AA12CR23

AS (2012) CR 23

 

Provisional edition

2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-third Sitting

Wednesday 27 June 2012 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.

Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

1. Written declaration

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – A written declaration on the situation in Iraq has been tabled, No. 524, Document 12980. Any member, substitute, observer or partner for democracy may add his or her signature to this written declaration in the Table Office, Room 1083.

2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights (second round)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – This morning, we have the second round of the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom. A relative majority will be required.

The list of the candidates and their curricula vitae are to be found in Document 12936.

The election will be held in the area behind the President’s chair between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. At 1 p.m. the polls will be closed. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers. We will proceed to choose the tellers by lot.

The names of Mr Stoilov and Mr Marmazov have been drawn.

I ask both tellers to go to the back of the President’s chair at 1 p.m. The results will be announced at the sitting this afternoon.

I now declare the ballot open.

3. Joint debate – Democracy at risk: the role of citizens and of the State today: (i) The crisis of democracy and the role of the state in today’s Europe; (ii) The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We now come to a joint debate on the state of democracy in Europe: “Democracy at risk: the role of citizens and of the State today”. The first report is from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and is titled “The crisis of democracy and the role of the State in today’s Europe”, Document 12955. An opinion will be presented by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 12977. The second report is from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons and is titled “The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns”, Document 12953, with an opinion from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 12978.

I remind members that the Assembly decided on Monday to limit speeches to three minutes today because of the large number of members wanting to speak. Given the importance of the topic that we are discussing, the debate will continue this afternoon. I call upon colleagues to attend this discussion assiduously, as it is particularly interesting and goes to the core of the subjects that the Council of Europe should be dealing with.

I call Mr Gross to present the first report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – As you know, this is the fourth time since 2007 that we have tried here to understand the state of democracy in our countries. In the three previous debates, we learned that democracy is a notion that everyone likes – everyone gives it a positive connotation – but many of us have very different understandings of it. It is not easy to analyse such a situation. Another lesson from the previous discussions is that democracy is an ongoing project and a process that will never come through perfectly.

In German, you can say that democracy is a Gesamtkunstwerk; it has about 200 components in movement. One of the basic messages of the report is that too many of these criteria are in regression; they are progressing not in the right direction but in the wrong direction. The idea of democracy – the project – is to enable us to be free to control the power, to legitimise the power, to have the power to control our lives, and to prevent conflicts that are natural children of freedom from being solved in a violent way. Violence is always counter to the quality of democracy. I never forget the lesson of the French Revolution: that life is not controlled by destiny. We have a say in our existence, and democracy should provide us with all the necessary institutions, proceedings and rights to have that say.

I try to have an overview of many European countries, so I have read many articles and I found a Portuguese quotation in a paper that explains the question to which the report tries to give some answers; in fact, it underlines the report. Portuguese scientists asked, “How to explain the apparent paradox that reflects the citizens’ massive support to the values of representative democracy and, at the same time, a high mistrust and suspicion of its core political institutions, including government, parliament, and political parties, as well as a significant cynicism and scepticism toward politicians generally?” That question can be answered only when you do not forget that democracy is also a substantial promise of fair distribution of life chances. Today, in the month of the 300th birthday of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who founded one of the most basic concepts of democracy – the people’s sovereignty – many people do not feel that any of their own sovereignty influences distribution of life chances. Life chances are so unfairly distributed that many people question the legitimacy of our democratic institutions; that is one of the answers that the report tries to develop.

We have to constitute democracy on the same level to prevent economic forces from blackmailing the state. That means that we have to lift democracy to the transnational level. We have to strengthen democracy to make it more representative at a sub-national level. To do that, we need a strong state. But we did not use that term in our report; we said a “sound state”, which means a state with the legitimacy of the people, in which the people recognise themselves, which is controlled by the people and which can deliver a fair distribution of life chances and what they need to have a decent life.

That is a summary of the messages of the report, and I will be grateful to hear your comments and to have a good debate. I hope that we learn similar lessons from the debate to those that we learned in the three debates since 2007.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you Mr Gross. You have seven minutes and 45 seconds remaining.

I call the Earl of Dundee to present the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. You have three minutes.

EARL OF DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – The main report today from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy emphasises the importance of direct democracy. For that, I warmly thank and congratulate its rapporteur, my friend of longstanding, Mr Gross. It is also fitting that he should write on this subject, as he comes from Switzerland, a country at the forefront of democracy in Europe. With Switzerland’s political constitution and practice of carrying out frequent democratic referendums, it provides all other states with extremely useful guidance.

What I have written on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development supports the direction of Mr Gross’s report and highlights a few issues. A group of my proposed amendments seeks to achieve consistency between his explanatory memorandum and his draft resolution. Themes perhaps insufficiently mentioned in the latter include direct democracy and active citizenship and how to develop them, the constituent parts of sound democracies and the case for more democratic legitimacy at European level.

Secondly, since Mr Gross deals with matters up to last year, another group of my amendments takes us up to developments this year, and not least to our debates this week on connected aspects of democracy and to relevant Council of Europe papers and resolutions.

Thirdly, affecting the role of the state and the management of its economy, there is a challenge in striking the right balance between austerity measures and those others to stimulate growth.

Fourthly, there is the importance of local democracy. This brings us to Mr Gross’s central point: we must build up from the grass roots. In Europe, that is the way to win back confidence in national and international democracy. At our April plenary this year, it was a great pleasure and privilege for me, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, to introduce our report on active citizenship.

Fifthly, there is Mr Gross’s academic question, implied by the title of this debate: the connection between the crisis of democracy caused by economic and non-economic interventions and the role of the state today.

Of those five aspects, I shall comment further on two only, the others being self-evident. There is the economic challenge. How does the state balance austerity with growth? Some of my amendments address this. There is a strong case for investing in physical infrastructure and for giving concessions to employers to take on more people, particularly the young.

Our national actions in those respects can be usefully supported through our European Union affiliation. There is now a fresh opportunity for all our states together to develop a constructive balance between austerity and growth.

Then there is the local democracy point. The stronger it becomes, the more democracy itself becomes valid and legitimate. In Europe, those considerations grapple together – economies, democracy and the role of the state – and they are to be inferred from Mr Gross’s main theme. Clearly, our task is to be ever vigilant and imaginative in how we take them forward, for it is in that way that we can best enhance balance and good standards in Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Lord Dundee. I call Ms Dumery to present the second report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Ms DUMERY (Belgium) – First, I thank the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for the honour it conferred on me by appointing me rapporteur and for supporting me in the preparation of this report.

I also thank the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and especially its rapporteur, Mr Varvitsiotis, for his very sound opinion and suggested amendments, which I can accept because they represent a step forward and an enhancement of the proposals that we wish to submit to governments.

Although this resolution contains several recommendations to the governments of member and observer states, I must make it very clear that I, as rapporteur, want to send a strong message to us all. In other words, this is a message from an MP to other MPs – a peer-to-peer message. This report was not easy to produce. It was the subject of lively discussions in our committee, but at last we reached a compromise, one that I hope you will all agree on.

The title of the report speaks for itself. Over the past months, we have witnessed – we MPs are well placed to observe it – an increase in the negative use of migrants and refugees during election campaigns.

In bringing about this state of affairs, as explained in the memorandum, several factors have contributed to growing anti-immigrant feeling. First, there is fear of the future, which arises especially from the economic recession and from social and demographic changes, resulting in the public’s lack of confidence in the ability of governments to manage migration movements. That lack of confidence has been aggravated by the rhetoric of certain political parties. The outcome of that is a sense of a loss of control, created initially by globalisation and made worse by the collapse of national economies and job markets.

Another factor is the terrorist outrages that we have sadly experienced, such as 9/11 in the United States and other tragic events in Europe. These have also given rise to increased xenophobia and Islamophobia, which has likewise played into the hands of anti-Semitic parties and xenophobic populist parties, as well as giving them greater importance on the electoral and political chess board.

As you can see, election campaigns form an ideal podium for the xenophobic populist parties, which have not hesitated to seize this opportunity. Obviously, we have armed ourselves at national and European level with legal remedies and numerous treaties aimed at making such an attitude punishable under criminal law.

I want to point out the important role played by the media and opinion polls in this matter. The media play a crucial role in building the image of migrants. Certain states have already set limits on the language and the messages transmitted during election campaigns. Taking into account the considerable impact of the media on the public’s attitude, it is important to ensure that they use accurate, balanced and fair formulations with appropriate data and statistics.

Opinion polls do not always reflect mainstream public opinion. Therefore, it is evident that my recommendations should concern the development of a communication policy on the reality behind migration movements. That would make it possible in future to avoid arousing needless suspicion with respect to migration topics.

It is also important that we, as politicians and MPs, encourage and implement appropriate measures to make the path as smooth as possible for the integration of migrants into the receiving states by giving them the opportunity to learn the local language, customs and laws of the host country. Successful integration would thus allow us to reduce tension and violence. It would also make it possible to see the other person otherwise – not as an enemy or a stranger.

The current economic situation has made circumstances more difficult, and xenophobic political parties find ready arguments: foreigners come to eat our bread and take our jobs. That may be true in some cases, but often employers exploit those migrants, for instance, by employing them without a contract. Stricter controls to ensure the prevention of illegal employment or underpayment would make it possible to avert discrimination in the labour market.

As it is difficult to place sanctions on political parties, we recommend that electoral commissions be enabled to sanction individual politicians for inappropriate behaviour before or during election campaigns. In that context, the amendment tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy constitutes a further argument to that effect. We can only support the proposal to ask the Venice Commission to make a study of that question and examine the need to amend the code of good electoral practice.

I therefore encourage you to adopt this proposed resolution, which, if we and our governments follow the recommendations, may allow correct use of the topic of migration during election campaigns.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Dumery. You have eight minutes remaining.

I call Mr Marcenaro to present the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, on behalf of the rapporteur Mr Varvitsiotis. You have three minutes.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) said that he was standing in for Mr Varvitsiotis, who had had to return to Greece as a new parliament was being formed. He congratulated Ms Dumery on an accurate and effective report. Over the last two years, all countries had experienced a worsening of these problems as the continuing financial crisis had substantial social impact. There was a strong link between Ms Dumery’s report and that by Mr Gross and both offered proposals for future approaches to addressing complex issues. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy had tabled some amendments that were intended as constructive additions to points already made and did not challenge the thrust of the analysis.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro. We have 62 speakers for this debate. I therefore ask you all to be very disciplined in observing the three-minute time limit on speeches. In the debate, I call first Mr Petrenco, who will speak on behalf of the Unified European Left.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) said that he thanked the rapporteurs for their excellent reports. The Council of Europe was again discussing the state of democracy in Europe because the situation had worsened. He was grateful for the opportunity to speak freely in the Assembly, because, in Moldova, he had no such freedom. In the last week, the leader of the opposition in Moldova had been arrested. Democracy was collapsing across Europe and governments were falsely claiming to be democratic. This was not just a problem of the financial crisis but was systemic. The dominance of corporations and speculators in financial markets was leading to the loss of human rights and the sovereignty of nations was being replaced by the impositions of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank.

In Lithuania, a political dissident, Algirdas Paleckis, had been arrested; in Estonia the anti-fascist group had been labelled a threat to the country; and Hungary had removed the word “Republic” from its official name. The last opposition television channel in Moldova had been closed, two oligarchs ruled the country and the parliamentary assembly was the last remaining institution in the country that took democracy seriously. For the future of democracy, more than words was needed.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Vercamer, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VERCAMER (Belgium) said that he would speak on the migration report while Mr Franken would speak on the democracy report. Extreme right-wing campaigns on migration had been based on fear. The rapporteur had suggested that the history of migration needed more positive representation and he supported this recommendation. It was necessary to develop migration policy to combat the rise of the extreme right. Politicians tended to talk of mastering immigration or bringing it under control. They needed to make it possible for immigrants to make a home in a new country, to participate, integrate and learn the local language.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Michel, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr MICHEL (France) said that he shared the views of the rapporteurs. States were still pursuing economic policies that favoured the market and this was a threat to democracy. He understood the growing suspicion of the European Union, particularly as austerity hit people in their wallets. It was not possible to live as we did 30 to 40 years ago, but financial criteria were not the only consideration.

The euro should have been the incarnation of prosperity, but instead it had become the symbol of the dismantling of the welfare state. Concern went hand in hand with fear of migrants and refugees. The crisis must be combated by growth and the nationalist phenomenon must be resisted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Kolman, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr KOLMAN (Croatia) – I thank the authors of both reports for their efforts and, in the case of the report on democracy, for giving us a continuing basis for analysing the state of our democracy in Europe in these turbulent times, both politically and economically. As has been said, both in the report and in previous debates and today’s debate, when we speak of democracy we are not talking about a finished product. Democracy is a process that has to be worked on continuously and, not unlike the economy, if it is not growing, it is actually shrinking. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has been going on in Europe in these past years.

We also need to bear in mind the fact that democracy is not a goal in itself. Democracy – and the democratic state as we Europeans have come to know it – is a way of achieving the true goal; and the true goal is, and must remain, our freedom. The democratic state, with all its weaknesses, is still the best organisation that we as humanity have created for the protection of our freedom. So when we say that democracy is in danger or in crisis, it is actually our freedom that is in danger, because if decisions about our lives are being made in the corridors of international financial institutions, banks and multi-national companies, there will be no freedom for any of us.

The states and their citizens need to take control once again. The problem we face is that when people lose their jobs and have trouble paying their mortgages or sending their children to school or university, they tend to move further away from politics – away from their communities and away from their states. They become disappointed and we end up in a vicious circle, with already weakened states becoming even weaker as the people move away from them. As the report says: “A strong democracy…will give priority to citizens’ participation and to allowing them freedom to express their interests and preferences, to choose and support policy decisions, and to control political decision-making through their elected representatives. Institutions and elites must strive to restore citizens’ political trust.”

It was Jeremy Rifkin, the American author, who wrote a book on “The European Dream” just a few years ago, before the crisis, but the dream is still alive today. We need to return to two basic questions. First, what is the fundamental purpose of the democratic state? Secondly, why did we start the process of a united Europe in the first place? We need to remember why free markets and the liberal economy existed in the first place. To prevent problems, we need to reinvent and reapply the fundamental liberal idea, and bring it and Europe back to where it all began: the protection of individual liberty. Our political institutions and our means of influencing the economy have to serve this fundamental purpose: the protection of our freedom. That is especially important in eastern European countries and in new democracies, where institutions are fragile. If we allow deformed capitalism and the populist and extremist politics that feed on it to lead the way, the democratic state will have no future and neither will our freedom.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Heald, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr HEALD (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteurs, as others have. Andreas Gross has highlighted the challenge for democracy that the economic and financial crisis poses, and Ms Dumery has pointed to the rise of extremist attitudes and racism. I recognise the challenge, as does the EDG, but in this Organisation we should assert loudly that democracy can meet the challenge.

The key to democracy is that the electorate can vote to remove the government from power. An important part of the work of this Organisation is the monitoring and the work that allows that to happen. When people in a country are dissatisfied, they will make sure of change. We saw that in Britain in 2010 and we have seen it in France in 2012. However, it is wrong to think that because the medicine that a government has to administer is unpalatable, the public will not support it. The people are not stupid. Governments do not need to be popular to stay in power; they need consent and the public to support them. In my country, Margaret Thatcher was not always popular, but she always won the elections, and the United Kingdom Government this time round was elected offering strong medicine.

I would not, on behalf of the EDG, agree with every word that Andreas Gross says in the report, but he is absolutely right that there is a need for deep, vigorous debate in our countries. I also agree with what the Earl of Dundee said about the need to communicate using modern technology and media, and the need to ask the public for their views and contributions to the debate. We need an interactive democracy. In this Organisation we must never forget the international dimension and the role of the Council of Europe.

On the portrayal of migrants, we agree about the need for a proper debate and for full information and statistics. There should be honesty and transparency, but we are doubtful that it is the role of government alone to lead on integration measures. Local initiative is very important. Churches can play their part by working together and engaging in moderate debate. Schools can have discussions and presentations about the different communities in society. We also need councils to have representatives from different communities. We therefore welcome both reports.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The rapporteurs can respond now. You have four minutes each, but any time you take now will be taken off your overall time at the end of the debate.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – I thank colleagues for their comments. Let me say to the Earl of Dundee that I am very happy that the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development tried to reduce the gap between the resolution and the memorandum. You will see that we can support most of the amendments, and I recommend that members do the same.

Like Pietro Marcenaro, I think that our report and that of Ms Dumery are closely linked, because we show that you cannot be free if you are fearful. Many people today are basically fearful, but instead of having the power to think about why they are so afraid, they produce scapegoats, which are then misused by others – politicians, parties and campaigns. Yesterday, Mr Hunko quoted Roosevelt in a positive way, and in this sense there is a clear link with what we are saying. Roosevelt’s basic message, which was also reflected in the foundation of the UN – and, indirectly, in the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights – is that part of democracy is the privilege of not having to face life in a state of fear. I am not talking about total fearlessness – human beings are always fearful of death – but the essential point is that we should do what we can in society to overcome fear. What we do not want is for only privileged people not to face fear. This is the task of democracy. That is why, as our liberal colleague, Mr Kolman, from Croatia said, we need to link democracy and freedom. Without a good democracy, only those who are privileged are free. That is not the idea behind democracy in a free country.

I am happy that Mr Heald accepts what I said about the need for discussion. To answer his first point, a democracy should of course allow citizens to remove the government, but if a new government has no choice but to continue with the policies of the old one, people will no longer see any sense in democracy. That is why I invite you to think about deepening and strengthening democracy, in order to give people a real choice, including on election day.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Gross. You still have six minutes left overall. I am told that, in fact, you have five minutes, but let us make it six minutes for Mr Gross – they will be Swiss minutes.

I must remind you that voting is in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom. The polls will close at 1 p.m. Those who have not yet voted in these elections may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

I call Mr Toshev.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – We in today’s Europe face a serious crisis of representative democracy. The indications of such a crisis are obvious. In our society, we are witnessing growing scepticism about the political system. People think that the political system has been corrupted and that it serves mainly itself. People also think that the judicial system is not meeting the expectations of citizens because of its slowness and so on.

The number of voters is decreasing considerably. In many public circles, there are widespread proposals for decreasing the number of seats in representative bodies, such as parliaments, municipal councils and so on. However, there is also growing support to implement direct democracy – for example, referendums and plebiscites.

The report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy addresses precisely this crisis. Our rapporteur, Mr Gross, suggests a number of steps that need to be taken by states, as well as the implementation of a stabilisation strategy. When adopted, these steps could form the Assembly’s response to people’s frustration about the difficulties that they face as a result of the economic crisis. But, obviously, this is not enough.

Other measures need to be taken, such as involving local and regional authorities in the legislative process in states where no upper chamber of parliament exists. The parliaments themselves should not look like a congress of ambassadors from different clans, where hostile interests are represented and where fighting against one another is maintained. They should be the deliberative assemblies of each nation, where different views can be expressed, while maintaining a common goal for the future. That view summarises Edmund Burke’s speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774, and I think that that view is valid nowadays, too.

We should invite people to participate in a dialogue on the functioning and construction of our society, so that we can fix the problem areas. There are several good examples of forums on the future or future generations’ forums where people of different political beliefs and convictions can sit together and discuss the common future of their own societies.

This is exactly what the American fighter against slavery, James Freeman Clarke, meant when he said back in the 19th century, “A politician thinks of the next elections; a statesman of the next generation.” I am certainly convinced that the people of Europe need such a forum on the future. I dare to believe that the organisation of a World Forum for Democracy, as suggested in the draft resolution, could play such a role. That is why I support the recommendation to organise such a forum in October here in Strasbourg.

This dialogue should not be held among politicians only; it must also include a large number of public actors and other factors of society. In this way, we could restore the common will about the future of our nations and of our European community, and we could bridge the gap in our representative democracy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Toshev. Mr Chiti, who is not here, so I call Mr Sergey Kalashnikov.

Mr S. KALASHNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that he thanked the rapporteurs for their reports, which had made an important contribution to the discussion about some of the biggest problems of the day. A crisis in relation to social institutions was one of the factors that had led to the problems. Solidarity, justice, and social cohesion were being seriously tested. Without an adequate response, there would be a negative impact on democracy. The majority of people in most countries felt that the state was not doing its job properly. In these circumstances, the majority tended to overpower the minority with the result that the voice of the minority was not being heard. Social institutions could lead to a healthy civil society, but there was also the need for transparency. It was not possible to sweep inconvenient questions under the carpet. One of the reports referred to xenophobia, but this was not a word that ordinary people used; it was a word used by politicians. Honesty about what was being discussed was important. The Council of Europe could help national governments to be more effective in solving the difficult problems that were being experienced.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Fournier.

Mr FOURNIER (France) said that the European Union, and in particular the eurozone, was being confronted with an unprecedented crisis. It was no coincidence that the four countries that were currently receiving financial aid had also recently experienced a change of government. Although the crisis could not explain everything, it was a destabilising factor. Political change was often seen as the only response to the economic crisis, but the truth was rather different. Changing teams would not lead to a radical change in economic policy, because the principles underlying that policy remained the same. It was difficult to communicate to voters that times were changing. There was a need for new sacrifices and a break from the post-war period and faith in the welfare state.

The state needed to intervene and to regulate more often, with more sharing of the consequences. It was not the case that the budget pact was undemocratic, as it was a product of thorough reflection by political systems which were very much at the heart of democracy. The report was to be supported, but everybody had to look to the future, as the idea that Europe could continue as before was deluded.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) said that over the last few years, each session had looked at how to tackle extremism and other crises of democracy, and it was right to deal with popular extremism, which posed a threat to democracy. Some politicians contributed to the climate which fostered such views. The President of Azerbaijan, for example, had made a racist and xenophobic speech at Euronest in Baku which was then condemned by the European Union’s commissioner for combating racial discrimination. Such actions and negative reports whipped up intolerance among Azerbaijanis towards Armenians and was intolerable. Pronouncements which increased tensions should be combated. The same should apply in Turkey where minority rights were regularly infringed. Council of Europe member states had to develop curriculums in schools which targeted racism and promoted peaceful resolution. She was concerned that Azerbaijani texts presented Armenians as murderers and promoted racism.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) said that there was a saying in classical Latin: one must live before philosophising. There were millions of people who lacked certainty about their ability to survive and this had led to an increase in extremism and xenophobia. This debate was a hallmark of the Council of Europe that demonstrated one of the key justifications for its existence. While the European Union had its own reasons for existing, such as economic and monetary union, the Council of Europe had to distinguish itself by considering these issues and proposing solutions. The question was how to allay people’s fears: either the status quo could be maintained or Europe could change, and the response would be decisive.

The tyranny of unelected financial speculators had taken over command of the economy. Things had to change to put politicians in the driving seat in order to establish a sustainable model for all parts of society and to put human beings, without exclusion, at the centre of that model. In this, the state could play a role to ensure basic minimum rights. The old group model of social participation needed to be revisited, in order to better grant individuals a role and to produce a more horizontal than vertical system. The question of whether to seek greater consolidation needed to be answered. He thanked the rapporteurs for stimulating the debate and supported the report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Mr Agramunt.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) said that the previous speaker, from a different party but the same country had spoken about life and philosophy, and it was true that the Assembly had to look at the consequences of the crisis as it had done on the debate on Mr Volontč’s report the day before. The focus of the present debate should be on the rise of radical populist movements, an emerging problem which jeopardised democracy. There had been a proliferation of these new forces. While the problem was partly one of radicalism, the change also reflected its use as a safety valve by the excluded. The Council of Europe should promote a return to basic democratic values, supported by all. This meant a respect for individuals, pluralism, and the defence of minorities from ideological and political points of view. Though there were many different religious and political currents, it was important to ensure respect for all, otherwise there was a risk of an extremist movement leading away from a Europe of values. The Council of Europe had to face up to these issues.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Goryacheva.

Ms GORYACHEVA (Russian Federation) said that Plato had noted that democracy led to tyranny. Here a harmonious Assembly called for human rights values which recalled the words of Plato and rang false. Unemployment in Greece and Spain, and demonstrations on the streets of Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America showed a gap between populism and the views of people. With wars in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, there was no democratic model as espoused in the Assembly, but simply rivers of blood, and this demonstrated the falseness of the declarations of human rights and a new world. Instead, aggressive methods had been refined, huge money thrown at wars and media magnates influenced domestic politics. The blood spilled and the self-destruction inflicted did not seem to be a concern, raising the question of whether it was a case of democracy or apocalypse. Europe was fiddling while Rome burned and it had to change and move on.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Sidyakin.

Mr SIDYAKIN (Russian Federation) said that the draft resolution reflected the situation in member states. As paragraph 7 said, they were between the devil and the deep blue sea. With the dominance of financial markets endangering social cohesion, the economic crisis had changed into a political and social one. The manipulation of the social situation had echoes in history, such as the rise of fascism in 1931. Democracy was never perfect, but work had to be done to keep improving it. However, movements of populism, xenophobia, racism, anarchism and anti-globalisation led to social discord, even though their words did not match reality, and some of these groups manipulated social rights to sow discord. Though in reports rapporteurs sometimes criticised legitimate democratic regimes, protests showed the self-realisation of the creative class who simply liked to demonstrate. In the UK, politicians were examining legislation to deal with trolling – slandering people on the Internet – which had led to the abuse of rights, but the activities of the state, which was upholding democratic rights, were seen as undermining those rights and were vilified. Such attacks were sometimes grotesque, and Guy Fawkes masks should not be seen as a serious protest. Instead, protest for its own sake should be condemned as it simply led to more populism.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Wach.

Mr WACH (Poland) – Today we are discussing another report on the state of democracy – this time it is “The crisis of democracy”. The subject is obviously strongly linked to the problem of immigrants and refugees, society’s perception of them, and how they are presented during election campaigns. Today’s subject is also strongly linked to the problems that we discussed widely yesterday – the impact of the economic crisis on the young generation and local authorities, and the state of democracy at a local level. Today we see that the democratic state is quite vulnerable to various economic factors, including budgetary problems, the various aspects of globalisation, and institutions slowly coming to govern more and more over states. However, we also recognise that globalisation has positive aspects. We need it for trade. Also, investments in, for example, clean energy are very costly and strong international banking systems that will co-finance such investments are necessary.

We have to recognise that democratic states have put themselves in a difficult position, a point that is well stated in the report at paragraphs 7 and 9. I will quote paragraph 9 because, for me, it is the key paragraph: “The present problems facing democracy are the accumulated result of many years of bad governance, political short-sightedness, and unwillingness of governments and citizens to face reality.” To reverse those problems and improve them, it is necessary to tackle this subject in general. It means that we have to limit the political short-sightedness that, in part, results from the fact that we have to be re-elected, as parties and as individuals. That re-election problem governs the behaviour of politicians. There are also the economic problems of the future – of the next term – and there has been an unwillingness to face reality. It is most important that we change this, starting with ourselves. We must control things better, including having some tools to influence globalisation – but not strong tools because, as I said, many aspects of globalisation are necessary for a well-functioning world.

I would like to mention a nice term I found in the report – perhaps a new term. It is the “sound state”; I like it very much. There is a relationship between the sound state and strong democracy. We are guilty; we are responsible for some of the general problems. Those problems are not easy, so we must work peacefully and slowly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Lord Anderson.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Problem stated: it is not how to make people love their servitude by bread and circuses and by finding scapegoats, but how best to seek to preserve the spirit of the participatory democracy of the forest clearing in Andy’s Switzerland at a time of globalised financial and economic crisis.

While considering what to say today, I came across four relevant headlines in the British newspapers. First, a newspaper in my own Wales pointed out the appalling youth unemployment figures; secondly, The Daily Telegraph stated that the spending cuts and austerity would last 10 years, according to the head of our civil service; thirdly, The Times reported that a well-known comedian had reduced the income tax he paid to almost nothing by deploying a highly artificial and aggressive tax avoidance device; and, fourthly, the Financial Times ran an article by a Greek professor concerning the results of the Greek election. The headline was, “Back to the 1930s: the hammer, sickle and swastika”. The report stated that “the parliament, for the first time in Greek history, will be full of extremists.”

I am confident that there are similar stories in many newspapers in our member countries. My point is about the linkage between those headlines. There is a new insecurity – a new fear – in Europe. Young people in particular are jobless and feel that they are without hope. That insecurity will last a long time. It is significant in my country that it was a civil servant, not a politician, who told the blunt truth. The old certainties are gone.

Those who suffer feel immense injustice at the rich getting richer. A rich comedian paid too little tax and then, in a spirit of contrition, had to repay because of public shame. We should look at publicly shaming those who commit such acts and at getting a better tax system.

The people have lost faith in politicians and the existing system. There is a crisis of governments and of governance. The Greek professor concluded that “Greece is only a small step away from civil unrest and total collapse.”

What, then, are the remedies? If I knew, I would not be here. I would be advising the G20 countries. Clearly, there is an outline of ways to improve the situation – new, creative ways to respond to the unemployment crisis among the young. Politicians should tell the truth with respect to transparency and public shame. We should look afresh at our institutions. Subsidiarity, yes, and we should rebuild confidence in our institutions and make the case for democratic politics.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Rzayev.

Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan) said that Azerbaijan respected the contribution of the Council of Europe to the development of the country’s civil society and institutions. Azerbaijan was the first country in eastern Europe to develop democracy using its model of civil society and this approach had contributed to growing prosperity. Azerbaijan needed the support of its friends, particularly in regard to the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. He appealed to the Assembly to guarantee action in line with international law to resolve the problems. He sought to avoid war and wanted to find a peaceful solution in Nagorno-Karabakh that would enable refugees to return home.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Flynn.

Mr FLYNN (United Kingdom) – The frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is no excuse for the poor state of democracy in Azerbaijan. On the idea that there is not going to be any progress in what is happening in Azerbaijan, with its political prisoners and its very weak democracy, we should be putting great pressure on the Council of Europe and on Azerbaijan, and consider its expulsion from this Assembly unless it can make genuine attempts to reform its democracy.

All countries have imperfect democracies. A remarkable event took place in Britain a few months ago. When a by-election was held, there was an expression of opinion and a candidate was elected who managed to humiliate all the major parties by winning 56% of the vote on one policy alone – withdrawal of British soldiers from Afghanistan.

The Netherlands has already withdrawn and so has Canada. The French are bringing their troops home early and so are the Australians, but Britain has not debated the subject of bringing our troops home from a failed conflict for at least two years. We will not be debating it for at least six months. I raise the subject every week in Parliament because I believe that we are in the position that Senator Kerry set out at the end of the Vietnam War when he was an officer, saying, “Who will be the last soldier I will order to die for a politician’s mistake?”

We are seeing the final deaths in Afghanistan. We know that within a few years the Taliban will be back and we will see the whole effort as futile and something where the end was being devised not for the sake of the soldiers or the people of Afghanistan, but only of constructing an ending to the war that showed politicians in a favourable light.

It is ironic that we are having a debate here that is being led, as far as Britain is concerned, by a member of the House of Lords, which has nothing to do with democracy. Only two countries in the world have hereditary chieftains in their legislature as of right – Lesotho and the United Kingdom. We still have not had reform of our democratic system to allow only those who are elected to decide the fate of the country. The two speakers from the House of Lords have made excellent contributions to this Assembly, but it was said by Lloyd George that it is always a mistake to try to cross a chasm with two leaps. That is what we are doing with reform of the House of Lords. We half-reformed it, and now we are planning to reform it again. The process is going on now and is opposed by many people in the country.

My final point is to offer grateful appreciation to Andreas Gross for this splendid report. He has made a fine contribution on Azerbaijan and on many other areas in the world in ensuring that we improve the quality of our democracy. The dangers are immediate and serious.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I now call Ms Andersen.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – I thank both rapporteurs for their important reports. Democracy is about participation, but many people feel unable to participate properly. Many people feel that they have much more information today than they had before, which they get from newspapers and the Internet. However, much of that information could be false, distorted or simply put out in order to make a political point or to create a political image. Such information can create uncertainty and fear. Many representatives here today have talked about fear and the fact that poor people fear for the future. My experience in Norway is that rich people feel fear as well; they fear losing their power, wealth and superiority.

Two years ago, a book was written by two scientists from the United Kingdom. It stated that equality in society could create many good things, including better trust between people, the politicians and the authorities. That needs to be understood, because it is relevant to our debate on the economy and the austerity measures, and on taking political control of what is happening. It is a fact that each individual, each company and each country can act properly, sensibly and responsibly but still be hit and run totally out of control. That is due to our lack of control of the economic situation; we allow the economic situation to take control of us, making it impossible for us to fulfil our obligations. We need to pay greater attention to human and social rights. If we do so, politicians will earn greater respect and people will feel more secure about us.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Franken.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – I shall speak only about the report on “The crisis of democracy and the role of the State in today's Europe”. My Belgian colleague, Mr Vercamer, who spoke on behalf of the EPP group, has given his views on the report entitled, “The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns”. My subject is the Gross report, and I congratulate Mr Gross on his interesting and balanced work, which gives a good description of the burden of the problems in European states. Those problems are difficult to handle for governments that have a genuine intention to work transparently and to follow open and democratic procedures. However, an excellent description alone is not sufficient; we have to decide what to do.

Mr Gross concludes that there are serious shortcomings in the functioning of democratic institutions. We have to be aware that the urgent financial problems are not bound by nation states or limited by national borders. The concept of the nation state – that is, an institution limited by national borders – dates back only a few centuries. Before that, Europe’s different regions were defined by criteria such as geographical conditions, concentrations of families and tribes, and communities based on common values and beliefs. So why do we limit the powers of democratic institutions to the old-fashioned, artificial borders of the nation states?

We have already learned from Jean-Jacques Rousseau that, if the citizen gives a small part of his individual freedom to the king – we prefer the model of a democratically elected government – it will create more possibilities for the individual than he could realise alone. Why do we forget that if we give some competencies of our national sovereignty to a greater institution – namely, a united Europe – it will result in more possibilities for the individual citizens of all the European countries? Unilateral actions create more power to organise and even to regulate a large-scale market. Only in that situation can we free ourselves from the chains of the ratings agencies as the ultimate preachers of distrust. However, the individual states have to fulfil the necessary conditions of guaranteeing market possibilities to everybody. The rules apply to everybody. Everybody has to pay their taxes and mechanisms to evade that obligation will no longer be tolerated. Working in this way will be a step forward towards restoring trust in governments, and that trust has to be confirmed every day.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Huseynov.

Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The sincerity of these debates is the major significant and useful precondition that makes the views and conversations on democracy yield genuine results. Consideration of this issue in the Assembly has already become a tradition, which is certainly good practice. Nevertheless, a negative side can be defined through the lack of sincerity in these debates. We are talking about democracy, but double standards are present in our activities. We are talking about democracy and fighting for the human rights of individual people, yet we perceive the violated rights of hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands as statistics. Profound reports are prepared, serious debates are conducted and solid resolutions are adopted, but everything is just left on paper. A lack of outcomes generates hesitation and a lack of confidence in the Council of Europe on the part of external observers, and a lack of trust in the Organisation on our part.

Human rights defenders in Armenia raise their voices to complain about the anti-democratic situation in the country. Armenia has occupied 20% of the territory of another Council of Europe member state and it does not intend to put an end to that occupation. Armenia ignores Council of Europe resolutions and systematically violates its procedures. Nevertheless, it is not punished in any way. If we read the reports on that country prepared by the rapporteurs, we could infer that they were talking about a quite different place and that they were quite unaware of what was going in the country. If an organisation that unites 47 members unofficially awards Armenia – an occupying and belligerent country that makes terrorism a state policy and whose relationship with international drug networks has been proved – the status of a pet and applies no sanctions to it, regardless of its anti-democratic behaviour, who can believe the sincerity of our statements on democracy?

Yes, Europe is facing a crisis of democracy, and that crisis has penetrated our Organisation as well. We frequently witness the violation of equality, which is the fundamental principle of democracy. If we know the reason for this, we do not need to search for abstract explanations. Regardless of our religious and linguistic affiliations or of the size of our country, we enjoy equal rights. My rights take effect along with your rights, creating a democratic atmosphere in terms of everybody’s borders, which are inviolable. That is the ideal atmosphere that we all desire. However, the border has been violated already, not only in the conflict regions, but also here in the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT said that he could not allow Mr Huseynov to say that the Council of Europe did not hold sincere debates. The delegates at the Council of Europe had been elected by their parliaments and debate took place in an honest climate. He had received the heads of the delegations from Azerbaijan and Armenia to discuss the problems being experienced and had come up with feasible solutions. He asked Mr Huseynov to tone down his language, because that would lead to a climate of respect. Very soon, Azerbaijan and Armenia would be taking over as heads of the Committee of Ministers. Mr Huseynov should show restraint to ensure that the Council of Europe was respected by outsiders.

Mr Abbasov was not present so the President called Mr Chisu, Observer from Canada..

Mr CHISU (Canada) – I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Assembly in this debate on the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy’s report, “The crisis of democracy and the role of the State in today’s Europe”. I am also grateful for the opportunity to present an observer’s point of view on a matter that is fundamental not only to the Council of Europe, but to the world – how the recent economic crisis has affected democracy across Europe.

I applaud the work of the rapporteurs in highlighting the deteriorating conditions for the rule of law and democracy in Europe due to the recent economic conditions. I emphasise at the outset that although this might appear to be a European crisis, its consequences are by no means limited to this continent. Europe is Canada’s second most important investment partner, and the effects are closely felt back home. Any economic hardships in Europe are often felt by many Canadians.

As noted in the draft resolution, democracy has been one of the main victims of the global financial crisis that began in 2008. Several European governments have implemented harsh austerity policies, including lowering wages and social benefits, while also increasing taxes. These measures have generated quite a severe crisis of democracy, as manifested by a sudden meltdown in citizens’ political trust.

I agree with the rapporteurs that strong transnational institutions – especially sound financial institutions – supported by clear policies are needed to intervene in the markets to defend the general interest and the public good. The Council of Europe could play an important role in minimising the effect that economic recessions have on democracy throughout Europe. The individual nation state may have limited capacity to cope with such vast and serious problems. For this reason, I hope that the Assembly will commit to continue building democratic values in the parts of this continent that need it the most.

A further solution lies with us. Parliamentarians have an invaluable role to play in crisis mitigation. As parliamentarians, we are oriented towards political dialogue, negotiation, confidence building and problem solving. We are entrusted to carry out these activities on behalf of our citizens for the betterment of public policy in our countries. No doubt we have our critics, but no one can question our commitment and dedication to finding solutions to society’s problems. Ultimately, if we fail to correct the situation, we fail our own citizens. As noted in the draft resolution, strong states are based on strong democracy.

I urge the political leaders of the Council of Europe to work together to achieve the needed reforms to ensure the democratic integrity of all member states. The recommendations proposed by the co-rapporteurs are reasonable and can have a great effect.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – I congratulate Mr Gross on this excellent, almost scientific piece of work. In the two years that I have participated in the work of the Council of Europe, I have not seen a report with such a strong theoretical – and, I might say, philosophical – basis. The report discusses what are basic European problems. Their solution, or our inability to solve them, will determine the future of our nations, our children and Europe in general.

As a Christian Democrat, I believe that without faith, strong confidence in each other, morality and honest political speech, it is impossible to mobilise people to make sacrifices. The rapporteurs are right to say that public confidence in democratic institutions and political leadership should be restored, but what is happening in practice is acting against this. When financial institutions and European organisations change democratically elected governments, they dictate countries’ main political direction.

This is the result of so-called liberal economic policy. Nowadays, money is the highest value. Many multinational companies have bigger budgets than many national states. They can decisively influence state budgets, national currencies and employment rates. Liberalism has succeeded in separating the economy almost totally from the state, which means that the stabilising role of the state – something I would like to stress – has been considerably diminished. Personal and group interests are placed before the public interest.

In the last few decades, we have heard that the market regulates itself and that the role of the state should be diminished, but in 2008 the bubble burst. The crisis began and the mighty market actors and big companies ran to states to ask for help – the states that had been made weak and ridiculous. But the states helped; thus, the banks were consolidated once again. In my opinion, it was not the banks but the customers who should have been helped to deal with their debts. The report makes the point well that states should regain or develop the capacity to regulate international markets. That is what the Hungarian Government is trying to do, which is why it is under international attack – including, sometimes, even in this Chamber. Amartya Sen, the Nobel prize winner, is right to say that financial institutions and ratings agencies should not be given the power to command democratically elected governments.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Knyshov.

Mr KNYSHOV (Russian Federation) said that he thanked Mr Gross for his hard work and for enabling a debate to take place. The crisis that was confronting the world and the protests that were taking place were leading people to doubt the effectiveness of democracy. Protesters doubted whether democratic institutions could defend them. There was social polarisation and citizens thought that what was going on was unfair. Sometimes, democracy seemed to be for the middle classes. What was going on in Europe was in some ways comparable to what had gone on in Russia in the 1990s, when great wealth was in the hands of a few. Either there would have to be a revolution or the role of the state in the business of democracy would have to be enhanced. The first option was not acceptable. One had only to look at Libya and Egypt to see that. It was important to establish elementary social justice. Eastern Europe needed to create a middle class in its society. In the middle of the 20th century, people believed in government, not in the market. Later in the 20th century, it was the other way round. Now, people did not believe in either. Democracy was a difficult woman to manage. She was always complaining that she was not well, but her immune system was very good and hopefully she would be cured soon.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much. I call Mr Szabó.

Mr SZABÓ (Hungary) said that he congratulated Mr Gross on his report, which discussed one of the most important issues of the day. In 1989 and 1990, Hungary had been freed following decades of dictatorship. Over the last two decades, it had validated human rights and democratic institutions. He was delighted to see the implementation of minority rights. A strong state could exist only in the context of a strong democracy and vice versa.

Reference had been made to developments in Hungary over the last five or six years. Hungary had rightly been included in the list of countries that had seen threats to their democracy. There were also concerns about the integration of the Roma minority, and of Hungarian minorities living outside Hungary. There was growing support for the right wing and a right-wing party had secured seats in the Hungarian Parliament.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Jakič.

Mr JAKIČ (Slovenia) – Yes, the truth is that democracy in today’s Europe is one of the main victims of the financial crisis, which revealed all the shortcomings of the interaction between politics, economics and the social sector, the latter bearing the consequences of the mistakes of the first two.

At the very core of the problem is indeed the concentration of power in the hands of the global integrated financial network, but that is not the sole cause of the crisis. It is perfectly clear that the problem could not have spread so far if the so-called sovereign states had not enabled it to do so by loosening their regulations and losing control of global financial networks, thus helping those in the financial network to fulfil their partial interests.

In many cases, it has become rather obvious that the states failed to introduce effective control measures, or, if they did so, to implement them successfully. What is even worse is that the states – or to be exact, their governments – are becoming the servants of the interests of these powerful national and global financial players and that they are gradually losing their regulatory role.

Although states and governments are part of the problem, they now seem to be the main authors of the solution. That is why I fully support the conclusions suggested in the draft resolution and the recommendation before us today, and I therefore congratulate Mr Gross. States have to develop or regain their capacity to regulate national and, above all, international financial markets, so they can design strategies to reduce sovereign debt and promote the growth and modernisation of society.

However, this cannot be done without firm action being taken by all European states, which should find effective ways to tackle the current situation in permanent co-operation with their civil societies. There is no place for solo action being taken, and this should not be a question of who is strongest. A common interest must be pursued here, and if some of the partners are neglected in this process, there is no chance of reaching a long-standing solution, which is our common hope for the recovery of our economies.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Jakič.

I remind members that voting is in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom. The polls will close at 1 p.m. Those who have not yet voted in these elections may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that democracy, by its nature, was a continuous process, as the rapporteurs had demonstrated in their reports. Democracy needed to take account of the step changes in society if it was to survive. For two centuries, it had survived on the values of political liberalism and democracy had come to be seen as the model for society and as a source of inspiration. Recently, however, Europe seemed to have taken a rather different direction with measures to implement austerity plunging people into a crisis. The global crisis was not yet under control and the limits of democracy were becoming palpable. It was essential to look at the role of the media and of NGOs. Democracy had to adapt and to be geared towards diversity. It should be based on cultural factors.

(Ms Vučković, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Szél.

Ms SZÉL (Hungary) – I cannot think of a more pressing issue for all the political bodies of Europe than the crisis of democracy and the changing role of the state. First, I thank Mr Gross for his deep and detailed analysis of the problems facing democracy in Europe, and indeed in the whole community of democracies. My party, which is a progressive, ecological opposition party in Hungary, has been advocating similar solutions for the past three years. We are fully convinced that the continuous decline in the citizenry’s trust in political institutions and the major actors of the democratic polity can be remedied only by more democracy, not less; more participatory institutions at all levels of the political system, including the transnational level; more conscious efforts to engage all residents in the political process; and, of course, more transparency and accountability in the sphere of political representation.

Obviously, all that may be grossly inefficient if at the same time we fail to extend democratic political control over a fully globalised financial sector. “Sound states”, as Mr Gross calls them, should be able to protect the most vulnerable groups in their political communities by exerting political control at the transnational level. We know what tools are needed for that – it is mostly a question of political will.

Democracy is an open-ended quest, an ongoing transformation, so it is always in motion. In one sense, democracy dies when it seems to be completely fulfilled but becomes an object of self-congratulatory praise. In that sense, the crisis may be conducive to further democratic reform. However, we should always bear in mind the fact that even reforms made with the best, most democratic intentions survive only if they have themselves been worked out in a democratic process with the active participation of those whose lives they will affect.

Although there are many details in which democratic parties differ, although the notion of democracy itself is an ideal that can never be fully achieved, and although all existing democracies are in some sense imperfect, that is not the end of the story. We know that not all imperfections are equal. We know when changes move us closer to the ideal and when they push us further away from it. Our polities will never be identical, nor should they be, but they can move in the same direction – towards more participation, more transparency and more accountability. I urge the Assembly to adopt the resolution and continue working on democratic reforms together with those whom we claim to represent.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Liddell-Grainger.

Mr LIDDELL-GRAINGER (United Kingdom) – I sometimes wonder how we define democracy. Democracy is the ability of the people to make decisions. Over the past few years, since 2008, we have seen a dramatic change in democracy. As many speakers have said, we have seen the rise of extremism, perhaps because we have allowed democracy to move in a direction in which we did not expect it to go. The problem is that although we build democracy and get bigger democratic organisations, that does not necessarily mean that they are better.

Over the past few months and years, we have seen the fall of governments in the eurozone, because people are beginning to realise that maybe democracy is not always the way forward in bringing people together. The whole idea of democracy is to give people their say about what they want for their lives, their children and the future. If we dictate democracy from a central position, we allow people to feel that they are not getting what they want from democracy and we allow people who do not want to be democratic the chance to come through the door that we have left open for them.

I am a great believer, as I hope a lot of people here are, that we must stick together. When I speak to Americans, Chinese, Australians or anyone around the world, they wonder quite where we are going in Europe. They want us to continue our democracy – they see us as the home of democracy – but they wonder where we are going to be in five, 10 or 15 years. They have faith in what they see as our long history of democracy, but that faith is beginning to be questioned.

European institutions want more and more power to bring a democracy together, but how many nations represented here had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty or on anything to do with Europe? The Irish did, but not many others. Is that democratic, or are we allowing a democratic deficit, to the exclusion of the people of Europe? We cannot answer that easily, but we must ask the question. If we do not, people in more and more countries will vote with their feet and say, “We are not prepared to do this.” If that happened, when would the crisis become untenable and an unstoppable force? It could be in the next six months, it could be in the next few years, but unless institutions start to make democratic decisions, I can see problems ahead. Those problems will affect all our countries, whether or not they are in the eurozone and whether they come from beyond the Urals or across the sea. Whatever point of the compass we are from, those problems will only get worse.

We in this Assembly and in our parliaments have a duty to defend democracy, because if we do not, the long-term problems that we will create – probably not for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren – will get more and more obvious. When that happens, I wonder where we will be. We should defend what we have got and be proud of it, and I believe strongly that it is worth fighting for now and in the future.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Schou.

Ms SCHOU (Norway) – Democratic values are at the core of European society, and around the world people are struggling for those values to be at the core of their societies. Only a week ago, Aung San Suu Kyi visited Norway. In 1991, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and after 21 years she was finally able to come to Oslo to deliver her Nobel lecture. Being awarded the peace prize meant that she understood that the world saw the Burmese struggle, that Burma was not going to be forgotten and that it was part of the world community. Aung San Suu Kyi is now free, her party is finally represented in the parliament and her country has made an important step towards democracy.

Why is this relevant to us? Aung San Suu Kyi’s message was that the world belongs to everyone. When debating “Democracy at risk”, we must keep that in mind. The world belongs to everyone, regardless of their gender, ethnicity or religion.

In Europe, we appreciate living in democratic societies. We are free to state our opinions, to create organisations and to choose our political representatives. Indeed, we in this Assembly are all a product of those freedoms. We have been selected by our fellow countrymen to represent them and their interests, and we have a responsibility to act when democracy is at risk. How we as politicians behave during election campaigns sets the standard for public debate. We must be especially carefully when we address and debate the issues of migration and refugees.

There are many vulnerable minority groups in Europe. Many, such as the Christian minority in some European countries, are often forgotten. Migrants and refugees are frequently subject to discrimination, and the way they are portrayed during election campaigns is often stigmatising and not based on facts. We as politicians and the media share the responsibility to ensure that facts are the starting points for discussions on migration and refugee issues.

Human dignity was at the core of Aung San Suu Kyi’s strong message, which was about the importance of providing sanctuary to those who have had to flee their homelands. Let us honour her by making respect and dignity the basis of our discussions on migration and refugee issues.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – There is “a need to Europeanise democracy as well as to democratise Europe”. I fully agree with that sentence from this wonderful and deep report by Mr Gross. I have some serious concerns about the possible reactions of states in Europe to the habit of “Respect for all” and “Equal treatment for all citizens” – we always hear those ceremonial sentences – but something happens when you criticise the movements that have come out of previous criticisms. Who represents the European people who are absolutely dissatisfied with the non-functioning of democracy?

There is a democratic deficit, of course, because big international companies took power from the national level. Behind the curtains – behind the transnational organisations – those companies use their power to influence the everyday life of the European people. The European people are devoted to their traditions and to defending their traditional national communities. Mr Gross is expert in this field; he prepared a wonderful report in 2003, which was a good basis for Resolution 1334 on raising autonomy as a solution for different kinds of conflict. I think that he somehow forgot that important point of view. People should not be blamed because of the democratic deficit. The answers coming from the so-called populist and radical parties are the real opinion of the European people and should be respected. The Council of Europe must press the European Union to regain power for states from those international companies, and to establish new co-operation between independent states that respect themselves and human rights but also the traditional rights of national communities within Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Brasseur.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that she was sorry for not being present earlier in the debate and thanked Mr Gross for his report, the importance of which was demonstrated by the long list of speakers. Democracy meant different things in different countries because of divergence of culture, history and experience, but there was a shared concept that needed fostering and protecting. It was necessary to find the time to discuss these issues in national parliaments and she asked delegates to take the report back with them. Sometimes, politicians talked too much but did not think enough.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Heer.

Mr HEER (Switzerland) said that he thanked the rapporteurs. The 19th century Zurich writer, Gottfried Keller, had said that no government and no battalions could protect justice and liberty where a citizen was not able to step out of doors and see what was going on. The world had changed since Keller’s day through globalisation, the problems of the euro, and competition from Asian markets, but this warning still applied.

The German Landesbanks were subject to democratic scrutiny but had had made unwise investments in American sub-prime loans. Paragraph 6 of the draft resolution noted regulatory deficiencies, but several countries had been allowed to transgress the rule that prohibited European Union states from amassing debt of more than 60% of GDP. Rules alone were not enough and governments had been guilty of neglect. Politicians needed to act, but a world where the European Central Bank decided how much money to print left little say for democratic institutions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Mota Amaral.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – In this short intervention, I shall concentrate on the report produced by Mr Andreas Gross and some of the important topics included in it. I congratulate and thank the author for this deep elaboration on some vital questions for democracy in Europe.

Andreas Gross is right when he points out that European democracies are in crisis. We indeed have a political crisis to be added to the financial, economic, social and even cultural crises plaguing European societies. Today’s debate is, in my opinion, the second round of yesterday’s. The failure of many states to provide timely and adequate policies to avoid the financial, economic and social crises, and the consequential austerity hardships, has undermined the credibility of democratic institutions.

Red lights should be flashing in our minds when we watch the decline of the participation of citizens, especially the young generation, in democratic elections and the rise of populist and extremist movements. Citizens rightly feel that their vote has lost meaning and power as they are confronted with many areas of their daily life where decisions are made by bureaucratic and technocratic entities that are not subject to democratic control and that lack democratic legitimacy.

The ground is fertile for a permanent campaign to discredit politics and politicians, melding serious mistakes and mismanagement with distortions and plain lies. At times, political parties find themselves involved in questionable relations with the power of money and even in cases of corruption. High ethical standards of behaviour in this field are an absolute priority.

We must acknowledge the immense power of international finance, which is putting in jeopardy the common good of societies, the legitimate strength of democratic institutions, and the rights and the well-being of citizens across Europe and around the world.

There is a need to contain that power and to regulate and supervise financial markets, as well as the banking system. As our rapporteur correctly emphasises, democracy should be strengthened in every single country and also at international level – namely, in the framework of the European Union.

The legitimacy of our democratic states relies not only on fully participatory and regular elections, but on lively public opinion served by a free media. Above all, it relies on the effectiveness of state institutions, at all levels, in providing justice, security and reasonable conditions for freedom and well-being for their citizens. Our generation should avoid being blamed in the future for letting democracy deteriorate into plutocracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Ms Fataliyeva is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Nicolaides.

Mr NICOLAIDES (Cyprus) – The topic we are discussing today – the crisis of democracy – is extremely important but by no means new. Since the time of Pericles in ancient Athens, democracy has faced a crisis whenever society has faced one. It can be no other way, because there has always been a dialectical interrelation and interaction between democracy and the social environment in which democracy is called on to function.

The cause of the current crisis is of course nothing other than the ongoing global financial and economic crisis. Since this crisis is, according to major economic and political analysts, due mostly to the inability of states to exert effective control and prevent free market distortions, the issue of the role of the state is once again brought up as a central point of debate.

What is, or what should be, the role of states in today’s Europe? In the midst of the worst economic crisis for several decades, the need for the re-emergence of the state as a more active player in economic matters is gaining serious acceptance, perhaps for the first time since the collapse of the eastern bloc.

Until recently, the prevailing concept in Europe has been that the traditional business-as-usual role of the state should be limited to monetary and fiscal matters. Other matters, including economic growth, should best be left primarily in the hands of free market forces. This economic crisis has totally toppled that concept. Since it is a well-accepted fact that the most effective way to exit an economic crisis is nothing other than economic growth, and since free market forces have proved to be unable to push things in that direction, all eyes are, unavoidably, turning towards the state and waiting for it to come to the rescue of national economies.

Consequently, the crucial question to be answered is, “What should be the responsibility, role and relationship of the state with respect to economic growth?” That responsibility can be nothing other than shaping the conditions that are necessary and essential to promote economic growth.

In determining the conditions for economic growth, the state must definitely have in mind the targets that that growth should serve. Each state should give meaning to the economic growth that it seeks. Each state should lay down the goals that that economic growth should serve.

If economic growth is to have any significant, long-term impact besides satisfying some purely economic goals, it should also satisfy and address the social needs of each society. The terms and conditions for economic growth cannot be purely economic. A state cannot act as merely a businessman.

A state has a fundamental responsibility to answer to the needs of society. Also, the responsibility of the state is the acknowledgement and definition of those needs. If the state succeeds in so doing, there can be hope that citizens will regain their trust in the state, and in the institution of democracy. Nothing strengthens democracy or protects it from a crisis better than the trust of the people.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Reimann is not here, so the next speaker is Mr Sasi.

Mr SASI (Finland) – The core of Mr Gross’s report is in paragraph 9, which states: “The present problems facing democracy are the accumulated result of many years of bad governance, political short-sightedness, and unwillingness of government and citizens to face reality.” We are living through a crisis of the political elite, of political corruption, of mismanagement in government and of buying political support with irresponsible promises. The fact is that that is the core of these problems.

I think that the sovereign debt crisis can lead to a European democratic spring whereby these few corrupt people can be thrown out and the people can take power in their own countries.

We had a system in which people thought they could make political decisions while disrespecting and disregarding citizens, and what citizens and markets did. We must understand that in a market economy, the markets are the citizen. Every day, there is democratic exchange between market citizens and political decision makers. Those in the markets are hard-working people who want to guard their property and their money. That is why that exchange is very important.

We must realise that there are no problems with democracy in countries where the economy is managed very well. I shall take my own country, Finland, as an example. There is full trust in political decision makers and no crisis. People are not on the streets. However, giving money to other countries might be opposed by the population. There is no crisis in democracy in countries where the politicians have acted properly.

In the face of this crisis, we must develop our democracy. We must develop an early-warning system for decision makers so that when interest rates go up there is a warning for the politicians who have made wrong decisions and taken on too much debt. When the balance of payments is too negative, there must be a warning signal for the people and for the politicians that the competitiveness of their country is not in shape. Those signals should be taken seriously, as they would provide a good means of political control. It is also important that there should be as much transparency in political decision making as possible. Politicians in some countries show favour to certain groups and give positions of power to their friends, but that must end. We need a system in which there is no bias in the decision-making process and in which the decision makers do not favour their own supporters. That is the way out of this crisis.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Kyriakidou.

Ms KYRIAKIDOU (Cyprus) said that as a member of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons she congratulated Mr Gross and Ms Dumery on their reports. Foreign workers were a necessary part of modern society, but despite this were now used as a political card to play in elections. In this light, breakthroughs by extremist parties in two Council of Europe member states were deeply concerning. It was important, however, not to criticise the parties but instead to ask why xenophobic, anti-immigrant parties, which used racist propaganda and stoked tensions in doing so, had been successful.

The financial crisis had damaged the social contract, because increased unemployment led to greater competition for jobs and so raised tensions in communities. It was therefore imperative to combat the crisis through fostering growth and creating jobs, rather than through austerity programmes. Increased employment would decrease xenophobic and racist feelings and halt the rise of right-wing extremist parties.

The media, which bore responsibility too, needed to change the image that it projected of immigrants, particularly with its references to riots in French suburbs, to the wearing of the veil and to terrorist attacks in London, as the images put across were spread widely on the internet, which in turn created a social value crisis.

Though the report and its recommendations should be adopted, it was also important to raise the issue of voting in local elections, because the link between the elector and the elected would ensure that politicians gave more care and attention to the needs of immigrants and the fight against discrimination.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Virolainen.

Ms VIROLAINEN (Finland) – I congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report on the portrayal of migrants during election campaigns. As parliamentarians, we represent all members of our society, regardless of where they come from, what they look like or how well they do in life. We have a special responsibility to distance ourselves from inappropriate and racist remarks. We must recognise, however, that most of the negative attitudes towards migrants come from fear. Fear of the unknown is a very human feature, and fearful people are an easy target for populists, whose simplified truths can be countered only by an honest and open dialogue based on facts. That is not an easy task, as much of the discussion has moved to the Internet and the social media. During the Finnish general elections last year, many of the anti-immigration discussions took place online, which was very difficult to control. We must ensure that a balanced and fact-based discussion also takes place in cyberspace.

Migrants represent not a threat but an opportunity, and they are a necessity for our ageing societies. The health care sector is becoming increasingly dependent on migrants, especially in Finland. Working in a country should give everyone the right to participate and to voice opinions. All must have the right to vote and to run for election. Having the possibility to have a say is an essential part of integration. We have fought hard for our equal societies. Let us not create new class societies. Intolerance is not something that we are born with; prejudices are fed to children by adults. Intolerance feeds intolerance, and a vicious circle is created. In Finland, we have decided to place a special focus on immigrant mothers. Through the project “Let’s Read Together”, NGOs have helped to improve the women’s language skills and thus encouraged them to become active members of society.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Don Davies.

Mr Don DAVIES (Observer from Canada) – We should all be grateful for the committee’s report on the portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns. It serves as a stark reminder that we need to address the root causes of the poor treatment of migrants, and that we have much work to do. We know the root causes: xenophobia, irrational fear, prejudice and sometimes outright racism practised against those who are different from the mainstream of society. It is unacceptable that politicians succumb to the temptation to tap into those hurtful, negative attitudes towards immigrants and use them as a source of political support. They reinforce and give legitimacy to the widespread perceptions of immigrants as a burden on the economy and social programmes, as a security risk or as a threat to social customs and stability.

We also know that the rise of such sentiments tends to coincide with periods of economic instability. Unscrupulous politicians exploit people’s personal insecurity and unfairly direct their fears against groups of people who are easy, vulnerable targets for blame. It is important to note that such exploitation occurs not only during election campaigns; it can also become part of the ongoing political culture. We must note firmly and without compromise that the justifications for characterising immigrants in that way are completely specious and wrong, and have no place in civilised political discourse. They must be rejected immediately and thoroughly and condemned by all parties across the political spectrum.

I would like to share my personal experience as a member of parliament representing an ethnically diverse electoral district in the major Canadian city of Vancouver, which has a large immigrant population. Immigrants and refugees defy the stereotypes. They do not improperly displace established citizens from jobs; nor do they fail to accept cultural norms. They are no more likely to engage in criminal activity than the nationals of any given country. Instead, they enrich our society in every way imaginable.

Immigrants are more likely to be self-sustaining, industrious and entrepreneurial. They want to integrate in their new countries. They want their children to be educated and to advance in their professions. In short, they want what we all want: the right to live their lives in a productive and harmonious fashion. However, political parties everywhere pander to the irrational, extremist voices that demean and dehumanise immigrants, and governments respond too readily to those voices by enacting legislation that is detrimental to immigrants, rather than showing leadership and courage by developing supportive policies.

By all means, colleagues, let us disagree on policy and have a vigorous, democratic debate on all the issues, but let us learn from history and honour the most cherished precepts of this institution. Let us categorically reject the use of slander, stereotype and prejudice against people as a political tool. That is the best way for us to advance human rights – by treating people as the individuals they are and deserve to be.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Durrieu.

Ms DURRIEU (France) said that she was delighted that there had been two days to discuss these major issues and she thanked all the rapporteurs for their hard work. Yesterday, the Assembly had discussed austerity and how markets had become globalised and therefore open to predators. Everyone had been affected by the crisis, but young people had been hit hardest and extremist parties were finding a fertile breeding ground in the crisis. Sometimes it was difficult to believe that there was a danger, but that danger undoubtedly existed and the trend was worrying. Technocrats were highly capable, but what had happened in relation to the co-option of Draghi and Monti, and what was going on in Italy and Greece, presented a real problem for democracy. This was an age of information technology in which social networks played a key role. The rapporteur had commented that there was a crisis in representative democracy. France had witnessed a real desire among people to participate in the process and it was important that that desire was met, for example, by holding primaries. She encouraged delegates to remain optimistic.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I cannot see Ms Reps, so the next speaker is Ms Mogherini Rebesani.

Ms MOGHERINI REBESANI (Italy) – All around Europe, there are two paradoxes facing our democracies. On the one side, globalisation and the financial crisis have unveiled the urgent and absolute need for global political action. A couple of decades ago, we used to say that we should think globally and act locally. It is now clear to everybody that this is not enough: we have to think globally but act locally and globally as well. We need global levels of institutional co-operation and global political actors – although I should say that civil society, youth movements and international non-governmental organisations sometimes seem far more ready to act in this way than political parties. On the other side of the paradox, opinion polls and electoral trends show that people seem to be afraid of delegating national sovereignty – look at the European Union debate. There has also been an increase in populist discourse and localist movements, yet often, those citizens who declare that globalisation is the context in which politics should take place are the same ones who vote for localist parties or movements.

In these times of economic crisis, we are facing conditions where political leaders and parties know exactly what should be done. Let us take the example of immigration. We all know very well that immigration is not only unstoppable but necessary, if we want our economies and welfare systems to be sustainable. On the other side, we have to win elections, and sometimes long-term and global thinking is compromised by the short-term electoral message. This is the second paradox that we are facing in our democracies. I will put it in a brutal way: has democracy become part of the problem rather than part of the solution? This is the implication when you look at Greece – or, sometimes, at Italy. Our elections are a time of problems rather than a time of participation.

The answer is to open up participation. On the one side, we need a different kind of participation – earlier, someone talked about horizontal or interactive participation – but on the other side, we need to exercise responsibility, as was mentioned just now. Electorates ask political parties to take responsibility, speak the truth and deliver results. This is what we have to do. The only solution is transparency in politics and institutions, and opening up political parties, making them effective and efficient instruments for participation, at the service of their communities and countries through delivering results. Only in this way will we save our democracies from these paradoxes.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Saar.

Mr SAAR (Estonia) – I join others in praising the rapporteurs and all concerned for raising the crisis of democracy and the role of the state in today’s Europe. It is time to ask some fundamental questions, and that is what we have been provided with in this debate and in these documents.

Back home, we all feel pressure to come back from Europe with concrete steps, measures and agreements to combat the crisis. If we do not achieve them, we sometimes use the platform provided to us in this Chamber to enable us at least to issue a press release and get even with our neighbours – and so on, and so on. However, it is often much more important to generalise and to ask the philosophical question, “What are these measures for?” The first sentence of the summary of Mr Gross’s report says: “European democracies turned out to be powerless in the face of market forces”, which leads me to ask, “If market forces have such a powerful, mighty role – close, even, to that of states – then what exactly are they?” Are they similar to the forces of nature? Who has created market forces? What do we use them for? Who should control them?

This is the occasion and this is the Organisation to ask such questions. As Ms Brasseur said, it helps to put these philosophical questions back home, where we are always very busy trying to find concrete solutions and make arrangements. What do we want market forces to be? Andreas Gross has written a very good report, and I hope that we will use it to make a difference.

THE PRESIDENT – I remind members that voting is in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom. The polls will close at 1 p.m. Those who have not yet voted in these elections may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

I call Mr Shershun.

Mr SHERSHUN (Ukraine) said that he thanked Mr Gross for his work on one of the most important issues that was confronting Europe. Europe was experiencing the effects of the economic crisis and it was a priority to protect society and to guarantee democratic freedom. It was essential to guarantee people’s quality of life and to provide social services and it was also vital to act against the emergence of radical parties. In the eurozone, states needed to promote co-operation with NGOs and the rest of civil society, because civil society could help them to deal with their social problems. Economic growth must be promoted. Ms Dumery’s report about the problems associated with migration showed that there was a need to consider the policies that were in place. It was also important to bear in mind the position of voters. The Assembly had an important role to play.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Árnason.

Mr ÁRNASON (Iceland) – The excellent report by Mr Gross contains at least three very important points regarding democracy. First, democracy is not static; it is not a goal to be achieved once and for all. In fact, it is quite the opposite: a dynamic process that is not only constantly evolving, but always in danger.

Secondly, there is no prototype for democracy. One of the methods of developing democracy is to build upon the foundation of consultation, to discuss the patterns that are present in every society, and to consider the social possibilities of every new generation. This provides a different view from the stereotype that has prevailed in our part of the world, and it must improve the optimism of emerging democracies such as the Arab countries. In fact, this is also important for those of us whose task is to renew and deepen democracy in countries that have a long democratic tradition.

Thirdly, in order to have a good democracy, you need a sound state. Therefore, one can conclude that a weak state equals less democracy. Less cohesion in society entails less democracy and more “law of the jungle”. Therefore, the discussion of democracy can never be anything but political in nature.

Iceland is an old democracy, and we have done quite well by comparison with other countries, but perhaps we have been a bit too pleased with ourselves in the past. In the past few decades, some doubts have emerged regarding the state of affairs in Iceland, especially since the crash of 2008. It may help others to know a bit more about the situation.

On the positive side, I point to the preparation of a new constitution entailing four stages. The first stage was a random choice meeting – a “world café” – to find out the core values to build on. The second stage was an assembly where individually chosen representatives – they were not from a party list – worked on the core values in order to draft a new constitution. The third stage – parliamentary discussion – is ongoing. Finally, the fourth stage will be a referendum on a new constitution.

This is a happy combination of direct and representative democracy. All this has not been done without criticism, but it has been quite successful and constitutes a vital part of a necessary post-crash reconciliation. We really are looking towards direct democracy as a method that can prevent us from repeating the mistakes of the past, and we hope that the new constitution will help us on that path. However, I warn you that utilising the tools of direct democracy without considering its content and ideology can lead to cheap populism. We have seen examples of that in Iceland in the two referendums on delicate international financial matters – the Icesave agreements.

This experience does not necessarily tell us that some issues are too complex or subtle for direct democracy, but rather that, if the real issue is to be put before the voters so that a real decision can be made, we need a lot of information, time and money, as we know from our parliamentary work. We therefore need to find ways for the representative half of the democratic system to work in harmony with the direct democracy half of the system. In a sound state, those two halves must not be like enemies engaged in a vendetta; they must be respectful friends.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Árnason. I call Mr Stoilov.

Mr STOILOV (Bulgaria) – I support the draft resolution and, most of all, the memorandum presented by the rapporteur, Andreas Gross. Particularly when such a complex and controversial topic is concerned, the draft resolution is more than a statement of the position of its author. It is also the result of a political compromise between different ideas and political groups. Therefore, let me go one step further. Democracy today is not only one of the victims of the financial crisis; it is also under threat from modern capitalism, which gave birth to modern democracy and could now destroy it. But democracy may yet emerge stronger if its response to the crisis convinces citizens of its worth.

Democracy is most severely eroded in those countries that are most strongly affected by the economic crisis – those where unemployment, austerity measures and inequalities are the greatest and where the financial markets and transnational institutions are almost beyond control. Democracy does not thrive where the main political decisions, the opinions of the ratings agencies, and the conduct of the media are decided by financial capital. If all major political decisions in some countries were dictated by a one-party political monopoly until recently, all branches of government will be firmly in the grip of financial and economic power at present.

Hence, democracy is not merely a set of formal procedures, and this observation applies fully to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, too. Democracy is not simply the rotation of different political parties in power. It is alive when it responds to different groups in society, when it provides a meaningful alternative and when it meets the expectations of citizens, particularly those that relate to social justice.

In some European countries, such as Bulgaria, democracy has been put to the test recently, not only because of the economic crisis, but because of the protracted and failed social and economic transition. Inexplicable and unjustifiable wealth is being accumulated behind the façade of democracy. After a period of initial consolidation and development, today’s parliamentary democracy has been eroded to authoritarian and populist rule propped up by the power of oligarchs.

Democracy is valuable in itself, but it may not survive of itself. Its future depends on several conditions: stronger regulation and supervision of financial institutions, particularly investment banks; taxation of financial transactions, transparent financing of the media and eliminating the possibility of offshore companies owning the media; ensuring that fundamental social values and activities – education, health care and so on – do not fall victim to commercialisation; implementing tax and social policies that reduce social polarisation and poverty; putting in place effective measures to safeguard human rights, to respect personal freedoms and to fulfil our duties to society; and expanding direct democracy.

This is how I see democracy after the decline of neo-liberalism. This is a policy best expressed by the slogan, “Down with the oligarchy – freedom for the people!” This policy of radical social reformism can successfully confront both neo-conservatism and all forms of extremism. This is the road to salvation for democracy both today and in the near future.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Stoilov. The joint debate will continue at 4.30 p.m. this afternoon after the address by Mr Milanović, and the first speaker will be Ms Mattila. I ask the tellers chosen this morning to go to the area behind the President’s chair to supervise the elections.

4. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Written declaration

2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights (second round)

3. Joint debate – Democracy at risk: the role of citizens and of the State today

(i) The crisis of democracy and the role of the state in today’s Europe

(ii) The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns

Presentation of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy by Mr Gross in Doc. 12955

Presentation of opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development by the Earl of Dundee in Doc. 12977

Presentation of report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons by Ms Dumery in Doc. 12953

Presentation of opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy by Mr Marcenaro in Doc. 12978

Speakers:

Mr Petrenco (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Vercamer (Belgium)

Mr Michel (France)

Mr Kolman (Croatia)

Mr Heald (United Kingdom)

Reply to political groups:

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Speakers:

Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

Mr S. Kalashnikov (Russian Federation)

Mr Fournier (France)

Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)

Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain)

Mr Agramunt (Spain)

Ms Goryacheva (Russian Federation)

Mr Sidyakin (Russian Federation)

Mr Wach (Poland)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Mr Rzayev (Azerbaijan)

Mr Flynn (United Kingdom)

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Mr Franken (Netherlands)

Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan)

Mr Chisu (Canada)

Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Mr Knyshov (Russian Federation)

Mr Szabó (Hungary)

Mr Jakič (Slovenia)

Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

Ms Szél (Hungary)

Mr Liddell-Grainger (United Kingdom)

Ms Schou (Norway)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Mr Heer (Switzerland)

Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal)

Mr Nicolaides (Cyprus)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Ms Kyriakidou (Cyprus)

Ms Virolainen (Finland)

Mr Don Davies (Canada)

Ms Durrieu (France)

Ms Mogherini Rebesani (Italy)

Mr Saar (Estonia)

Mr Shershun (Ukraine)

Mr Árnason (Iceland)

Mr Stoilov (Bulgaria)

4. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

Appendix

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/Sergey Kalashnikov

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

José Antonio ALONSO*

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB/ Nebahat Albayrak

Mörđur ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Ţuriđur BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN*

Pelin Gündeş BAKIR*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Carmen Quintanilla

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Alexander van der BELLEN*

José María BENEYTO/Ángel Pintado

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Grzegorz BIERECKI

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA

Roland BLUM/*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Eric BOCQUET*

Olena BONDARENKO

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO*

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL

Piet DE BRUYN*

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann

Natalia BURYKINA

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN/Tor Bremer

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Irena Sokolova

Lolita ČIGĀNE/Jānis Dombrava

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON/Ian Liddell-Grainger

Deirdre CLUNE*

Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE

Titus CORLĂŢEAN*

Igor CORMAN/Stella Jantuan

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Cristian DAVID*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand De DECKER/Ludo Sannen

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF/Tineke Strik

Şaban DİŞLİ

Karl DONABAUER/Edgar Mayer

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES

József ÉKES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Gianni FARINA/Mario Barbi

Nikolay FEDOROV/Alexander Sidyakin

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Eric Voruz

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Paul FLYNN

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Bernadette Bourzai

Erich Georg FRITZ

György FRUNDA

Giorgi GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Sir Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA/Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Paolo GIARETTA*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Marek Borowski

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Alain Cousin

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU/ Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Andrzej HALICKI

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Hĺkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Oliver HEALD

Alfred HEER

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Serhiy HOLOVATY*

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Susanna HUOVINEN/Jouko Skinnari

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Stanisław HUSKOWSKI

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Bernard Fournier

Roman JAKIČ

Ramón JÁUREGUI

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA/Melita Mulić

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Michail KATRINIS/Georges Charalambopoulos

Burhan KAYATÜRK*

Bogdan KLICH/Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Tiny KOX

Marie KRARUP/Sophie Lřhde

Borjana KRIŠTO

Václav KUBATA

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Jean-Pierre Michel

Dalia KUODYTĖ*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Igor LEBEDEV/ Nadezda Gerasimova

Jean-Paul LECOQ*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN

George LOUKAIDES/Nicos Nicolaides

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA/ Serhii Kivalov

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ/Krunoslav Vrdoljak

Philippe MAHOUX

Gennaro MALGIERI

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Imer Aliu

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ*

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Patrick MORIAU

Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUŃOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE/Leander Schädler

Aleksandar NENKOV*

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Sandra OSBORNE

Nadia OTTAVIANI*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou

Eva PARERA

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Alexander POCHINOK*

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN*

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA*

Lord John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ*

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA

Mailis REPS

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Ilir RUSMALI*

M. Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIĆ

Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Rovshan RZAYEV

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER*

Urs SCHWALLER*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN

Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV/Alexey Knyshov

Robert SHLEGEL*

Ladislav SKOPAL/Václav Mencl

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Roberto SORAVILLA/Luz Elena Sanín

Maria STAVROSITU

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ*

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI*

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/Bernadett Szél

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ*

Dragan TODOROVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Lenka Andrýsová

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Giuseppe VALENTINO/ Renato Farina

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

Stefaan VERCAMER

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTČ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Tanja VRBAT/Ivan Račan

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Řyvind Vaksdal

Gisela WURM*

Karl ZELLER/Paolo Corsini

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Birutė Vėsaitė

Guennady ZIUGANOV/ Anvar Makhmutov

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Terence FLANAGAN

Observers:

Doron AVITAL

Corneliu CHISU

José Luis JAIME CORREA

Don DAVIES

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Ms Yeidckol POLEVNSKY GURWITZ

Gilbert ROOS

Partners for democracy:

Abdelkebir BERKIA

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM

Appendix II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the who took part in the ballot for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/Sergey Kalashnikov

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Khadija ARIB/Nebahat Albayrak

Mörđur ÁRNASON

Ţuriđur BACKMAN

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Deniz BAYKAL

José María BENEYTO/Ángel Pintado

Grzegorz BIERECKI

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Olena BONDARENKO

Olga BORZOVA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL

Natalia BURYKINA*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN/Tor Bremer

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Irena Sokolova

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON/Ian Liddell-Grainger

Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE

Igor CORMAN/Stella Jantuan

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Armand De DECKER/Ludo Sannen

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF/Tineke Strik

Şaban DİŞLİ

Daphné DUMERY

Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES

Nikolay FEDOROV/Alexander Sidyakin

Doris FIALA/Eric Voruz

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Paul FLYNN

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Bernadette Bourzai

Erich Georg FRITZ

György FRUNDA

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Sir Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA/Dimitrios Papadimoulis

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Marek Borowski

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Alain Cousin

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER

Ana GUŢU/ Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG

Andrzej HALICKI

Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Hĺkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Oliver HEALD

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Anette HÜBINGER

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Stanisław HUSKOWSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Roman JAKIČ

Ramón JÁUREGUI

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA/Melita Mulić

Michail KATRINIS/Georges Charalambopoulos

Bogdan KLICH/Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak

Haluk KOÇ

Tiny KOX

Marie KRARUP/Sophie Lřhde

Václav KUBATA

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Jean-Pierre Michel

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Stella Kyriakides

Igor LEBEDEV/ Nadezda Gerasimova

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Jean-Louis LORRAIN

George LOUKAIDES/Nicos Nicolaides

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA/ Serhii Kivalov

Philippe MAHOUX

Gennaro MALGIERI

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET

Pietro MARCENARO

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO

Meritxell MATEU PI

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI

Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Alejandro MUŃOZ-ALONSO

Gebhard NEGELE/Leander Schädler

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Carina OHLSSON

Sandra OSBORNE

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA

René ROUQUET

Branko RUŽIĆ

Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Rovshan RZAYEV

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN

Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV/Alexey Knyshov

Ladislav SKOPAL/Václav Mencl

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Roberto SORAVILLA/Luz Elena Sanín

Maria STAVROSITU

Yanaki STOILOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Dragan TODOROVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Lenka Andrýsová

Giuseppe VALENTINO/ Renato Farina

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luca VOLONTČ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Tanja VRBAT/Ivan Račan

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Renate WOHLWEND

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Řyvind Vaksdal

Gisela WURM*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Birutė Vėsaitė

Guennady ZIUGANOV/ Anvar Makhmutov