DOCSLIB.ORG

Suffrage for Sixteen-Year- Olds Within the EU

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Suffrage for Sixteen-Year- Olds Within the EU Sufrage for sixteen-year- olds within the EU [should the EU lower the voting age to sixteen in future elections?] Rosanna Zwolsman 6VP2 | C&M/E&M, Montessori Lyceum Amsterdam | [2015-2016] 2 Sufrage for sixteen-year-olds within the EU [should the EU lower the voting age to sixteen in future elections?] Rosanna Zwolsman 6VP2 September 2015-January 2016 3 4 Index I. Introduction ............................................................................................................7 II. The History of democracy and voting in Europe and the United States ....................9 III. Countries that granted sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds the right to vote .........19 IV. Pros and Cons of lowering the voting age in future European elections and national elections. ..................................................................................................................25 V.Teen Sufrage in European elections ......................................................................31 VI.Opinions ..............................................................................................................35 VII.Interview .............................................................................................................47 VIII.Conclusion .........................................................................................................53 Evaluation ................................................................................................................55 IX.Sources ................................................................................................................57 X. Logbook ...............................................................................................................65 5 6 I. Introduction I never really thought of teen sufrage before the summer of 2014. 18-year-olds were allowed to vote and 17 or 16-year-olds were not, it made sense to me. I was sixteen at the time and was always interested in my parents’ voting, but to say that I was politically engaged would be an overstatement. My perception changed when I met two girls from Glasgow on a German course in 2014. One of them was old enough to vote in the Scottish referendum, the other one was a few days too young. However, they were both very engaged in the subject and would not stop talking about it. Their enthusiasm was one of the reasons I first wanted to dedicate this project to the referendum, but I soon realised that I was more interested in the fact that teenagers were given the right to vote in this historic decision, than the actual referendum. This and the decision by the Scottish Parliament to let teenagers vote in future Scottish elections, made me reconsider my subject and I decided to change it. Furthermore, the idea that I could investigate which legal steps have to be taken before something as important as the voting age can be amended, very much appealed to me. I am slightly familiar with the European Union and its bodies but I would like to know exactly what is within the power of these bodies. The more I read about the subject, the more interested I became. At the same time it was very interesting to see how a growing number of articles and essays appeared on the internet. The whole idea of teenage voting seemed very appealing to me, I could hardly find any arguments against it. This made me curious, if it is such a marvellous idea why do not all countries decide to let their sixteen- and seventeen-year- olds play a more important part in their democracy? My ultimate goal is to answer the question: should the EU lower the voting age to sixteen in future elections? To do so, I have to read about the history of voting in Europe starting with the classical antiquity and answer multiple sub-questions considering the subject. I have formulated the following questions: 7 What steps have been taken to expand the electorate, throughout history? For this I will try to make a timeline about what kind of changes were made throughout history, in order to expand the right to vote. What countries allow minors to vote and under what conditions? I will make a list of countries and areas, that already allow them to vote and try to find out how successful this has been so far. I will also look at failed attempts to lower the voting age. What are the arguments in favour of and against this proposal? I will investigate the pros and cons and try to provide as many evidence as possible. Is it possible to make teenage sufrage compulsory within the entire EU? I will look at the political structure of the European body and the process of passing a bill. What are the opinions on this subject? To be able to answer the last question, I will have to do a small investigation among fellow students and others in addition to that I will interview an expert on the subject. Once I have answered the sub-questions, I will answer my main question: Should the EU lower the voting age to sixteen in future elections? 8 II. The History of democracy and voting in Europe and the United States What steps have been taken to expand the electorate, throughout history? Antiquity Ancient Athens A democracy is a system of government in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people. This system has been around for a few millennia. In popular belief, the first forms of democracy originate from ancient Greece. However, you could argue that the forms of communication between tribal village elders and other villagers in order to make important decisions, prior to the fifth century, was in a way a very primitive democratic system. The Athenian political system is well known, although other city-states had diferent political systems. The Athenian system was the most developed, and most importantly most sources are written about the Athenian system. I will therefore focus on Athens. In 507 BC Cleisthenes, an Athenian leader, introduced a new political system that he called demokratia meaning ‘rule by the people’. This system consisted of three separate bodies: • The boule a council of 50 representatives from each of the ten tribes. These 500 men in total were chosen by lot. Nevertheless membership was restricted to the top three out of four property classes and the members had to be over thirteen. The ten tribes each consisted of members from the city, from the coastal area and from the rural inland. Over the time this topological division broke down, due to the fact membership of a certain tribe was hereditary. • The diskarteria or popular courts, consisted of more than 500 jurors that were chosen by lot from a pool of all male citizens over 30. The jury had almost unlimited power. there was no police in Athens, so it was the diskarteria that brought cases to court and delivered sentences by voting. • The ekklesia, or assembly, was the governing institution of Athens. Every member of the demos, the 40,000 adult male citizens, was allowed to attend the meetings. They held 40 meetings a year in which they made decisions on law and foreign policy, wrote and revised laws, and held the procedure of ostracism. This procedure could be used to expel any citizen 9 from Athens for ten years. Only free male citizens who were over eighteen could vote in the ekklesia, women, slaves and metoikoi, foreigners living in Athens, were excluded from voting. In earliest times, voting was done by raising hands. However, this proved to be difcult during some meetings of the ekklesia for over 6,000 hands had to be counted, in cases, where at least 6,000 votes were needed to make something valid, voting was occasionally done by ballot. It was not until later, they realised voting by ballot could be used to let citizens vote anonymously. Voting was then done by writing a name on an ostraka, a piece of pottery. In conclusion: free male citizens of over eighteen were the only ones eligible to vote. Ancient Rome After the last king of Rome,Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, was overthrown in 509 BCE, Rome became a republic. It is important to know that the residents of ancient Rome were divided into two diferent groups, the patricians and the plebeians. The patricians were members of a group of wealthy families that formed the elite class. The plebeians were regular citizens. Romans were born into one of the groups, moving up or down the social ladder was impossible, marriage between both groups was illegal. Much as the Athenian democratic system, the Roman Republic consisted of diferent bodies: • The two consuls originally replaced the king, it was their task to lead to Roman armies during war time. They served for a one-year term and had the right to veto each other. However, in times of military emergency, Rome could decide to make one of the consuls dictator. This dictator was allowed to hold supreme command for six months. • The senate advised the consuls, only the patrician men were allowed to participate in the senate. Being a senator was a lifelong membership. Most senators also had fathers and grandfathers who too were or used to be member of the senate. The consuls usually did, whatever the senate advised them to do. • The tribunes of the plebs, were supposed to speak on behalf of the plebeians, in the senate. They had the right to veto against decisions the senate made that influenced the plebeians. The tribunes of the plebs were chosen by the assembly. There were more tribunes such as the military tribunes who had certain military powers. 10 • The assembly, every grown-up man1, who was in possession of Roman citizenship had the right to attend the assembly. They voted on important decisions when the consuls asked them to. They also elected the consuls, and prefects, it was their job to run the city. However, the assembly was set up in a certain way, so the rich citizens would get more votes. It was hard to obtain Roman citizenship, or civitas. It was achieved by birth when both parents were Roman citizens or when the mother was a peregrinus (foreigner) with connubium (the right to marry a Roman citizen). Citizenship could also be granted by people. In the third century BCE, plebeians gained equal voting rights with patricians, however the value of this right to vote was related to wealth, because the assemblies were organised by property.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Political Ideas and Movements That Created the Modern World
    harri+b.cov 27/5/03 4:15 pm Page 1 UNDERSTANDINGPOLITICS Understanding RITTEN with the A2 component of the GCE WGovernment and Politics A level in mind, this book is a comprehensive introduction to the political ideas and movements that created the modern world. Underpinned by the work of major thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Mill, Weber and others, the first half of the book looks at core political concepts including the British and European political issues state and sovereignty, the nation, democracy, representation and legitimacy, freedom, equality and rights, obligation and citizenship. The role of ideology in modern politics and society is also discussed. The second half of the book addresses established ideologies such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism and Nationalism, before moving on to more recent movements such as Environmentalism and Ecologism, Fascism, and Feminism. The subject is covered in a clear, accessible style, including Understanding a number of student-friendly features, such as chapter summaries, key points to consider, definitions and tips for further sources of information. There is a definite need for a text of this kind. It will be invaluable for students of Government and Politics on introductory courses, whether they be A level candidates or undergraduates. political ideas KEVIN HARRISON IS A LECTURER IN POLITICS AND HISTORY AT MANCHESTER COLLEGE OF ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY. HE IS ALSO AN ASSOCIATE McNAUGHTON LECTURER IN SOCIAL SCIENCES WITH THE OPEN UNIVERSITY. HE HAS WRITTEN ARTICLES ON POLITICS AND HISTORY AND IS JOINT AUTHOR, WITH TONY BOYD, OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION: EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION? and TONY BOYD WAS FORMERLY HEAD OF GENERAL STUDIES AT XAVERIAN VI FORM COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, WHERE HE TAUGHT POLITICS AND HISTORY.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001
    ICPSR 2683 Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001 Virginia Sapiro W. Philips Shively Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 4th ICPSR Version February 2004 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 www.icpsr.umich.edu Terms of Use Bibliographic Citation: Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Secretariat. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS, 1996-2001 [Computer file]. 4th ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004. Request for Information on To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of Use of ICPSR Resources: archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Visit the ICPSR Web site for more information on submitting citations. Data Disclaimer: The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Responsible Use In preparing data for public release, ICPSR performs a number of Statement: procedures to ensure that the identity of research subjects cannot be disclosed. Any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment violates the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawmakers Are Mulling Multiple Bills That Would Let Cities and Towns Allow
    for purchasing tobacco products. Lyons added that lowering the voting age would be detrimental to “all the great work that has been achieved,” on age-related issues. “On the one hand, they don’t trust people under 21 to buy tobacco products, but, on the other, they want to give much younger people the right to vote,” Tuerck said. “We have to wonder where this thinking comes from.” People also have to be 21 to buy alcohol and marijuana in Massachusetts. The age limit for the juvenile justice system was raised from 17 to 18 in 2013, and lawmakers have looked at raising it to 21. While in high school, Vargas was involved in a five- year campaign with UTEC, the state have asked to be given formerly known as United Teen Lawmakers are mulling Equality Center, advocating multiple bills that would let cities the authority to lower the voting age for municipal elections. alongside other young adults in and towns allow teens as young Lowell to lower the voting age to as 16 to vote in local elections, “It is time to give municipalities the option to empower their own 17. The city passed a home rule a move critics are calling petition in 2015, but it ultimately “frivolous” and “absurd.” young people,” Chandler said. “Cities and towns stalled in the Legislature. Two bills that would “This is about local allow “every citizen 16 or 17 have asked for this option for years, and I believe that control,” Vargas said. “You years of age, who is a resident don’t have to agree with in the city or town where he or young people deserve a voice in their local
    [Show full text]
  • Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age Vivian E
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 2013 Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age Vivian E. Hamilton William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Hamilton, Vivian E., "Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age" (2013). Popular Media. 123. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/123 Copyright c 2013 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media 5/14/13 Concurring Opinions » Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age » Print - Concurring Opinions - http://www.concurringopinions.com - Why We Should Raise the Marriage Age Posted By Vivian Hamilton On January 30, 2013 @ 6:31 pm In Family Law,Uncategorized | 6 Comments [1]My last series of posts [2] argued that states should lower the voting age, since by mid-adolescence, teens have the cognitive-processing and reasoning capacities required for voting competence. But that is not to say that teens have attained adult-like capacities across all domains. To the contrary, context matters. And one context in which teens lack competence is marriage. Through a single statutory adjustment — raising to 21 the age at which individuals may marry — legislators could reduce the percentage of marriages ending in divorce, improve women’s mental and physical health, and elevate women’s and children’s socioeconomic status. More than 1 in 10 U.S. women surveyed between 2001 and 2002 had married before age 18, with 9.4 million having married at age 16 or younger. In 2010, some 520,000 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The 19Th Amendment
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Women Making History: The 19th Amendment Women The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. —19th Amendment to the United States Constitution In 1920, after decades of tireless activism by countless determined suffragists, American women were finally guaranteed the right to vote. The year 2020 marks the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. It was ratified by the states on August 18, 1920 and certified as an amendment to the US Constitution on August 26, 1920. Developed in partnership with the National Park Service, this publication weaves together multiple stories about the quest for women’s suffrage across the country, including those who opposed it, the role of allies and other civil rights movements, who was left behind, and how the battle differed in communities across the United States. Explore the complex history and pivotal moments that led to ratification of the 19th Amendment as well as the places where that history happened and its continued impact today. 0-31857-0 Cover Barcode-Arial.pdf 1 2/17/20 1:58 PM $14.95 ISBN 978-1-68184-267-7 51495 9 781681 842677 The National Park Service is a bureau within the Department Front cover: League of Women Voters poster, 1920. of the Interior. It preserves unimpaired the natural and Back cover: Mary B. Talbert, ca. 1901. cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this work future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    SNAPSHOT The latest updates from the team at FTI Consulting in Brussels Giving you insight to what is on Europe’s political agenda Brexit and the European Parliament. What to expect? February 2020 With the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union (EU), 73 British MEPs have now departed the European Parliament. Some of these seats are being redistributed, while others will remain unfilled. How could this affect the equilibrium between the political groups in the European Parliament? How could policymaking in priority areas for the next five years be affected: notably the Green Deal, the Digital Agenda and Economic EU Sovereignty? Crunching the numbers So who wins and loses? It’s not a straightforward process as The total number of MEPs will drop from 751 to 705. Of the some groups lose their British MEPs but gain with the 73 vacated seats, 27 have been redistributed to other redistribution, meaning tone and priorities could be changing Member States and political groups. 46 are not being beyond just the total number of overall seats each group has. assigned and will be made available either for future EU enlargements; or for the potential creation of transnational Which groups have lost their British seats? Nigel Farage’s lists (with a pan Union constituency). Brexit Party, who were not affiliated, represent the biggest total number of former British MEPs, with twenty-seven now The seats are being proportionately re-distributed among 14 leaving the chamber. Renew Europe (RE), the former ALDE, Member States (see Figure 1 below), based on the 2019 representing the central liberals, is next with the departure elections.
    [Show full text]
  • International Social Survey Program: Role of Government III, 1996
    ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research International Social Survey Program: Role of Government III, 1996 Codebook International Social Survey Program (ISSP) ICPSR 2808 INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SURVEY PROGRAM: ROLE OF GOVERNMENT III, 1996 (ICPSR 2808) Codebook Principal Investigator International Social Survey Program (ISSP) First ICPSR Release October 1999 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: International Social Survey Program (ISSP). INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SURVEY PROGRAM: ROLE OF GOVERNMENT III, 1996 [Computer file]. Cologne, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer Empirische Sozialforschung [producer], 1999. Cologne, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer Empirische Sozialforschung/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 1999. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript
    [Show full text]
  • The Drinking Age
    Vermont Legislative Research Shop Lowering the Drinking Age The minimum legal drinking age fluctuated throughout the second half of the 20th century, yielding mixed results. After prohibition was repealed in 1933, almost every state set the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) at 21 years.1 In 1970 Congress lowered the voting age to 18, which began a movement to lower the drinking age, as well. During the Vietnam era, many people were outraged that 18 year‐olds were fighting overseas yet could not have a drink. In the period between 1970 and 1975, 29 states lowered their MLDA to 18, 19 or 20. A study by Alexander Wagenaar revealed that in states that had lowered their minimum age there was a 15 to 20% increase in teen automobile accidents.2 This information influenced 16 states to raise their MLDA to 21 between 1976 and 1983. Pressure from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) led to the signing of the Uniform Drinking Age Act by President Ronald Reagan on July 17, 1984.3 This act mandated a significant decrease in federal transportation funding for states that did not raise their MLDA to 21. Worldwide, the United States has the highest MLDA, with others ranging from birth to age 20.4 The majority of countries have a MLDA of 18. In most of these countries, however, the family teaches responsible drinking from a very young age. Since 1960, over one hundred studies have been conducted to analyze the effects of raising the MLDA. This research was examined by Alexander Wagenaar to determine the trends that appeared in the conclusions.5 Some of these studies provided evidence supporting a MLDA of 21, while most others found no conclusive results.
    [Show full text]
  • Forum Election Observer Team Vanuatu 2016
    PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT VANUATU NATIONAL ELECTIONS 2016 REPORT OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM ELECTION OBSERVER TEAM INTRODUCTION At the invitation of the Government of Republic of the Vanuatu, the Pacific Islands Forum deployed a Forum Election Observer Team to Port Vila Vanuatu, from 14 - 25 January, to observe the Vanuatu snap-elections on 22 January 2016. The Forum Election Observer Team (the Forum Team) comprised Mr Pita Vuki, Electoral Commissioner and Supervisor of Elections of the Kingdom of Tonga (Team Leader); Mrs Taggy Tangimetua, Government Statistician and Chief Electoral Officer of the Cook Islands; and Forum Secretariat staff (the list of members is attached at Annex 1). 2. The Forum Team was based in Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, and met with a wide range of stakeholders including senior Government representatives; the Vanuatu Electoral Office; civil society (including youth, women and disability groups) and faith-based organisations; private sector: election candidates; development partners; media representatives; the University of the South Pacific; and members of the diplomatic corps based in Port Vila. A list of stakeholders consulted is attached at Annex 2. On 22 January, Election Day, the Forum Team deployed across the island of Efate and neighbouring Moso Island. The Team observed all aspects of the elections in rural and urban areas – the pre-polling environment, the opening of polls, casting of votes, closing of polling, and the counting of votes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 3. The Forum Election Observer Team recommends for the consideration of the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu, the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office, as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconsidering the Minimum Voting Age in the United States
    Reconsidering the Minimum Voting Age in the United States Benjamin Oosterhoff1, Laura Wray-Lake2, & Daneil Hart3 1 Montana State University 2 University of California, Los Angeles 3 Rutgers University Several US states have proposed bills to lower the minimum local and national voting age to 16 years. Legislators and the public often reference political philosophy, attitudes about the capabilities of teenagers, or past precedent as evidence to support or oppose changing the voting age. Dissenters to changing the voting age are primarily concerned with whether 16 and 17-year-olds have sufficient political maturity to vote, including adequate political knowledge, cognitive capacity, independence, interest, and life experience. We review past research that suggests 16 and 17-year-olds possess the political maturity to vote. Concerns about youths’ ability to vote are generally not supported by developmental science, suggesting that negative stereotypes about teenagers may be a large barrier to changing the voting age. Keywords: voting, adolescence, rights and responsibility, politics Voting represents both a right and responsibility within tory and rooted in prejudiced views of particular groups’ ca- democratic political systems. At its simplest level, voting is pabilities. Non-white citizens were not granted the right to an expression of a preference (Achen & Bartels, 2017) in- vote until the 1870s, and after being legally enfranchised, tended to advance the interests of oneself or others. Voting literacy tests were designed to prevent people of color from is also a way that one of the core qualities of citizenship— voting (Anderson, 2018). The year 2020 marks the 100th participation in the rule-making of a society—is exercised.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Image and Political Influence of Princess Charlotte and Queen Adelaide
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2003 Reform, Radicalism, and Royalty: Public Image and Political Influence of Princess Charlotte and Queen Adelaide Eileen Robin Hintz College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the European History Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons Recommended Citation Hintz, Eileen Robin, "Reform, Radicalism, and Royalty: Public Image and Political Influence of Princess Charlotte and Queen Adelaide" (2003). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626412. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-ehge-1b89 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REFORM, RADICALISM, AND ROYALTY: Public Image and Political Influence of Princess Charlotte and Queen Adelaide A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Eileen Hintz 2003 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Eileen Hintz Approved by the Committee, December 2003 _ ___ James McCord Chandos Brown ff — Gilbert McArthur TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v ABSTRACT vi INTRODUCTION 2 CHAPTER I. THE DEATH OF PRINCESS CHARLOTTE [NOVEMBER 1817] 6 CHAPTER II.
    [Show full text]
  • Investing in Destabilisation: How Foreign Money Is Used to Undermine Democracy in the EU
    STUDY Requested by the INGE committee Investing in destabilisation: How foreign money is used to undermine democracy in the EU @Adobe Stock Author: Edoardo BRESSANELLI (Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies) European Parliament Coordinator: Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union EN PE 653.631 - April 2021 DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY Investing in destabilisation: How foreign money is used to undermine democracy in the EU ABSTRACT Foreign interference has become a major security threat for democracies. The European Union (EU) provides no exception and, in the last few years, has significantly stepped up its efforts to counter this threat. A specific type of foreign interference is the foreign funding of political parties. At the national level, regulations banning or limiting foreign funding are currently in place in most member states, but there is still significant variation across them. At the EU level, the recent reforms of the regulation on the funding of the Europarties and their associated foundations have banned contributions from abroad. Notwithstanding such welcome changes to party regulations, cases of foreign funding are still being reported in several member states, with foreign actors exploiting regulatory loopholes to channel funds or provide other types of support. To tackle this issue more effectively, regulatory convergence at the national level should be promoted, the transparency of party accounts should be enhanced, and the monitoring and sanctioning powers of the relevant control authorities strengthened. EP/EXPO/INGE/2020/01 EN April 2021 - PE 653.631 © European Union, 2021 AUTHOR • Edoardo BRESSANELLI, Assistant Professor, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Italy This study was originally requested by the European Parliament's Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, including Disinformation.
    [Show full text]