

communication which is more than just information, as it helps to establish relationships and

initiates a dialogue with EU citizens. It has been noted that “communication is a dialogue, not

a one-way street.” And that the EU institutions are expected not only to inform EU citizens,

but citizens should also have the possibility to express their own opinions in such a way, that

the Commission could understand their points of view and concerns (p. 4).

In the following documents the main points and priorities of communication strategy

were repeated. In the internal statement Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate

Commission stated that it is very important „to stimulate a wider debate” and „…EU citizens

must have the right to have their voices heard”. But also it was stressed that “the Commission

believes that its role is to assist rather than replace Member States in the organization of

national debates. The Commission will work with national Governments to help organize and

fund of events promoting the debate”. In 2006 was adopted and published the White Paper on

a European Communication Policy. It was noticed that “over the last two decades, the

European Union has been transformed…But Europe’s communication with its citizens has not

kept pace”. It was confirmed that there is a “gap between the European Union and its

citizens”. In reading the document one should pay attention to two things. On the one hand, it

is once again an analysis of the problem, on the other hand, focuses on how to fix it. The main



symptoms of the malaise were stated quite precisely: too little coordination between the

political actors, insufficient involvement at the national, regional and local level; too little

focus on issues concerning citizens (Kurpas, Bruggemann, Meyer, 2006, p 3).

During the next years not much has been changed. In the statement Communicating

Europe in Partnership European Commission again confirmed, that European institutions

attach the utmost importance to improve communication with citizens (European

Commission, 2007, p. 3). About the need for the involvement of the EU institutions and

Member States at all levels in informing society about the functioning of the European Union

was also mentioned by the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the Joint Declaration

Communicating Europe in Partnership in 2008. In the next documents nothing much has been

changed (see more: Łukasik-Duszyńska, 2014).

On communication with citizens in 2010 by European Parliament’ Committee on

Culture and Education prepared a Draft Report on journalism and new media – creating

public sphere in Europe. The report discusses how communication can initiate, encourage and

further European debate and the flow of information. It was stressed that “because of the

complexity no-one takes direct responsibility and leaders are quick to blame the EU in the case of

negative polls or public opinion on EU matters. Consequently, it is essential that the responsible

leaders in Member States and EU institutions assume responsibility”. But who is the “responsible

leader”? No one has been mentioned by name or position. It was repeated that “the key instrument

to overcoming this gap is communication”. The problem was not the lack of information, but

activities that focus on delivering that information were not enough. Moreover, for the very

first time an important role has been granted to the online social media, such as Twitter and

Facebook. It has been stressed that social media can reach new audiences who have no

interest in conventional media channels. So, to reach these audiences “one must be where the

conversation takes place”, on Facebook, Twitter, and other online social networks. It has been



admitted that social media has a tremendous potential to communicate with young people, an

age group that the EU has traditionally found particularly hard to reach” (p.11).

During the next years, the EU institutions attached great importance to communicating

with citizens. But their is an apparent similarity of the issued documents. First, they are very

general. Second, they repeat over and over again the same statements. It has always been the

specified recipient - the citizens of the European Union, the main goal - the transparency of

the EU and facilitate Europeans participation in the debate on the European Union and even

the means by which it was to be done - the transparency of the institution through activities

carried out by the Member States, in the media and on the Internet. In addition, Commission

confirmed the responsibility of Member States for the implementation of the communication

strategy. The documents were still repeating about the gap in communication between the

European Union and its citizens, and the need to improve the communication process. As

before were mentioned challenges rather than specific solutions and actions. In Europe there

is a variety of languages, ethnic and cultural identities, people differ in their religion, age,

intellectual or financial status. Thus, it seems that there should be developed for each group a

specific action plan. But despite successive iterations over the years in the documents is

visible a small step forward in thinking. Discussions among representatives of the EU

institutions led to the introduction, of the so important process of consultation and European

Citizens' Initiative.

Internet

In the discussed documents, is visible a somewhat conservative attitude of the main

EU institutions in relation to the role of the Internet in the communication process. Over the

years, as the main and most important tool are still considered the audiovisual media (see

more: Łukasik-Duszyńska, 2013). However, gradually one can observe the of changing the



approach of the Union to the network. This can be seen even on the example the biggest EU

website EUROPA, which initially was treated only as a way of providing information to the

citizens, and over time began to define its role as a tool which should stimulate interaction

between the EU institutions and Europeans. The rapid increase in the number of users on the

Internet, and especially social networks, affects the changing attitudes and encourages the

growth of representatives of EU activity in this field. The fact, that “it took television 13 years

to reach 50 million viewers - Facebook reached 100 million users in just a few months.” - is

not without significance (European Parliament, 2010b). The European Commission is the

institution responsible for delivering the message on the way European Union functions.

Each of the EU institutions provides information on its activity and takes separate measures to

inform the citizens how it works. There is no cooperation between them on the Internet sites.

At the same time Internet is an important instrument in initiating a public debate.

Electronic technology creates a good environment for political participation. It

provides an opportunity for the education of European citizens, as well as encourages them to

discuss the common good and support self-identification (Street, 2001, p. 186). Internet at the

moment is a forum for truly free exchange of ideas and views. So far, it was very difficult to

gather in one place and time a large number of people. However, in electronic democracy

time and place do not matter. Communication and participation can be immediate. In addition,

the information on any subject is relatively easily available, if we know how to look for it.

Citizens can, of course, if they want to, vote and debate public affairs or directly participate in

policy making. The problem at the moment is the fact that part of the EU society does not

have access to the Internet, but from year to year the number of people with access to the

Internet increases (see more table number 1). In the European Union the number of people

using the Internet and social networking sites is growing. In the year 2011 - 338 millions

citizens used the Internet (67.3 percent of population (502 millions)). One year later in 2012 it



was already 368 million (73 per cent of whole population (503 millions)) – for more details

see table number 1.

Table 1. Internet Usage in the European Union – EU 27.

EUROPEAN

UNION

Population

(2011 Est.)

Internet

Users, 31-

Mar-11

Penetration

(%

Population)

Population

( 2012 Est. )

Internet Users,

30-June-12

Penetration

(%

Population)

Austria 8,217,280 6,143,600 74.8 % 8,219,743 6,559,355 79.8 %

Belgium 10,431,477 8,113,200 77.8 % 10,438,353 8,489,901 81.3 %

Bulgaria 7,093,635 3,395,000 47.9 % 7,037,935 3,589,347 51.0 %

Cyprus 1,120,489 433,900 38.7 % 1,138,071 656,439 57.7 %

Czech

Republic 10,190,213 6,680,800 65.6 % 10,177,300 7,426,376 73.0 %

Denmark 5,529,888 4,750,500 85.9 % 5,543,453 4,989,108 90.0 %

Estonia 1,282,963 971,700 75.7 % 1,274,709 993,785 78.0 %

Finland 5,259,250 4,480,900 85.2 % 5,262,930 4,703,480 89.4 %

France 62,102,719 45,262,000 69.5 % 65,630,692 52,228,905 79.6 %

Germany 81,471,834 65,125,000 79.9 % 81,305,856 67,483,860 83.0 %

Greece 10,760,136 4,970,700 46.2 % 10,767,827 5,706,948 53.0 %

Hungary 9,973,062 6,176,400 61.9 % 9,958,453 6,516,627 65.4 %

Ireland 4,670,976 3,042,600 65.1 % 4,722,028 3,627,462 76.8 %

Italy 61,016,804 30,026,400 49.2 % 61,261,254 35,800,000 58.4 %

Latvia 2,204,708 1,503,400 68.2 % 2,191,580 1,570,925 71.7 %

Lithuania 3,535,547 2,103,471 59.5 % 3,525,761 2,293,508 65.1 %

Luxembourg 503,302 424,500 84.3 % 509,074 462,697 90.9 %

Malta 408,333 240,600 58.9 % 409,836 282,648 69.0 %

Netherlands 16,847,007 14,872,200 88.3 % 16,730,632 15,549,787 92.9 %

Poland 38,441,588 22,452,100 58.4 % 38,415,284 24,940,902 64.9 %

Portugal 10,760,305 5,168,800 48.0 % 10,781,459 5,950,449 55.2 %

Romania 21,904,551 7,786,700 35.5 % 21,848,504 9,642,383 44.1 %

Slovakia 5,477,038 4,063,600 74.2 % 5,483,088 4,337,868 79.1 %

Slovenia 2,000,092 1,298,500 64.9 % 1,996,617 1,440,066 72.1 %

Spain 46,754,784 29,093,984 62.2 % 47,042,984 31,606,233 67.2 %

Sweden 9,088,728 8,397,900 92.4 % 9,103,788 8,441,718 92.7 %

United

Kingdom 62,698,362 51,442,100 82.0 % 63,047,162 52,731,209 83.6 %

Total

European

Union

502,748,071 338,420,555 67.3 % 503,824,373 368,021,986 73.0 %

Source: Internet World Stats1.

1 Internet World Stats: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats9.htm (6.02.2012 i 09.03.2014).



EUROPA website

It is worth noting that EU information at present available on many different Internet

websites. But website EUROPA is certainly an important portal to be used by the member

states’ societies dealing the EU matters. It is administered by the European Commission, and

contains basic information about EU member states, institutions, topics, activities, and

conditions of life in 24 official languages. It also provides access to the most important – from

a clerks’ point of view – documents and union publications. Apart from that it informs about

contacts through which one can regularly receive bulletins on activities of individual EU

institutions or electronic versions of documents. Next one has to contact respective

Commission or Parliament offices. But all these elements still have just an informative

character.

The website editors confirm this in the statement: “Europa.eu is the official website of

the European Union. It is a good starting point if you are looking for information and services

provided by the EU, but you don't know your way around our sites”. This site gives citizens

of the European Union: basic information on how the EU works, the latest news and events,

links to information on the websites of EU institutions and agencies. But also Europeans can

share their comments, suggestions and feedback about this site by using the contact form,

survey, user testing or send a comment2. But what the citizens can do, if they want to say

something about the policies or activities of the institutions of European Union or take a part

in policy-making process? All the websites have the link “contact”, and usually we are

informed that if someone wants more details, he or she should call or write an e-mail.

There are several ways to be involved in European policy making using the Internet

and website EUROPA: by public consultations, European Citizens’ Initiative, petitions to the

European Parliament, transparency register and formal complaints3. Through public

2 About Europa - http://europa.eu/abouteuropa/index_en.htm (10.03.2014). 3 Get involved In European Policy making - http://europa.eu/eu-law/have-your-say/index_en.htm (13.03.2014).



consultations individuals can help shape the Commission’s draft proposal before it goes to the

Council and European Parliament for discussion and adoption. European Commission’s

website “Your Voice in Europe” is a “single access point” to a wide variety of consultations,

discussions and other tools which enable citizens to play an active role in the European

policy-making process4. In the policymaking citizens can take an active part by participating

in on-line forums, discussions on officials’ blogs, through the use of advisory services and

information or contact directly with Members of Parliament, representatives of the Committee

of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. But not all websites are

available in all the official languages. “In particular, consultation documents targeted to spe-

cialized audiences are not necessarily published in all languages. Responses are, however, ac-

ceptable in all EU languages, unless explicitly stated otherwise on the consultation documents

themselves.”5 So, how a citizen, who wants to play an active role in policy-making, can

respond when there is a likelihood that she or he does not understand the question. It appears

that this kind of pages are directed to specific organized groups of entrepreneurs or

businessmen, and not to ordinary citizens, as the name of the website (“Your Voice in

Europe”) would suggest. Additional studies carried out show that the website “Your Voice in

Europe” is attended by a small group of people6. However, the online consultations are used

by various organized groups and associations’: defending rights, public health, social,

environmental, commercial, and consumer; also public authorities at local, regional, ect

(Quittkat, 2011, p 665-7).

4 Your Voice in Europe - http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm (13.03.2014). 5 Your Voice in Europe, About this site - http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/about/index_en.htm#language

(13.03.2014). 6 Your Voice In Europe - http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/results/4/index_en.htm (16.09.2011). For example,

research conducted by CBOS (Public Opinion Research Centre) indicated that the website "Your Voice in

Europe" knows only 10.1% surveyed of the Polish companies. (Ocena skutków regulacji. Zasięganie opinii

zainteresowanych stron w procesie oceny skutków regulacji (Regulatory Impact Assessment. Consultation of

interested parties in the process of impact assessment, p. 10)).

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4fNWh0AY5ucJ:www.mg.gov.pl/NR/rdonlyres/58E62

D7C-07CC-4DF6-

8C57D2FBDBFD125F/31682/konsultacje.doc+Zestaw+minimalnych+standard%C3%B3w+konsultacji+wg+Ko

misji+Europejskiej&cd=1&hl=pl&ct=clnk&gl=pl&client=firefox-a (26.10.2011).



One of the major innovations of the European Union is the European Citizens’

Initiative. The initiative enables one million Europeans, who are nationals of at least one

quarter of the Member States, to call directly on the European Commission to propose a bill.

But they have no guarantee that their point of view will be heard or will it be drawn up in

accordance with their expectations. Also every citizen, acting individually or jointly with

others, may at any time exercise his right to petition the European Parliament. However the

Parliament does not make any binding decisions concerning the petition. It may or may not

issue a resolution on the particular matter, or include it in the legislative work (see more

Łukasik-Duszyńska, 2013, p.102-3).

Organizations and self-employed individuals can get involved in European policy-

making by lobbying the EU and by appearing in the joint Parliament and Commission

Transparency Register. It provides citizens with a direct access to information about who is

engaged in activities aiming at influencing the EU decision making process. There is also an

information on how individuals can make a formal complaint and to whom. All the listed

possibilities of how to get involved in shaping European policies, do not provide citizens for

extensive comment on the often complex problems. It's hard to call it a dialogue. Certainly

citizens’ legislative initiative, petitions, consultations and complaints gives European’

officials a feedback on their activities.

The website EUROPA has also an important section “Stay connected”. If someone

wants to know a personal, insider’s view on EU affairs, they should read a blog written by a

Commissioner or some senior Commission staff in individual EU member countries7. But

only a few (7 for 28) Commissioners have a blogs, and anyway blogs, are mainly informative.

Whats more blogs are mainly written in English, but not always, (or /and) in a national

language of the person who is responsible for the blog. For example Kristalina Georgieva,

7 Blogs - http://europa.eu/contact/take-part/blogs/index_en.htm (13.03.2014).



Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, is using

English and Bulgarian. But Jimmy Jamar, from Commission Office in Belgium, - French and

Dutch. It is possible to add a comment, but very few are added. There are 1 or 2 comments

under one entry and tens or hundreds of views, which is not equivalent to the fact that these

persons also were reading the entry. What’s more there is no information about blogs of the

deputies of the European Parliament or other institutions and their officials. It is known that

some MEPs have theirs blogs. But there is no direct link to them. Also on the European

Parliament website there is no information on this subject. According to the data from 2010,

40 per cent MPs led blog. By contrast, in 2011 only 29 per cent. We must also take into

account the fact, that in 2010, blogging was popular, due to the EP elections (Szewczyk,

2011).

There is also the link “Prizes & Competitions”. European Commission announces

competitions for scientists, journalists, writers, photographers, students and pupils. But their

purpose is to promote and expand information about the European Union, for example,

competitions for a EU logo, a poster on the occasion of “Europe’s Day” or an article about

values, life in European Union or policies, actions and institutions of EU. But this is not a

debate. This is rather the way to check how actions of the European Union and officials are

perceived among the citizens.

Nevertheless individuals, who want to take a part in European policy, can join the

debate. There is a link “Join to the European debate” on European Commission website. The

webmaster editor encourages to speak directly to EU politicians about citizens rights, the kind

of Europe they want to live in, and their expectations. This website is written in English8 and

on that page Europeans can find information what to do, if they want to meet and talk with

EU Commissioners. “The ‘citizens’ dialogues’ are open to every one and are broadcast live on

8 Join the European debate - http://ec.europa.eu/debate-future-europe/about/index_en.htm (13.03.2014).



the Internet”. European Commission declares that it wants to talk with citizens, but they have

to make sure their voice is heard9. The “Join the European debate” page contains also

information and films about meetings and speeches delivered by politicians. So, we can see

here not only the realization of the approach “explain better”, but also signs of listening to the

voices of the citizens, as well as stimulating a broader debate. It is a pity, that the link to this

site is not visible on a main page of the EUROPE website.

There is an online platform “Futurium – Digital Agenda for Europe” to facilitate a

broad reflection on the future of European policies. “It combines the informal character of

social networks with the methodological approach of foresights to engage stakeholders in the

co-creation of futures and policy ideas that matter to them”10. It presents ideas for future

policies and videos, blogs, polls on various topics, events, interviews concerning future

employment or the economy. This platform, edited in English, is mainly for information

purposes. There are only a few users' comments.

On the main page of the Directorate-General Communication individuals can find a

“Take part!” section where is a link “The Europe for Citizens programme”. The programme is

funding projects and activities aimed at getting the EU’s 500 million inhabitants to play a

greater part in the development of the European Union11. On this website Europeans can share

their experiences. Everyone can submit a project in the context of the Europe for Citizens

programme or can share their results. But there is no place for comments or debates about this

programmes. The information can be only an inspiration for preparing other programmes.

Concluding the website EUROPA is a great resource of information about the

institutions and the functioning of the EU. However, the problem is not a lack of access to

news about the EU, but the fact that most of these websites are unidirectional. Basic tools that

9 Join the European debate - http://ec.europa.eu/debate-future-europe/about/index_en.htm (13.03.2014). 10 Futurum, Digital Agenda for Europe, About - https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/futurium/en/content/about-

futurium 11 Citizenship - http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.htm (13.03.2014).



an ordinary citizen can use is email, phone, chat, a survey or a meeting with the representative

of the EU. The slogan “take part” ultimately comes down to providing even more

information. Message flow still occurs from the top to the bottom of the social ladder, but not

vice versa. While, the communication is a two-way process. Moreover, the motto “take part”

only assures that a citizen can be heard. The information provided on the website is translated

into English, French and German, but this fact does not guarantee that the average European

understands the information. Besides, it is difficult to talk about stimulating any debate among

the citizens of the EU Member States, where on most webpages no one encourages them to do

it. And it is not easy to find an information about forums and debates. An additional problem

is the fact that websites of EU institutions often undergo changes by the webmaster editors.

Moreover, as the staff of the EU institutions have already noticed, that information portals do

not guarantee that citizens in European countries would be interested in EU’s matters. On

most of the portals (European Commission, European Parliament or the Council), people who

want to add, their opinion about the decisions or the functioning of the European Union are

sent to social networking sites. Very often accompanied by the slogan: “Share”, to encourage

people to engage in the debate on the European Union and to share their opinions.

Social Media - Facebook

European Union’s institutions, agencies or offices created their official pages on Facebook,

Tweets, YouTube and Flickr. Sometimes on LinkedIn, Google+ or Pinterest. Facebook is the

most popular in the EU member states. It seems that Facebook is used for the communication

of EU institutions employees with the citizens. Although the EU employees are encouraged to

exhibit more online activity, the institutions are very cautious as far as communication with

the citizens through the social media is concerned. The Committee on Culture and Education

warned on the Parliament’s forum that social networks’ “reliability as sources cannot always



be sufficiently guaranteed and they cannot be considered to be professional media;”12

therefore they should be using them carefully. That is why only, or one can say as many as

70% of the EP deputies keep their active Facebook accounts. In 2010 there were even less of

such profiles (58%) (Navarro Sordo 2011). During the next year the number of MEP using

social networking sites is slowly growing (see more details – table number 2).

Table 2. European Parlament Deputies on Facebook.

European

Parliament

MEP’s by

Member State

(22-Feb-2012).

MEP’s on

Facebook (22. -

Feb-2012.

MEP’s by

Member State

(03-Nov-2013).

MEP’s on

Facebook

(03-Nov-2013).

Austria 19 14 19 12

Belgium 22 17 22 14

Bulgaria 18 14 18 12

Croatia ------- ----------- 12 2

Cyprus 6 4 6 3

Czech

Republic

22 13 22 12

Denmark 13 11 13 9

Estonia 6 4 6 4

Finland 13 12 13 9

France 74 60 74 48

Germany 99 61 97 45

Greece 22 8 22 9

Hungary 22 9 22 6

Italy 73 58 73 50

Ireland 12 9 12 7

Latvia 9 5 9 4

Lithuania 12 9 12 8

Luxemburg 6 4 6 4

Malta 6 5 6 3

Netherlands 26 17 26 14

Poland 51 37 51 32

Portugal 22 16 22 12

Romania 33 27 33 20

Slovakia 13 8 13 8

Slovenia 8 8 8 4

Spain 54 34 54 25

Sweden 20 18 20 18

United

Kingdom

72 44 73 38

TOTAL 753 526 764 432

Source: The European Parliament Fanpage on Facebook.

12 Culture MEP’s call on EU for more European online conversation, Information – 29.06.2010 – 13:15.

European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM-

PRESS+20100625STO76792+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN (14.09.2011).

http://www.internetworldstats.com/eu/at.htm

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#bg

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#cy

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#dk

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#ee

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#fr

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#de

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#gr

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#hu

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#lv

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#lt

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#lu

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#mt

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#pl

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#pt

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#ro

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#sk

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#se



The European Parliament as an institution has its official account on Facebook. There

are posted all sorts of informations, e.g. full speech of Parliament President, announcements

about chats with Eurodeputies, which are organised once or twice a month. Under each such

announcement appears some comments by different people. The number of such contributions

ranges from several to around a hundred. On the profiles of the persons who contribute their

comments do not appear the Parliament members themselves but rather someone who is

responsible for moderating the EP fanpage.13 Simultaneously a question arises to what extend

the comments appearing on Facebook are being heard and taken into consideration by the

MEP while making their decisions. Moreover is the plain message “I like it” to be considered

valuable or expressing appreciation for the activity of the EP. Especially when we take under

consideration the fact, that it has more of such feedbacks than other institutions (see table

number 3).

Table 3. Fanpages of the European Union Institution and bodies.

EU institution / bodies / topics Number of people who

like it (Feb-2012)

Number of people who

like it. (3-Nov-2013)

European Parliament 365 273 1 039 290

European Commission 30 034 202 940

Committee on Petitions of the

European Parliament

1 332 4 374

Council of the European Union 7 136 65 004

EU Careers 70 595 130 487

EU Enlargement 1 620 11 917

EU Law and Publications 3 791 28 720

EU Justice 1 354 9 472

Erasmus for Young

Entrepreneurs

8 125 21 854

Eurochild 1 211 2 063

European Commission -

Humanitarian Aid & Civil

Protection (ECHO)

11 247 29 146

13 For example for a question: Do we know what it means when a Member of Parliament pulls out a blue card in

plenary? (14 February, 2012), there is an answer given in a comment from the EP profile.



European Economic and Social

Committee – EESC

504 5 013

European External Action

Service

6 871 24 673

European Union Agency for

Fundamental Rights

4 642 10 575

European Youth Forum 22 204 40 885

Library of the European

Parliament

954 3 299

Source: EU institution / bodies / topics fanpages on Facebook.

There are Information Offices available in national languages of different member

countries. In the Polish language for example functions a page of the Information Office

based in Warsaw. Information presented on national pages generally focuses on issues related

to a particular country it represents, including contests, events, MEP’s representing a state, EP

or state politicians’ visits to Brussels or the other way round. Contributions are not very

elaborate, and they are mostly single comments or clicks on “I like it.”

Meanwhile the English language page of the European Commission has hardly any

visitors in comparison to the official EP Facebook page. There are announced contests and

their results, one can participate in a quiz, gain some knowledge on the EU, there are links

given to some other EU pages such as EU Court of Justice. But there are no discussions, and

usually just a few comments on the entries made.14 The page of the European Commission

Office in Poland does not look any better.15

As to other institutions an English language page has the Council of the European

Union, but in comparison to the EP or EC pages it does not look good: brief information, not

many comments – just a few per entry. Much less activity on the page is also noticeable by

the number of the “I like it!” clicks.

14 European Commission -

http://www.facebook.com/europeanparliament?sk=app_188929731130869#!/EuropeanCommission

(22.02.2012). 15 European Commission Office in Poland -

http://www.facebook.com/europeanparliament?sk=app_188929731130869#!/komisjaeuropejska (16.09.2011).



It is no better on the EP’s deputies fanpages and profiles. The degree of involvement

of Polish Deputies of the European Parliament on a social network is small. Sometimes, if the

main photo is not the building of the Parliament, it would be hard to guess that they work in

Brussels. Mostly focused on Polish affairs, for political purposes, they do not inform about

the issues dealt with in the EP. Entries are short and simple, and there is a lack of information

related to the activities of those politicians in the European Parliament. In my opinion, the

degree of the involvement of the British and Irish MEPs in European affairs seems to be

larger and more visible on their profiles and fanpages. Although the information is also very

short, but more focused on presenting their activities in Parliament.

The example of the above very briefly presented pages of the EU institutions shows

clearly that building an image on the social networking websites is one of the elements,

although not the main one, of developing relations between the EU and its citizens. In most of

the cases Facebook fanpage is only source of information about the their decisions and

activities: official meetings, conferences, lectures, and proceedings. There is no place for

communication between them and citizens, and there is no place for debate. It is certain that

from day to day, slowly, the number of Internet users pages of each institution or EU

politicians is growing. But there is the lack of a single, clear message. European Union is

many institutions, passwords and names. Therefore, the fanpages are directed more to people

familiar with the functioning of the European Union. The average citizen can only just be

confused.

Moreover, MEPs are not focused on the discussion. They are concerned rather with

the promoting of the page and having more and more “Likes”. There is a lack of commitment,

a rare response to comments. Politicians turned their “wall” on Facebook and “rave about

themselves, in their own altar, in a corner with medals.” From a social medium through where

people exchange views and opinions, they “turned Facebook into promotional newspaper”



(Reiter, 2013, p 4). In contrast, the reaction of Europeans is virtually nil. Of course there are

some comments, but only to a small extent on the accounts of several politicians, including

Polish, British and Irish parliamentarians. One gets the impression, that the politicians write

for themselves. I think, that this is sufficient for them.

Conclusion

The MEPs in their fanpages on Facebook put information about their speeches in the

European Parliament. No one comments them. There is also no questions from MEPs

themselves, who saw and listened to them, as to what there thoughts are on the given topic.

Mostly they inform where they will be a meeting with their electorate. Politicians themselves

are not interested in what Internet users think about this and did not provoke any discussion.

No mention even about starting public consultations or why it is worth to take part or be

involved. Also there is no such thing on fanpages of the EU institutions.

The EU institutions websites are full of the political statements and facts. Of course, if

someone is looking for additional data, there is also information how and to whom one can

send an email or make a phone call. But it is hard to find - for an individual citizen - the

answer to the question, what are the possibilities of exerting influence through consultation or

European Citizens’ Initiative in the legislative process. It is not immediately apparent at the

main website of the EUROPA. Internet users are flooded by dry data and facts. But

information how to participate in consultations, debates, various initiatives is not visible at

first sight. There is any attempt to explain what the participation in European political process

can give to the individual person. There is information on websites, but limited e-

communication between politicians and European Union’s citizens. At the same time

communication between top and the bottom of the social ladder is very important, if



politicians want to get support for their political projects and decisions (e.g. European Union

or any Free-Trade Area).

Bibliography

Bee, C. (2010). Understanding the EU’s Institutional Communication: Principles and

Structure of a Contested Policy. In: C. Bee; E. Bozzini, E. (red.), Mapping the European

Public Sphere. Institutions, Media and Civil Society, Farnham: ASHGATE.

Bidwell, A. S. (red.) (2013). European Meetings. Social and Political Studies, Frankfurt

am Main – Wien: Peter Lang Edition.

Bijsmans, P.; Altides, C. (2007). ‘Bridging the Gap’ between EU Politics and Citizens?

The European Commission, National Media and EU Affairs in the Publis Sphere, European

Integration, 29 (3), p. 323-340.

Block, B. (2012). Nearly 50 Percent of Internet Users in Europe Visit Newspaper Sites.

comScore Releases Overview of European Internet Usage for November 2011.

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2012/1/Nearly_50_Percent_of_Inter

net_Users_in_Europe_Visit_Newspaper_Sites (26.01.2012).

Brüggemann, M.; Clerck-Sachsse De, J.; Kurpas, S. (2006). Towards Communication?,

Center for European Policy Studies.

bba/an (2013). Europejczycy przestają ufać UE (Europeans no longer trust the EU),

EurActiv.pl, 28.07.2013. http://www.euractiv.pl/wersja-do-druku/artykul/europejczycy-

przestaj-ufa-ue-004901 (23.08.2013).

Castells, M.; Cardoso, G. (ed.) (2006). The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy,

Washington: Center for Transatlantic Relations.

comScore (2011). More than Half of the World’s Internet Population Visited

Facebook.com in October, It’s a Social World: Social Networking Leads as Top Online

Activity Globally, Accounting for 1 in Every 5 Online Minutes..

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/12/Social_Networking_Leads_

as_Top_Online_Activity_Globally.

Dobek-Ostrowska, B. (2009). Porozumienie czy konflikt? Politycy, media i obywatele w

komunikowaniu politycznym (Agreement or Conflict? Politicians, the Media and Citizens in

Political Communication), Warszawa – Bielsko-Biała: ParkEdukacja.



EU communications derided as ‘biased propaganda’, EurActiv.pl,

http://www.euractiv.com/priorities/eu-communications-derided-biased-news-221224

(13.06.2012).

European Commission (2001a). Towards the e-Commission: Implementation Strategy

2001-2005, Brussels, 8 June, SEC (2001) 0924.

European Commission (2001b). European Governance. A White Paper. Brussels: COM

(2001) 428 final.

European Commission (2005a). Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate, Brussels:

COM (2005) 494 final.

European Commission (2005b). Action Plan to Improve Communicating Europe.

Brussels, SEC (2005) 985 final.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/pdf/communication_com_en.pdf (5.07.2010).

European Commission (2006a). White Paper on a European Communication Policy,

Brussels: COM (2006) 35 final.

European Commission (2007). Communicating Europe in Partnership. Brussels, COM

(2007) 568 final.

European Commission, European Parliament, The Council (2008). Communicating

Europe In Partnership. Joint Declaration.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/declaration_insti/declaration_final_PL.pdf (15.05.2010).

European Council (2001). European Council Meeting in Laeken, Presidency Conclusions,

14-15 December 2001. Annex I – Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union.

http://libr.sejm.gov.pl/oide/dokumenty/konkluzje/laeken200112.pdf (5.07.2010).

European Parliament (2010a). New media, new conversations, a new look UE?

Information, 04.05.2010, Bruksela. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-

//EP//NONSGML+IM-PRESS+20100430STO73839+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

(14.09.2011).

European Parliament (2010b). Culture MEP’s call on EU for more European online

conversation, Information, 29.06.2010, 13:15, Brussels.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM-

PRESS+20100625STO76792+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN (14.09.2011).

Committee on Culture and Education (2010). Draft Report on journalism and new media

– creating public sphere in Europe (2010/2015(INI)). Rapporteur: Morten Løkkegaard.

European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=



//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-439.380+01+DOC+PDF+V0//pl&language=pl

(14.09.2011).

Foret, F., (2004). Advertising Europe. The production of public information by the

Commission. In: A., Smith. Politics and the European Commission. Actors, interdependence,

legitimacy, London – New York : Routledge, p. 156-169.

Hardacre, A. (red.) (2011). How the EU Institutions Work and... How to work with the EU

Institutions, London: John Harper Publishing.

Hobolt, S. (2012). Citizen Satisfaction with Democracy in the European Union, JCMS,

50(51), p. 88-105.

Kaid, L. L.; Strömbäck, J.; Maier, M. (2011) (ed. Bb). Political Communication in

European Parliamentary Elections, Ashgate Publising Ltd.: eBook 295p.

Korac – Kakabadse, A., Korac – Kakabadse N. (2002). Information technology’s Impact

on the quality of democracy. Reinventing the ‘democratic vessel’. In: R. Heeks (ed.),

Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in IT-enabled Public

Sector Reform, London: Routledge, p. 211-228.

Kurpas, S.; Bruggemann, M.; Meyer, C. (2006). The Commission White Paper on

Communication. Mapping a Way to a European Public Sphere. CEPS Policy Bierf No.

101/May 2006. Brussels.

Łukasik-Duszyńska, M. (2013a). ‘Communication gap’. The European Union’s Internet

contacts with its citizens. In: A.S. Bidwell (red.), European Meetings. Social and Political

Studies, Frankfurt am Main – Wien: Peter Lang Edition, p. 87-104.

Łukasik-Duszyńska, M. (2013b). Poprawni czy niepoprawni w komunikowaniu się, czyli

wpisy i komentarze na profilach polskich eurodeputowanych na Facebooku (Correctly or

incorrigible in communication, entries and comments on Polish MEPs profiles on Facebook).

In: M. Graszewicz (red.), Teorie komunikacji i mediów. Poprawność i stosowność w

komunikacji (Theories of Communication and Media. Correctness and Appropriateness in

Communication), Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza ATUT, p. 123-140.

Łukasik-Duszyńska, M. (2014). Unia Europejska a jej obywatele. Informowanie czy

komunikowanie się w internecie?(European Union and its Citizens. Online Information or

Communication?) Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Katedra.

Michailidou, A. (2010). Vertical Europeanisation of Online Public Dialogue: EU Public

Communication Policy and Online Implementation. In: C. Bee; E. Bozzini (red.), Mapping

the European Public Sphere. Institutions, Media and Civil Society, Farnham: ASHGATE, s.

66-82.



Michailidou, A.; Trenz, H. J. (2010). 2009 European Parliamentary Elections on the Web.

A mediatization perspective, Oslo: ARENA Working Paper, no. 6.

Milner, H. (2010). The Internet Generation. Engaged Citizens or Political Dropouts,

London: Tufts University Press.

Nawarro Sordo, F., (2011). Top 10 Social Networking Sites For Europe, the Euros.eu.

http://www.theeuros.eu/Top-10-Social-Networking-Sites-For,4814.html?lang=fr.

Pauwels, C.; Kalimo, H.; Donders, K.; Rompuy van, B. (red.) (2009). Rethinking

European Media and Communications Policy, Bruksela: Brussels University Press.

Quittkat, C., (2011). The European Commission’s Online Consultations: A Success

Story?, JCMS, 49(3), p. 653-674.

Reiter, P. (2013). Od redakcji (From editors), Wysokie Obcasy (High Heels), 23 (730), p.

4.

Street, J. (2001). Massmedia, Politics and Democracy, Kraków: Wydawnictwo

Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

Szewczyk, Ł. (2011). Europosłowie siedzą na Facebooku (MEPs sitting on Facebook),

media2.pl, 2.02.2011 (12:45). http://media2.pl/internet/74380-Europoslowie-siedza-na-

Facebooku.html (09.02.2011).

BIOGRAPHY:

Monika Łukasik-Duszyńska – doctor of humanities in the field of history. Assistant

professor at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poland (Chair of European

Studies, Faculty in Wroclaw). She had also has finished post-graduate study of multimedia

journalism and Public Relations at the Wroclaw University. She was scholarship holder of

program: Socrates-Erasmus, Committee of Scientific Research, Foundation Lanckorońskich,

Academy of European History (European University Institute in Florence) and Kokkalis

Foundation (Greece). An editor of supplement “Work” in newspapers “Wieczór Wrocławia”

and “Słowo Polskie”, and of the page “Readers Word” in “Słowo Polskie”.

She has published a study “HM’s Ministers Inform... Relations Between Poland and Baltic

States Within the Years 1920–1926” (Academica 2008). Devoted to Poland’s diplomatic

contacts with her Baltic neighbours as seen by British diplomats.



Focuses in her research on Polish-British relations, history of the United Kingdom’

Diplomatic Service in the XX century. Specialises in the information and communication

strategy of the European Union.

Łukasik-Duszyńska M. (2014). E-Communciation. European Union and its citizens. In: Servicios en el...

Documents

Transcript of Łukasik-Duszyńska M. (2014). E-Communciation. European Union and its citizens. In: Servicios en el...