Part of the democratic process

Date: 05/12/1996

MANY terms have been used - some serious, others more derogatory - to describe what is essentially lobbying.

Public affairs, political consulting, government relations: all are now well-accepted as part of the professional terminology associated with the industry.

At its simplest and most fundamental level, however, lobbying is perhaps best described as 'third-party representation'.

As such, lobbying can be said to have started with the advent of the democratic process. Whether directly, or with the assistance of outside help, special interests have always sought to make their case to politicians and legislators.

Professional 'lobbyists' were brought in to complement companies' own resources, knowledge or contacts. These people understood the procedures, made it their job to know what was on the political agenda in any given area and were paid by clients to help them make their case.

The ability to follow debates demanded an important commitment in time and energy: source documentation had to be traced, researched and assessed; contacts had to be developed to gain an understanding of the political forces at play and their strength in the decision-making process.

Yet despite the growth of governments and bureaucracy, the increasing number of sources and more access to information, in many ways the essence of lobbying has not really altered.

The question then is what has actually changed in the past few years? Is there really a 'proliferation' of lobbyists? And why is the question of regulating the profession only being raised now?

Undeniably, the process of European integration in the late Eighties with the aim of creating the single market meant that European businesses had increasingly to seek opportunities beyond their local market-places.

Furthermore, the role and impact of multinational corporations grew to meet the demands - and potential - of a global economy. On a policy and legislative level, this meant that decisions were more often being taken in arenas that were further from the home territory of companies.

Local firms and multinationals alike had to consider seriously how to be part of the process, and whether they were doing everything possible to be well prepared for the forthcoming (and on-going) changes initiated by the politicians shaping the internal market. Businesses worked with legislators to eliminate the fiscal, physical and technical barriers as the key to achieving a necessary competitive advantage in the wider market-place.

Although the lobbying which often hits the headlines centres around campaigns opposing changes which would have a major public impact, there is at the same time a lot of low-key lobbying going on - not so well publicised, often highly-technical or specialised, representing specific issues with just as much of an impact on certain groups or industries. In the transport sector, for example, local authorities and other interested parties have worked hard to ensure that their routes are included in the Trans-European Networks.

Whether in high-profile lobbying (such as Greenpeace's actions to prevent the deep-sea decommissioning of Brent Spar) or through low-key representation (for example, seeking derogations from the scope of the packaging and packaging waste directive), all parties now recognise the absolute importance of being part of the process.

The question of 'fair balance of representation' still arises. Yet some of today's most effective lobbying campaigns are based on grass-roots type work and are not backed by large budgets, disproving the view that the interests of big industry always win the day.

In this context, there has been much discussion of the defeat in the European Parliament of the proposed directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions because of consumer concerns. A recent advertising campaign by a leading tobacco company has generated even greater debate.

More relevant to the questions surrounding the role of lobbying today is the issue of transparency. Ready access to information and the increasingly important role played by the media have also contributed to the way in which governments and legislators are perceived, and the way in which they proceed and are lobbied.

In an era when the Gulf War was being reported on as it was fought, it comes as no great surprise that the decision-making process is subjected to scrutiny by every interest group lobbying for its particular case.

Whatever one's belief, lobbyists of all denominations are part of the democratic process. At its best, lobbying offers the legislators additional sources of information and assistance - and valuable insights into the impact of proposals at an early stage - ensuring more workable solutions for the longer term. The perfect example of this is the debate on the legislative framework for the information society.

By knowing where the information comes from, legislators, officials and parliamentarians alike can best decide on the appropriate weight to give a case and how best to check the arguments of opposing parties.

The real issue in any fruitful dialogue is the need for openness and transparency.

As far back as 1992, former Competition Commissioner Peter Sutherland stated that “wide and effective consultation on Commission proposals is essential. The Commission needs to introduce a better procedure for making people aware, at the earliest possible stage, of its intention to propose legislation.”

The increasing number of specific issue hearings, the use of Green Papers and communications are certainly establishing greater dialogue between the European Commission and outside interests.

Professional lobbyists have themselves responded. Some three years ago, and in close cooperation with the Commission, European public affairs practitioners finalised and approved a code of conduct, concerned specifically with the question of transparency.

This means, first and foremost, a commitment to declare one's interest up-front. The Commission has been supportive of this move, as a positive step in the process of dialogue between officials and lobbyists.

In taking the lead with the code of conduct, lobbyists also recognised the need to tackle these issues at parliamentary level, and revised the code one year later to reflect this dimension.

The current code of conduct even goes further than the Parliament's own proposals by stating categorically that signatories “will not offer nor give any financial inducement to any EU official, nor member of the European Parliament, nor their staff”.

This addresses the potential for conflicts of interest to arise, but is also a matter of transparency - ensuring that legislators at all levels are always clear about whom they are dealing with and the capacity in which that interest is being represented.

The code of conduct is open to all practitioners in European public affairs, whether in-house, trade associations, pressure groups or professional lobbyists. Indeed, these are the people who will be setting the scene for the future.

This dialogue now has to go further than the traditional provision of information, from both the lobbyists' and the legislators' points of view.

With information so much more readily available, via the new online services and increasingly specialised media reporting, the focus in moving forward will be ever more on intelligence and advice as well as assistance in interpreting the available information.

The onus will lie on outside interests being able to make their case with more strength of argument and intellectual discipline. Input has to go far further, in terms of strategic thinking and vision, if the dialogue is to be truly worth-while and add value to the increasingly sophisticated systems of information and specialised interests of governments.

A professional approach by lobbyists, based on transparency of representation, can only serve to enhance the usefulness and credibility of what has become a necessary adjunct to the public policy process.

Maria Laptev is head of European affairs at the consultancy firm Charles Barker and the secretariat of the public affairs practitioners' code of conduct.