For these questions to be answered we invited two speakers, Gerard and Ozgun, to demonstrate their arguments. For the first time AEGEEDebate has launched a video online debate through Google Hangout+. We are looking forward to your feedback on this matter as well. Enjoy the new format of the debate!

Ivan Bielik

Europe is facing complex and difficult problems. The euro crisis has unvealed that the European Union is suffering from severe democratic and institutional deficits that endangers the whole European project. Furthermore the prism scandal has shown that Europe needs strong institutions in order to defend or common values in the global arena.

However, scholars and politicians claim that a strong, democratic Europe is not possible. They claim that a European public sphere where a European opinion forming process could take place does not exist. AEGEE can demonstrate that this claim is not true. Therefore it is time to change something, it is time to launch ‘The European Democracy Project’.

The only instrument existing at the moment to prove that a European decision-making process is possible is the European Citizens Initiative. It is an instrument that connects European citizens for a common political goal. AEGEE, as the only pure European student organization, should use the ECI – despite all discussed weaknesses of this instrument – to show in a visionary campaign that European Democracy is possible. A successful ECI, promoted by AEGEE, could show that the involvement of European citizens should be a corrective to adjust wrong decision taken by a small group of national leaders.

Nowadays, European citizens face paternalism especially when it comes to great economical or political project. The claim is that an average citizen of the EU is not capable of understanding such things well enough in order to make sophisticated and rational decisions. However, on the other side we witness how heavy economical and political interests inflict our lives in an uncomforting, sometimes disturbing way since the great majority of the decision makers in high political ranks either lack themselves knowledge of what we, the people, need or face our needs with arrogance for a “higher” purpose. The outcomes are protests such as Blockupy, unrest in Spain or Greece, even in Stockholm and – the most famous one in the recent newspapers – the Gezi protests in Turkey (since Turkey is greatly intertwined politically and economically with the EU the effects in this country should also be taken into account). It is our aim to strive for equilibrium between economical/political and basic peoples interests, for the possibility to fill the term “democracy” with more life also between elections. Especially for the younger generation the decisions made today will be of large importance for their future well-being.

Of course it is important to have a specific topic for an ECI, which makes it possible to really change something. Another problem is to address particularly those people who are inflicted by such a change the most – hence, the ECI about more democracy in the EU must reach also the younger generation. Since it may be difficult to raise awareness of such an abstract topic of more involvement of citizens in EU politics the idea is to first gain attention with another ECI about a more youth related topic before the second major one will be initiated.

We think that an ECI regarding the social media/ prism discussion could be especially interesting, as it upsets many European and also the European Commission (Viviane Reding) and the European Parliament (see Link 1 and 2 below) have an high interest to change something. However, they would need a strong rear cover from the European citizens in order to have strong position against the opposition of several national governments. This and the reasons stated above are why we officially want to ask the Commission with an ‘OpenFacebook’ ECI to launch an anti-trust procedure against Facebook.

The reason why Facebook is able to collect such a flood of information and can force its clients to reveal this information to Facebook and the whole ‘Facebook’ community is the simple application of a so-called vendor-lock-in that makes a customer dependent on a vendor. Facebook is a closed network which means that it does not allow clients of other social networks to get in contact with facebook-users. If a customer wants to take part in the social life of the web 2.0 he has to become a member of Facebook and accept Facebook’s conditions. This undermines the competition in the social media market as the lock-in costs create barriers to market entry. That a competition between social media is possible shows the example of diaspora or friendica. In these social networks you can easily contact users of other social medias, just like you can send an e-mail from one e-mail provider to another.

Antitrust and competition affairs are an exclusively responsibility of the European Commission. Europe has strong and powerful institutions to regulate companies that are applying monopolistic policies to undermine market competition. A European Citizens Initiative, launched by AEGEE, could therefore show that it is possible to change European politics if you have strong institutions and a good connection to and between the people.

If you wish to be part of this project just let us know. We are happy about everybody who wants to help! Together we can change something! You find more information in the attached program description and in the links below. If you would like to get deeper explanation, please read the attached PDF file below.

MORE INFO HERE: The European Democracy Project (PDF file)

With best regards,

Thilo, Armin and Ivan

Link 1: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/reding/multimedia/news/2013/06/20130612_en.htm

Link 2: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/us-eu-usasecurity-idUSBRE95I17S20130619

Link 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock_in

Link 4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Citizens%27_Initiative

During upcoming Spring Agora Rhein-Neckar 2013 Comité Directeur (abbreviation “CD”) will present one interesting and controversial proposal. Many new members of AEGEE are confused by the proposal, because they do not remember existence of regions that were abolished in 2006. Therefore, the purpose of this debate is to inform and educate the members in order to make good decision at Spring Agora by bringing arguments for and contra the proposal.

In this point I would like to clarify the position of IPWG in this debate. Some people could object that it is not the business of this working group to enter the discussion about proposal. However, IPWG does not have any stake in supporting or rejecting the proposal. Our goal is to offer impartial debate about the proposal through newly established online platform which should serve for whole network, not only for IPWG members. You can judge if we succeed.

Now back to the debate. We invited Comité Directeur of AEGEE to enter the debate because of its relevance for the network. On the other hand, opposition speaker is former Speaker of Network Commision, the stakeholder which is directly influenced by the proposal. We hope this will bring quality and depth to the arguments in the debate. Last word is, however, up to the reader.

The outline of the debate is similar to former ones. Firstly, the proposal is introduced in order to completely comprehend what it is about. Secondly, Comité Directeur introduces qualitative benefits of the proposal such as sustainability and improved knowledge transfer. Second point is about encouraging cooperation and transparency (stability) in the region. Overall, CD offers clear structure of the opinion, brief points and relevant benefits of the proposal.

On the other hand, opposition speaker, Olimpia, tries to explain why proposal will not solve the problem and advocates flexibility of current system for network distribution. Moreover, Olimpia contests the likelihood of regional division of AEGEE into the regions. Relevant point is also rebuttal of cooperation and stability which is advocated by the CD. Overall, Olimpia uses good structure of the paper and relevant examples. She is tackling important points in the debate.

I believe that you can get all information about the proposal from this debate. This information should serve delegates at Spring Agora to decide what will happen with the proposal. I wish you pleasant and informative reading. Do not forget to comment because this problem is relevant for all members of AEGEE.

Affirmative speaker: Comité Directeur (as a team)

Opposition speaker: Olimpia Parje

Ivan Bielik, Moderator of the debate

The proposal

Article 27: Network Commission

(1) 1.The Network Commission supports the locals in the region and the Comité Directeur with their tasks. 2. It is composed of up to eleven individual AEGEE members, who are not members of the Comité Directeur.

(2) 1.The members of the Network Commission are only entitled to act in the name of the association, when they act on behalf of one or more of their assigned locals, in those countries where their locals are present, and always with prior written consent of the Comité Directeur and those local(s). 2. They have no financial power.

(3) The Network consists of 10 geographical areas. Each area is assisted by a Network Commissioner. Each local has the right to express its opinion regarding the distribution of the areas, which can be revised and modified every three years in accordance with the Strategic Plan.

(4) 1.The members of the Network Commission are elected by the Agora for one year. 2.All members of the Network Commission may be re-elected. 3The Speaker of the Network Commission is to be elected at the occasion of an Agora among the elected members by simple majority.

So basically it means that opposed to now, where the regional distribution changes every six months with the elections of the Network Commission, the regional distribution will be fixed for three years.

Defend the proposal

Comité Directeur of AEGEE

The proposal will bring more sustainability and better knowledge transfer in the Network. Locals staying together mean stronger cooperation and stronger personal bonds between people from one region. This means that knowledge will circulate more easily, there will be more exchange of best practices. This can be especially valuable for fresh and inexperienced locals or boards.

Additionally, the proposal will create better informed locals and more discussion on level of the locals. The closer locals are networked, the easier information passes between then. Besides the top-down channels, more discussion will take place between the locals on the same level, which means that locals will be better informed, have a clearer opinion and lastly will be able to send more informed delegates to Agorae,e.g. When locals know each other and confidence is stronger, it will be much easier to apply together or regional grants, such as e.g. the Visegard Foundation.

Second benefit is better visibility of our locals. Sticking together and building sustainable relationships also gives room for common projects and e.g. common PR initiatives. E.g. smaller locals can benefit more from the PR efforts done in big locals, and the external picture of AEGEE will become more coherent because one local will know what the other does. Moreover, it will bring more support with the organisation of events. We have seen that organising big events like Agorae is also possible for smaller locals, if they receive support from surrounding antennae. Examples are Agora Alicante and Agora Rhein-Neckar.

Last benefit is more transparency for the locals. In case we establish regions, Network Commissioners will have to state already during the elections for which region they candidate, which makes it much clearer for the voting locals to know who they will work with, opposed to the current process where the Network distribution is being done after the election according to the results of the elections. This will also decrease the risk of having two Commissioners from the same region and having geographically widespread regions that are difficult to take care of by one person.

Against the proposal

Olimpia Parje, working with Network commision for two years, former Speaker of the Network Commision; master degree in European studies.

While discussing such a substantial change to the structure of AEGEE such as the introduction of regions and an official regional level, we should take into account where this idea comes from but most of all we should be truly informed about the very unfortunate consequences this change would bring upon our network.

Why regions won’t solve our problems

The proposal to introduce a regional level aims to fix our long-time problem of lack of continuity and weak locals by introducing a set of arbitrary borders to be reviewed every three years. The fact that our network needs improvement is no news to anyone, but if there is anything that has kept the network together it is the Network Commission and the way this works. The proposers assume that by fixing regions for a longer period of time, the Network Commissioners involved will ensure a proper knowledge transfer, locals will cooperate more with each other etc. However, this solution will only facilitate the election of members of the Network Commission based on geographic residence and not competences. What does geography have to do with the preparation, motivation and possibilities of the people who stand for elections? Isn’t it in the end also a discrimination and limitation of those who would do a good job based on their place of birth? Who would you rather take care of your part of the network? Nothing will guarantee continuity – this always depends on each person, how well they do their job and how well they transfer their knowledge to their successor – all the dedicated people are doing it now as well.

The division of the network

While it is true that structures create stability and encourage cooperation, it is only towards the inside. Regions were abolished in 2006 because the regional feeling had become much stronger than the European feeling, contrary to our aim. The introduction of regions will divide our network into small corners of Europe that will rarely cross their ‘borders’ and will create a greater psychological barrier between the already distanced European and local level.

Some will argue that there are already de-facto regions existing in the network, but this is false. There are locals that have stuck together for 2-3 years, and locals that are often under the same network commissioner, it’s true. But it is the flexibility of the network distribution to network commissioners that allows the locals to get as much attention as they need. Just to give off some examples:

• Locals from the UK have often been grouped together with Dutch and Belgian locals, due to geographical reason. On one occasion however, a Hungarian netcommie was elected who had very close personal ties to the UK, had lived there for a while, was very motivated to invest more than the usual amount of energy into this part of the network and was willing to make trips our of her personal budget because of this, as AEGEE-Europe was reluctant to pay for more trips to such a weak part of the network.
• Greek locals have been grouped together with different parts of the network, either with the Balkan locals, the Turkish ones, the Mediterranean ones – Italian etc. (depending on the situation that would benefit them most each time).  At the moment they are grouped together with Romanian and Moldavian locals under a Romanian netcommie, without Bulgarian ones. Many complain this is not a coherent-linear distribution but it is definitely never random. This Romanian netcommie in question even speaks greek, has grown up in Greece and spends many of her days in Greece.

There are many more examples to give to support this claim and prove how flexibility has helped improve our network. What if a local has a problem of working with a certain netcommie – will they be excluded from a region completely? How would you imagine this working in a network with fixed regions? Let me tell you, it won’t work.

There are other ways to encourage cooperation between locals geographically linked, be they under the same netcommie or not. TSUs, National Youth Councils, Regional Training Courses, Twin Antennae to name the obvious ones. And why not ‘regional’ projects such as EaP?

The arbitrary nature of borders

The proposal doesn’t state what the regions will be. Who is to decide upon this? The Comite Directeur through a decision probably. But one CD will think differently than the other. And this is normal.

How will you divide the Balkans? The Caucasus and Russia? Central Europe? Based on languages? Based on cultural proximity? These things often vary depending on who you ask. Where will you put Greek locals – with the Balkans or Turkish ones? The UK, France? Everything is relative. There is no fair division of Europe. And to be honest, hasn’t this continent been fragmented enough? If this proposal is accepted, we’ll surely live to experience this on our own skin.

You may see some practical advantages of the existence of regions, but then again the same goes for a national level, which we strongly want to avoid, don’t we? You may see in regions a solution for lack of continuity and cooperation, but the only thing regions will bring is a fragmentation of our widely spread network, an agora-wide voting for nationality instead of competences, and eventually the loss of the idea that we are one network and the loss of the European feeling altogether.