Thomas Fazi's interview for “Berliner Zeitung” raises an uncomfortable question about EU money, NGO and impact on public debate in Poland. The European Commission presents the CERV programme as value support, but the national state has the right to ask whether there is simply a political backdrop of Brussels behind this language.
A study that hits the convenient legend of Brussels
The German paper "Berlin Zeitung" published a conversation with Thomas Fazi, author of the study "The EU's Propaganda Machine". Thesis is difficult: EU money for NGOs was intended not only to service civic activity but besides to form debate in countries whose governments were in dispute with Brussels. Examples include Poland and Hungary.
You gotta set the line right away. The specified financing of the NGO from the Union budget is not evidence of a false election. But it is politically serious, if public money, besides collected from Poles, flows into communities conducting campaigns in accordance with the European Commission's interest in a dispute with the democratically elected government of a associate State.
That's where the stakes lie. It's not an abstract grant discussion. The question is whether Brussels has the right to build in Poland its own base of influence under the slogan “values” erstwhile in practice these values frequently mean emphasis on state sovereignty, household model, school ideology and political change of course.
CERV, or money for ‘values’
The main point of the dispute is the CERV programme, which is "Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values". The European Commission describes it as a tool to advance the rights, equality, citizenship and values of the Union. On the EC authoritative website we read that The CERV budget for the period 2021-2027 is EUR 1.56 billion. It's not pocket money for a fewer associations. It is simply a large social financing mechanics in the backdrop of a circumstantial imagination for Europe.
Fazi claims that the program creates an impact network: money goes to organisations that later strengthen Brussels' communicative in the media, education, public debate and local activity. In an interview with “Berlin Zeitung” he spoke about any EUR 40 million, which was to scope Poland from 2021 and a akin amount for Hungary. The erstwhile study of the author indicated a lower amount of direct backing for Polish organizations, so the figures request to be given precisely: the amount of EUR 40 million is the thesis from Fazi's latest statement, and not independently confirmed by the settlement of each zloty.
This reservation does not invalidate the problem. On the contrary, it shows that Poland needs full transparency. Who got the money? What projects? What were the targets? Were the beneficiaries acting politically unilaterally during the run or in the run-up to the elections? Without answering these questions, the slogan "civil society" becomes a parawan for the influence of a stronger centre of power.
Poland and Hungary under peculiar observation
It is not by chance that Poland and Hungary return in this discussion. These are the countries which most widely argued with the European Commission for the regulation of law, migration, competence of Brussels and primacy of EU law over national democracy. The National diary repeatedly described how The European Commission can scope out to hard pressure..even erstwhile pushing the Migration Pact.
Hungary is an crucial point of mention here. Budapest has been treating the conflict with Brussels for years as a dispute over real government, not an academic exchange of opinions. This can besides be seen in economical matters erstwhile Hungary announced a suit against the European Commission in connection with energy policy. There they realize well that there is frequently a political force behind the language of procedures.
Poland cannot pretend that the case does not concern it. If EU grants enter public debate, schools, media, NGOs and social campaigns, they affect the political climate. You don't gotta fake electoral cards to affect the election result. It takes years to pump money 1 way and call it a neutral defence of democracy.
Democracy without abroad doping
The most hypocritical in this communicative is the word “democracy”. Brussels likes to usage it like a moral seal. erstwhile nations choose EU elites, democracy is simply a celebration. erstwhile they choose otherwise, reports, resolutions, blockages of money, judicial force and backing of "bottom-up" initiatives that talk the Commission's language are starting.
This does not mean that any organisation utilizing CERV is simply a propaganda tool. That's a shortcut you can't make. Beneficiaries may be useful and fair projects. The problem is another: the Polish state has a work to know where Brussels' money intersects with politics, education and social campaigns affecting elections.
The same tension can be seen outside Europe. We've already described Hungarian study on EU support for the Left in Latin America. The mechanics is similar: money, grants, organisations, the language of “values” and very circumstantial ideological orientation.
Rate for Poland
Polish democracy does not request a curator from Brussels. It needs transparency, equal rules and policies pursued by citizens, not by a network of grants distributed from the centre of the EU administration. If the European Commission funds social projects in Poland, Poles have the right to know the full map of this money.
This is simply a substance of sovereignty. Not from Christmas speeches, but practical: who shapes the debate, who pays for campaigns, who sets the dictionary of good and evil in Polish politics. A nation that does not defender its own public debate gives part of its freedom without 1 treaty and without 1 referendum.
Brussels has to explain. And Warsaw must request documents, audit and full transparency. Democracy financed from abroad does not become more civic. It becomes more dependent.
Source: To Things, Berliner Zeitung, European Commission, MCC Brussels
Source: To Things
