|
|
Doc. 8612
17 January 2000
Promotion of information and democratic debate in states which fail to honour their commitments and obligations as members of the Council of Europe
Motion for a recommendation
presented by Mr Clerfayt and others
This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it |
1. The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the principles which are their common heritage.
2. To this end, the Council of Europe must help to lift its member states to a high level of pluralist democracy and keep them there. This implies, for members, the honouring of a whole series of standards and conventions drawn up over the years, particularly covering human rights, the rule of law, the democratic principles of the separation of powers, the holding of free elections at regular intervals, the autonomy of local authorities and the rights of minorities.
3. On joining the Council of Europe, member states undertook to respect these principles, standards and conventions and, should the occasion arise, to reform their legislation, internal organisation and practice in the governmental, administrative, judicial, policing and other spheres, so as to comply with these commitments, and they pledged to reform their constitutions if necessary.
4. The Parliamentary Assembly has, in recent years, found that one member state or another has failed to honour all the commitments freely entered into, and has taken the view that, this state of affairs being unacceptable, rectification had to be carried out by the country concerned. In certain cases the failings were serious, and reforms both essential and urgent.
5. Nevertheless, having issued appropriate recommendations to these member states, the Assembly has noted that no follow-up action was taken on some occasions. The question thus arises of whether it is not appropriate to penalise the said states as a warning to them to take rapid action to introduce the reforms needed to remedy the democratic deficits and the shortcomings noted.
6. As financial penalties seem inappropriate, not very effective and, in any case, difficult to enforce, it has sometimes been proposed that the state concerned be excluded or suspended from participation in the Council of Europe, or that, as an initial warning, its parliamentary delegation to the Assembly be excluded or suspended.
7. However, participation in the Council of Europe enables member states to establish links with the other democratic states, and thus to collect information about legislative models and/or political and administrative practice. It also enables them to be given the assistance of experts, as well as other kinds of help which play a very useful role in stimulating the developments and reforms necessary in member states. All these advantages would be lost, were the state concerned to be suspended or excluded from the Council of Europe for failing to comply fully with democratic standards and with its commitments to the Council of Europe.
8. A decision of this kind would probably be counter-productive: isolating a state, and leaving it to its own devices, provides no encouragement to carry out the necessary democratic reforms.
9. In order to help a member state speedily to carry out the requisite democratic reforms, it seems preferable to rely more on democratic machinery which itself draws on citizens' determination. It would thus be more useful to promote information provision within the country, fostering democratic debate so that the public can understand the problems relating to democratic standards, demand the essential reforms and urge political parties, parliament and government rapidly to organise those reforms.
10. It would therefore be appropriate for the Council of Europe, in close co-operation with the member state, and using the radio and television resources of the state concerned, to organise informative broadcasts and political debates intended both to explain the deficit which exists in terms of democratic standards and to stimulate internal democratic debate, encouraging political progress and the necessary reforms. These broadcasts could be arranged at a rate of two or more hours per week, over a period decided in the light of the seriousness of the case.
11. Thanks to the Council of Europe's use of such a right to broadcast specific information within a member state, the citizens of that state would be well-informed and better equipped to express their democratic wish for their country to come into line with its obligations deriving from its participation in the Council of Europe.
12. Implementation of the procedure described above would be better than possible suspension or exclusion of the member state, or, initially, of its parliamentary delegation to the Assembly, as a way of moving states which fail to make the necessary changes towards European democratic standards.
13. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. implement a procedure for promoting both the democratic provision of information and democratic debate within any state which is subject to a monitoring procedure;
ii. prepare information for broadcasting in the states concerned, especially relating to the failure to honour the commitments entered into and to the reforms needed in order to comply with the Council of Europe's standards;
iii. consider the legal resources needed to implement this recommendation.
Signed : 1
Clerfayt, Belgium, LDR
Barsony, Hungary, SOC
Bloetzer, Switzerland, EPP/CD
Davis, United Kingdom, SOC
Gross, Switzerland, SOC
Iwinski, Poland, SOC
Lopez Henares, Spain, EPP/CD
Muehlemann, Switzerland, LDR
Poptodorova, Bulgaria, SOC
Timmermans, Netherlands, SOC
1 SOC: Socialist Group
EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party
EDG: European Democratic Group
LDR : Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group