At the end of the first phase of the DIALOGUE ON EUROPE, in June 2016, four working groups called “Thinking Labs” were launched. Their members are young, promising European thinkers from the civil society, who were selected during the five first #EuropeanTownHall meetings of the DIALOGUE ON EUROPE. Between 2016 and 2018, the Thinking Labs met regularly to discuss the four main subjects of the project – Migration & Integration, Populism, Social Cohesion and Sustainable Growth – and to formulate policy recommendations in order to face these challenges at the European and national level.
Over the course of the last two years, civil society experts and practitioners from across Europe gathered in four DIALOGUE ON EUROPE Thinking Labs to deliver fresh ideas and to independently elaborate concrete policy recommendations on four European key areas: Migration & Integration, Populism, Social Cohesion, and Sustainable Growth. Discover the summary of their proposals and the full-length policy briefs below! (more…)
With case studies from Australia and Canada and a short comparative analysis of deliberative formats in the UK, this short book tries to convince skeptical decision-makers that, given the right framework, people can be good, legitimate and efficient decision-makers.
Within this report, CEAR (The Spanish Commission for Refugees) examines the situation of LGBT refugees both within Spain as their host-country and within their countries of origin. The analysis depicts the hardships of refugees that have to experience intersectional discrimination, stemming both from discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and discrimination due to their gender identity and sexual orientation.
How come the “celebrity maverick” has proven so successful with his unconventional, violent and vile approach? Why does Duterte’s populism attract so many voters and enabled him to become President?
Mainstream parties seem to believe that refusing ideological attachments and claiming that the populists are “the others” will be enough for the citizens to recognize them as the ones offering providential solutions. The problem is that, while the gap between representatives and represented is not narrowed, between a soft populism and the real thing, dangerous “others” might take the place with rather scary alternatives.
The political mainstream thinks that this crisis is conjunctural, not structural. But the trouble with austerity policies is that they increase the crisis in a cumulative way. With austerity one can only enlarge the probability to maintain the crisis, not to rule out it. And politicians don’t solve this problem – they preserve it.
The Spanish party Podemos and the German “Alternative for Germany” could not be, apparently, more opposed. However, there is one thing which brings them together: They both successfully use digital communication to reach their electorate in new, unmediated ways.
As the DIALOGUE ON EUROPE project aims to “rebuild trust” in European institutions and the European Union itself, two question arise amongst others: Which factors lead to a loss of trust in European institutions? What are the consequences of this loss for the European political culture and which possible democratic solutions can be identified? Within this context, it is inevitable to discuss and define the frequently used, yet often not further specified term of populism.