Citizens have a right to know. This is pure basics of a democratic system. Without knowing what is being and has been decided, and why, you cannot participate, nor can you try to hold decision-makers accountable.

Martin Luther starring in "When Luther came to Brussels"

Swedish-speakers were given a real insider treat when former Brussels correspondent Emily von Sydow some ten years ago published a recollection of her insights into Sweden’s first years in the EU maze.

The year was 1995. It had been close, almost 50–50, but here we arrived – with Luther in the back of our heads. Sweden and Finland had joined the family, over two decades behind their southern partner Denmark, the Latin of the North. Protestant Nordics, champions of openness and modern administration, had entered a predominantly catholic union of peoples, characterized by French-inspired bureaucracy, centralisation and an air of secretiveness.

Blow of fresh air?

Blow of fresh air? Or an unavoidable clash of cultures? Women and men driven by ideals such as good order and discipline, pragmatism, punctuality and equality came to realise it was a matter of learning, adjusting and surviving. And transparency? In a culture of leaking bits of information to the chosen ones it soon became evident it was – if not all, but almost – about whom you know. Information is power, indeed.

Transparency train

Yet the debate had already emerged, in the 1980s, on the European agenda. Conscious of the democracy deficit, lack of openness and the need to try to “bridge the cap” between Brussels’ elites and the people… EU’s main three institutions took action, during the 1990s, to allow access to their documents.

Breakthrough came in 1997. With Amsterdam, transparency and openness finally made a real, though still restricted, entrée into Europe’s decision-making. The treaty stipulated EU citizens’ right to know and called for action to put it in place.

Transparency, simplicity and efficiency in EU decision-making were priorities unlikely to be presented by another than a Nordic Presidency. Finns got there first in 1999. Yet it was in May 2001, under the Swedish Presidency, that the EU finally got its first serious set of rules on access to EU institutions’ documents – symbolic or not.

Has progress been made?

A question I put some months ago to British Labour MEP Michael Cashman, Parliament’s rapporteur for the first ever EU regulation on access to documents. “Yes, but” – he answered. The MEP, having become “something of a train spotter” for transparency, has now been working on the 9-year old EU rules’ revision.

Certain institutional and cultural reluctance towards transparency still exists, Cashman noted. Speaking about year 1999, former EastEnders‘ star explained: “It was felt that it would slow up the work of institutions, that they would be less effective and that somehow scrutiny was something to be worried about”.

New clothes needed

“But there are also faults and the clothes we gave to the first born are no longer fitting”. In order to make access to documents easy, Cashman has proposed, among others, a common register for EU institutions’ documents, “one doorway saying European Union access to documents, where you go in and type your request”.

“If you are a journalist, if you are a lobbyist, you will know your way around the maze”. Exercising and testing the boundaries of the right to access EU documents has fallen largely in the hands of those who already “believe” and know. Statewatch for example is notoriously famous for having drafts on sensitive issues such as the EU–US “SWIFT” agreement even ahead of the MEPs. And if you are not? “Citizens should be able to access documents online, despite the administrative burden”, Cashman argues.

With Lisbon the EU entered yet another era in transparency, the new treaty reconfirming the need to take decisions “as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen”. Making the EU’s other legislator, the Council, to legislate doors open, “people will see in Finland, the UK, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, wherever, that things are not imposed by Brussels, but actually agreed by their governments acting in Council. And they’ll be able to see how their governments voted”, Cashman reminds us.

With the risk of starting to sound all too complacent, one cannot talk about transparency without mentioning the European Ombudsman. The EU’s first ever parliamentary watchdog Jacob Söderman got credit for being a “people’s champion” for openness, like European Voice put it, dressing, well, the Finn, as a crusader. Despite years of work in this field, the successor Greek Nikiforos Diamandouros still faces similar challenges: of the 355 inquiries he completed in 2008 , 36 % dealt with a lack of transparency, including a refusal to provide information or documents.

Why does transparency matter?

With Lisbon the EU entered yet another era in transparency, the new treaty reconfirming the need to take decisions “as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen”. Making the EU’s other legislator, the Council, to legislate doors open, “people will see in Finland, the UK, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, wherever, that things are not imposed by Brussels, but actually agreed by their governments acting in Council. And they’ll be able to see how their governments voted”, Cashman reminds us.

Citizens have a right to know. This is pure basics of a democratic system. Without knowing what is being and has been decided, and why, you cannot participate, nor can you try to hold decision-makers accountable.

Right to know and be informed

That brings us to the other side of the coin: the administration’s duty to inform and communicate its work and decisions – in an understandable way. Yet we know that communication involves choices. It cannot therefore replace the right to access information and documents.

Transparency, openness, access to documents, clarity of EU communication… these all are keys to the legitimacy of EU politics and laws so dearly sought after.

The hurdles of opening up EU’s businesses to citizens’ participation and oversight will be back on the MEPs’ plate after the summer break. After having been stalled at an interinstitutional level, the stumbling blocks now seem to be indoors the one-year-old new Parliament.

What do EU and dogs have in common?

“A very typical Finnish subject!” was the reaction when I recently mentioned my interest in transparency issues in a job interview. Sure: we Nordics tend to have a special liking for the case of open administration, and like to think we have worked to get the rest of the EU on board. A lot has changed since 1995, much for the better, and also not only thanks to the Nordics. The EU itself has almost doubled in size. But transparency and openness still matter and benefit all of us, no?

…As for von Sydow, unlike many other Swedes and Finns, she doesn’t seem to have grown tired of Brussels ways. She writes, just around the EP corner, on European affairs – and sometimes dogs.