I believe in a democracy in which the right channels of communication ensure a common understanding between citizens and decision makers. Such a democracy is based on trust that governments and politicians’ actions are intended to promote citizens’ wellbeing and the common good.
I served as Slovakia’s environment minister from 2010 to 2012. In this role, I quickly realised that this portfolio is made up of clashing interests. Each party communicates its version of the truth, which essentially makes it impossible for citizens to understand what serves their best interests.
During my term, beyond ordering the standard preliminary impact assessments, I established regular four-party communication platforms that provided a good basis for consent in decision making.
Business, civil society and local government were involved as key stakeholders in this dialogue with the state, enabling me to gain enough information to inform the public about the issues at hand.
"I believe it is important, given the differing mistaken beliefs which exist [on GMOs], for people to be made familiar with scientifically based studies"
This way, citizens were secure in the knowledge that no decisions were taken behind their backs, and all our choices were made with their best interests in mind.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a big issue for all of us. We do not want to sacrifice quality over quantity. On the other hand, we should not eliminate science from this field, as not all scientific improvements are evil.
However, secrecy, opaque negotiations and shady decision making bring these issues under suspicion – especially now that the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) agreement is being negotiated through all kinds of channels and it is so difficult to acquire information on the procedure.
I believe TTIP is important for Europeans, but I feel it must be designed so as to best ensure our citizens’ wellbeing. That is why I initiated a pilot project in the 2015 EU budget, aiming to reach a balance between the state’s right to regulate legitimate public policy objectives, investors’ right to protect their investments and citizens’ rights regarding the environment and public health.
I believe that given the current circumstances, the EU has reached a good compromise on GMOs in recent months. I support member states deciding for themselves on the use of such crops for fodder. In this case, fragmentation of the internal market is a better alternative to the EU coming across as some kind of coercive power in terms of GMO production and GMO-based fodder.
However, it is no secret that the EU population knows very little about GMOs, or perhaps is ill-informed on the subject, and in many cases concerns about their health are presented as the main argument against the sale and production of such products in their countries.
I believe it is important, given the differing mistaken beliefs which exist, for people to be made familiar with scientifically based studies.
For that reason, I have asked the European commission about future background studies and research in this matter, and whether it aims to design a comprehensive public information campaign.
I believe that European democracy needs to take these steps. Otherwise, we risk losing our credibility in the eyes of citizens, which could in turn lead to an undesirable end for the EU.