On 3 December 2020 the European Commission published the European Democracy Action Plan (EDAP), a strategy composed of several legislative and non-legislative initiatives aiming at supporting citizens and democracies across the EU by promoting free and fair elections; strengthening media freedom; and countering disinformation.
Three years later, many actions have been completed or started, even though delays on different initiatives have significantly slowed down the overall implementation of the strategy. Of the 30 measures envisaged by the European Commission, 20 have been completed, 7 are still ongoing, and 3 have not yet been started.
At the same time, the Commission will publish a review of the status of the actions of the EDAP as part of the publication of the Defence of Democracypackage (DoD) in December 2023. The package will also include a legislative proposal establishing harmonised requirements in the internal market on transparency of interest representation activities carried out on behalf of third countries; a recommendation on an inclusive and resilient electoral processes in the Union and enhancing the European nature and efficient conduct of the 2024 elections to the European Parliament; and a recommendation on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organisations in public policy-making processes.EPD has followed and reviewed the EDAP files very closely over the last few years. Against the background of the three-year adoption of the action plan, this paper provides an overall assessment and insights into the state of implementation of the EDAP by analysing the three pillars, assessing progress on each commitment and then drawing conclusions based on this analysis.
EPD has followed and reviewed the EDAP files very closely over the last few years. Against the background of the three-year adoption of the action plan, this paper provides an overall assessment and insights into the state of implementation of the EDAP by analysing the three pillars, assessing progress on each commitment and then drawing conclusions based on this analysis.
Twelve like-minded European and global organisations committed to advancing democratic innovation and participation are coming together in the new Horizon project Nets4Dem.
This is an unprecedented initiative, building the infrastructure needed to strengthen democracy across Europe based on local, national and European-wide networks.
Nets4Dem will establish a European network of academics, practitioners and civil society, creating a hub for advanced research and collaboration in the field of democratic innovation, civic deliberation, participation and citizenship education.
The founding member organisations bring together more than 200 cities, over 50 think tanks and universities, and dozens of democracy-focused NGOs, covering 38 European countries, and linking to democracy-focused work in 130 countries worldwide.
Citizens are not giving up on democracy but seek new and more deliberative and equitable participation in the democratic process. Therefore, our democracies must become more inclusive, effective and participatory so they can rebuild trust with citizens and enable new pathways of political engagement.
In light of this need, Nets4Dem aims to become an enabling force for democratic renewal. This initiative pools a wide range of experience and expertise from global experts and Europe-spanning civic networks to further its mission: strengthening and improving democracy by connecting scattered knowledge, making it easily accessible, and giving policymakers and practitioners the skills and capacity to work better with citizens.
The network will open for new members in the new year. By harnessing the extensive and collective reach of its participating members, Nets4Dem will foster deeper and more effective collaborations between existing actors in the democratic space.
Ahead of the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), EPD joined more than 80 civil society organisations, networks, think tanks and institutions, as well as over 180 individuals from across the world in the call for a United NationsSpecial rapporteur on Democracy.
In an era when democracy is globally challenged, the proposal for a special United Nations Rapporteur needs urgent consideration
Democracy is not a luxury. Democratic principles and practices provide the best conditions for peace and prosperity. Such conditions cannot exist nor last without the protection and promotion of civic space. Ethnic and religious minorities, as well as underrepresented groups such as women and youth, are heavily dependent on effective democratic institutions to be able to participate, represent their interests and fight for their rights. Putting democracy back among the priorities of the UN agenda would be a first step to ensure such groups have their say.
“Democracy is a human right and human rights depend on democracy. The United Nations can no longer look the other way while this right is being denied, undermined and weakened in many countries around the world. A UN rapporteur on democracy is urgently needed”
Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders.
In an era where democracy is heavily threatened and authoritarianism is on the rise, the United Nations need to step up its efforts to foster human rights and democratic principles. The establishment of a United Nations special rapporteur would support policy-makers in the promotion of integrity in political speech, transparency in government and the protection of fundamental human rights.
Boosting global commitments to democratic principles
The new rapporteur position would be created by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, with the mandate of investigating the state of democracy around the world. The signatories demand that the mandate be based on United Nations resolutions aiming at identifying and supporting democratic principles, including the fundamental principle that “public authority must derive from the will of people”, contained in Article 21 of the UDHR. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur on Democracy’s work would contribute to the realisation of democracy, including support for constitutional and institutional arrangements such as checks and balances; effectiveness of parliaments; free, fair and competitive elections and election environments; political participation including of minorities and women; direct and deliberative mechanisms; as well as civic space and freedoms.
Like-minded organizations, policy-makers and individuals are invited to sign on.
This article was written by Adriana D’Auria, Communications Officer at the European Partnership for Democracy.
The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) addresses gaps in media legislation at the European level, focusing on media ownership and state advertising transparency. The lack of regulation so far did not allow for proper oversight of beneficial ownership of media ,and resulted in an uneven media market due to underregulated state advertising.
This is why EPD, Civil Liberties Union for Europe and a group of 11 NGOs call for wide transparency and balanced safeguards for both media ownership and state advertising during the interinstitutional negotiations on the EMFA. The final text should adhere at least to the Report of the Committee on Culture and Education of the European Parliament, which brings broader transparency provisions than the original Commission proposal and the position of the Council.
An enlarged scope of available information about media ownership and state advertising and access to it is key for media freedom and pluralism, as well as ensuring economic growth and the internal market’s stability.
The EPD network is closely following the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories. We hope that a peaceful situation will be found as soon as possible. We are discussing the developments intensively inside our network with a particular focus on the impact on human rights, the rule of law and democratic institutions.
Journalism in Europe is under threat. Surveillance and other intimidation tactics are limiting journalistic reporting and restricting the public’s access to a plurality of trustworthy and independent reporting. The PEGA Committee (Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware) demonstrated how Member States have bypassed established legal safeguards to put journalists under intrusive surveillance. Current legal protections are de facto completely ineffective.
On 2 October, the EU Parliament will vote on the draft report on the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). This regulation will in part create the first European legal framework to protect journalists and media service providers from intrusive surveillance technologies. Media, journalists and human and digital rights organisations are calling for an unconditional prohibition of the use of spyware against journalists in Article 4.
Together with other 22 civil society groups and experts from across Europe, we are writing to express our deep concern about the danger posed to public safety by Article 17.2 of the European Media Freedom Act, and to urge the EU Parliament to vote for plenary amendments seeking to mitigate its threat.
As written, the proposed Article 17 would create a dangerous loophole in the online content moderation for media, seriously impeding the fight against hate speech and other harmful content, hindering protection of minors, and fragmenting EU digital legislation, mainly the Digital Services Act.
This is why we urge the EU Parliament to once again stand up for European citizens, democracy and media integrity and vote for alternative plenary amendments that would:
Allow platforms to label or blur problematic posts within 24 hours, so that they can take swift action and prevent the viral spread of harmful content in the most crucial hours — or contain the subsequent damage.
Remove the 24-hour must-carry obligation, which allows huge damage to be done by the spread of viral propaganda and hate speech;
Remove the involvement of national regulators in the designation of media service providers, which can lead to abuse by member states where media freedom is at threat.
Over the past few months, the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) proposal has been frequently discussed in both the European Parliament and the Council. Just before the August hiatus, the Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), the Committee for opinion, took its vote while the lead Rapporteur Sabine Verheyen (EPP) and the Shadow Rapporteurs agreed on general compromise amendments. These discussions will now resume and even intensify as the lead Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) will vote on its report in early September with the plenary vote scheduled for October. With this article, the European Partnership for Democracy (EPD) provides an overview of the proposal as it stands ahead of these negotiations and sheds light on some of the obstacles that still need to be overcome.
Protection of journalists
Article 4 of the EMFA, which includes the majority of provisions aimed at safeguarding the independence and the protection of journalists, has been a sticking point lately. This is due to the fact that within the Council’s final mandate for negotiations with the Parliament, the list of crimes for which surveillance can be deployed was increased, and an exemption from the protection of journalists from spyware was added.This carve out would allow Member States to spy on journalists if this was deemed necessary in the name of protecting national security. EPD and 79 other organisations argued against this move, stressing that these changes will legalise the use of spyware against journalists instead of protecting them.
Ahead of the vote in LIBE, we again supported the call of 36 organisations to include robust safeguards for journalists and a complete ban of the use of spyware against them. Unfortunately, while the LIBE opinion improves the protection of journalists, it did not opt for a total ban of spyware. As the use of spyware (Article 4.2) falls under the exclusive competence of LIBE, the CULT Committee must include this part of LIBE’s opinion in its final report. EPD will continue advocating for strengthened safeguards for journalists ahead of the vote in plenary.
Media ownership
While the EMFA provides an obligation for the information on media ownership to be made public, EPD has argued from the beginning that the proposed requirements are not sufficient to truly shed light on the tangled webs of media ownership. While the Council has improved Article 6.1 by extending its scope to all media service providers, not only those providing “news and current affairs content”, it has not required that more information be made available. In this respect, the LIBE opinion was more far-reaching because it mandates several additional types of information to be made public by media service providers, including data concerning the ownership structure related to the media service provider’s parent and sister companies. It also restricts the beneficial ownership of media for persons holding certain prominent public functions, such as heads of State or ministers, which would help ensure politicians do not exercise undue influence over media.
EPD urges the CULT Committee to introduce rules on the transparency of media ownership, including the report into an EU-wide media ownership database, that will provide meaningful change and allow civic watchdogs to continue to do their work.
The role of the European Board for Media Services (the Board)
While the majority of lawmakers agree that the European Board for Media Services (the Board) must be independent from the Commission, less consensus can be found on how to achieve this and where to draw the line. If the Board will be fully independent from the Commission, its actions and decisions will be influenced solely by the Board’s members who come from national regulatory authorities. This might prove problematic, especially in instances where the Board is asked to provide expertise on guidelines, such as on the prominence of media services of general interest, which would necessarily include providing a definition of such media services. EPD believes that decisions on these issues should be left to elected lawmakers.
Furthermore, the opinion of the LIBE Committee envisions a Non-Audiovisual Media Expert Group to act as an advisory body to the Board. The Expert Group would be filled with experts according to procedures and requirements laid down in the Board Rules of Procedure, which is proposed to be adopted by the Board (composed of national regulatory authorities) after a non-binding consultation with the Commission. While in theory this would enable independent voices familiar with the sector to provide guidance to the Board, the process of choosing the members of this Expert Group must be duly clarified to avoid the possibility of national authorities nominating “experts” with a political agenda.
‘Media privilege’
The much discussed Article 17 aims to introduce a system in which media that declare themselves as such would benefit from certain privileges on very large online platforms (VLOPs), such as providing a statement of reasons prior to a suspension of media’s content taking effect. As EPD stressed before, instead of restricting the VLOPs’ influence over media content on their platforms, the text only gives the VLOPs more power. The structural dependency of media on VLOPs is indeed a problematic phenomenon, but the solution offered in the Commission’s proposal will not solve it and the Council’s final text only exacerbates the problem.
According to the Council’s mandate for negotiations with the Parliament, the ‘media privilege’ would not only apply to the suspension of content but also to the restriction of its visibility. As a response to criticism about potential rogue actors taking advantage of the system, the Council proposed more information on independence and compliance with legal requirements to be provided by the media during their self-declaration. However, this model still creates an inequality of freedom of speech, does not deal with the problematic question of who would be in charge of controlling these self-declarations, and threatens to fragment the horizontal rules introduced by the Digital Services Act (DSA).
In the upcoming debates, EPD will therefore continue to strive for Article 17 to be deleted and this harmful model removed.
Transparency of state advertising
One of the most discussed issues with the EMFA provisions on state advertising was the exemption from transparency requirements for territorial entities of less than 1 million inhabitants. Thankfully, this threshold was lowered by the Council and later even removed altogether by the LIBE Committee. The Committee also suggested amendments to the provisions on emergency messages that would ensure that state authorities cannot deliberately evade transparency by using emergencies as a pretext.
However, further issues remain. In order for meaningful transparency to be achieved, we have called for the monitoring of state aid provision to media service providers, shorter frequency of data publication, and the introduction of national registers of media ownership . Additionally, an EU-wide database of information on state advertising would be of a great benefit as it would provide the public, journalists and civil society with cohesive and centralised data.
The above-mentioned topics are of the utmost importance in the fight for an effective European Media Freedom Act. The entire regulation, including its provisions on media concentrations and public service media, will have a tremendous impact on the media market in the Union. This is why EPD will continue to advocate for a strong EMFA which can improve media freedom and pluralism across Europe.
In addition to the pressing need for legislative reforms to ensure European electoral cohesion and avoid 27 diverse legal frameworks, engaging mobile EU citizens, persons with disabilities, and women in elections is also a substantial challenge.
Transparency
As online news platforms are becoming increasingly the first source of news among EU citizens, EU institutions are in the process of regulating political advertising. However, to date, political advertising online is only regulated on the basis of the voluntary self-regulatory commitment of major platforms.
Accountability
There are discrepancies between EU-level rules and national regulations with regards to the financing and accountability of EP elections while existing EU and EUMS regulations on party and campaign finance do not respond to the needs of the EU as a community of shared values.
Risks and opportunities
The digitalisation of political campaigns, external anti-democratic interference, rule of law erosion in certain Member States, along with disinformation and hate speech, stand as key 2024 EU elections risks. Conversely, the COVID pandemic, EU recovery funds, support for Ukraine, and lead candidates’ roles could sustain the rising voter turnout trend from the 2019 EP elections.
Our recommendations
What can be done to address the issues mentioned above? You can find our recommendations on equality and inclusion, transparency, accountability, as well as the risks and opportunities leading up to the 2024 EU elections in the policy paper below.
The project is co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
The success of any attempt to regulate political advertising in the online domain must be underpinned by a well-designed and well-functioning system of identifying political advertisements. However, Articles 5 and 9 of the proposed Regulation on the Targeting and Transparency of Political Advertising (TTPA) place more emphasis on the role of the sponsor and imposes limited obligations on online platforms and other advertising service providers to conduct identification checks for ads that are political but have not been previously declared as such by their sponsor. This would allow malign actors to circumvent the transparency obligations set out by simply not indicating that the ads they are running are political.
This, in turn, renders the entire TTPA ineffective, as only sponsors playing by the rules are effectively subjected to the obligations under the Regulation. In this context, the Digital Services Act (DSA) can play a crucial role. The TTPA will only be fit for purpose through the implementation of the DSA’s provisions on VLOPs and VLOSEs, mainly Article 35 on adequate risk mitigation measures.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions. For more information about the cookies we use, click the 'View preferences' button or consult our Cookie Policy.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
