C Explanatory memorandum by Mr Varvitsiotis,
rapporteur for opinion
1. Ms Daphné Dumery’s report (
Doc. 12953) paints a well-balanced picture of the way migrants
and refugees are portrayed during election campaigns. It is the
purpose of the present opinion and of the five amendments tabled
on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy to
complete this picture by adding further political considerations
with a view to enhancing the democratic spirit of election campaigns
in the Council of Europe member States and the commitment of all
political forces to fair, democratic and tolerant election campaigns.
2. The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI),
in its 2011 annual report, stressed that welfare cuts, diminished
job opportunities and a rise in intolerance both towards immigrant
groups and older historical minorities are worrying trends in several
Council of Europe member States. It noted that xenophobic rhetoric
is now part of the mainstream political debate and that extremist
views are increasingly channelled through social media, whilst discrimination
against Muslims and the Roma continues to get worse.
3. Anxiety about immigration is not solely rooted in economic
grievances, in particular high unemployment and a deteriorating
social welfare. Support for extremist parties and public hostility
to immigration are also driven by fears of cultural threat. The
decisive motive is the feeling that immigration and increasing diversity threaten
national culture, the unity of the national community and way of
life.
Note This
aspect would be further clarified in the resolution by Amendment
A.
4. In 2010, the Assembly discussed a report by Mr Pedro Agramunt
on the fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures.
Note The rapporteur,
inter
alia, pointed to the dangers of stigmatising immigration.
While acknowledging that calling for restrictive immigration policies
is a legitimate political stance, the rapporteur stressed that these
calls become unacceptable when they rely on racist arguments. I
agree with the rapporteur’s conclusions that stigmatising immigration
is a problem for society. Linking immigration to insecurity, criminality,
poverty and social problems represents a trend which leads to the
erosion of the human rights of migrants and refugees, and which
must be curbed.
5. In 2003, the Assembly had already analysed the threat posed
to democracy by extremist parties and movements in Europe. In
Resolution 1344 (2003), it recommended the introduction of legislation of effective penalties
where cases of proven damage caused by an extremist party were established;
proportionate and dissuasive penalties against public incitement
to violence, racial discrimination and intolerance; suspension or withdrawal
of public funding for organisations promoting extremism; and dissolution
of parties, as an exceptional measure. The Assembly encouraged political
parties to devise a new code of ethics, basing their programmes
and activities on respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, excluding
political alliances with extremist parties, reinforcing the rules
on the transparency of political party finances if necessary, and proposing
plausible solutions to the social and economic problems which cause
public concern.
6. More recently, the Assembly was concerned about the recent
rise in national security discourse in Europe, referring in particular
to the case of Roma. In
Resolution
1760 (2010),
Note the Assembly stressed
that a clear distinction must be made in political discourse between
individuals who have committed crimes and entire groups of people,
such as Roma or any other minority or migrant group. Politicians
have a special responsibility to eliminate negative stereotyping
or stigmatising of any minority or migrant group from political
discourse. They should promote a message of non-discrimination,
tolerance and respect for people from different backgrounds. These
are the reasons for Amendment B.
7. It is also useful to recall that in 2003, the President of
the Parliamentary Assembly and the President of the European Parliament
signed the Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist
Society. This text was a civil society initiative which had received
the support of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC), the precursor to the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency;
the charter called on political parties to act responsibly when
dealing with issues related to race, ethnic and national origin
and religion. Although the establishment of a steering committee
to monitor the implementation of the charter was initially envisaged,
there was no follow-up. As also stressed by my colleague, Mr Agramunt,
the charter is more than ever a valuable basis for introducing more
ethics in politics, especially during election campaigns, and I strongly
encourage the political groups and individual members of the Assembly
to further promote it at national level. These are the reasons for
Amendment C.
8. For similar reasons, I think that the 2005 Declaration of
the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) on
the use of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic elements in political
discourse, including by mainstream political parties, should also
be better disseminated amongst political parties. ECRI is deeply concerned
that the use of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic political discourse
is no longer confined to extremist political parties, but is increasingly
infecting mainstream political parties, at the risk of legitimising
this type of discourse. This type of discourse often conveys a distorted
image of Islam, intended to portray this religion as a threat, and
anti-Semitism continues to be encouraged, either overtly or covertly,
by certain political leaders and parties.
9. ECRI suggested that self-regulatory measures should be introduced
by political parties or national parliaments aimed at sanctioning
party members and parliamentarians who promote racism and xenophobia. It
also called for the establishment of an obligation to suppress public
financing of organisations that promote racism, including public
financing of political parties, and called on political parties
to formulate a clear political message in favour of diversity in
European societies. The Venice Commission supported this view in
its Code of Good Practices in the Field of Political Parties, adopted
in 2009. These are the reasons for Amendment D.
10. I would also like to underline the critically important role
that the Venice Commission plays in helping member States improve
their electoral legislation, including through its Council for Democratic
Elections, in which our Assembly participates. The Venice Commission
could further analyse the way in which political parties portray
migrants and refugees during election campaigns in the Council of
Europe member States with a view to possibly amending the Code of
Good Practice in Electoral Matters. These are the reasons for Amendment
E.
11. Finally, the committee is currently discussing a report by
Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto on measures to improve the democratic character
of election campaigns and will have the opportunity to further analyse
this matter.
