ENQUETE COMMISSIONS

Enquete commissions are temporary groups established periodically by European parliaments in order to guide public discourse and decision making in complex areas. Commissions have focused on questions such as economic globalization, environmental sustainability, and the formation of new religious and ideological groups. Roughly half of the enquete commissions to date have addressed the use and regulation of emerging science and technology. In these cases, the commissions serve as forums for joint scientific and political consultation designed to inform decision makers, involve the public, and articulate recommendations and strategies for future action. Each commission is unique in terms of membership, topic, and mandate, so general evaluations of the enquete commission as an overarching system for improving democratic discourse and decision making are difficult to formulate. Although they have had mixed results and need improvement, enquete commissions are important innovations in the relationship between politics and science in democratic societies.

Background

Parliaments, as elected representative bodies, should play a key role in guiding public discourse about the proper development of society. There are doubts, however, about how well parliamentary bodies can fulfill this leadership position given the complex problems presented by the modern world. Decision makers are inundated with competing demands for investment in science, technology, and the military. They also deal with conflicting reports about economic, educational, environmental, and health care policies. In these areas, parliaments must rely upon the superior knowledge of experts and the bureaucratic structure of specialized departments and agencies. Yet mechanisms for delegating authority to specialists tend to alienate government officials from the very discourse they should guide and shape. Thus the legislative function of parliament becomes disengaged from the debate on essential issues of societal development.

Enquete commissions are designed to reengage the governmental body regarding these complex issues. They serve as independent agencies that support the parliament, thereby counterbalancing the institutional inertia toward bureaucratization and the delegation of decision making to experts who have no fiduciary or other responsibility to the public.

One of the most important roles of an enquete commission is to serve as a common institutional forum where scientific knowledge and political judgment meet. Several enquete commissions have been charged with the task of evaluating issues regarding the proper use and regulation of technologies and the proper conduct of scientific research. In these cases, especially, enquete commissions provide common ground for decision makers, the public, and experts. Cooperation between scientists and politicians is of particular importance when the knowledge of experts is contested or uncertain and when political party lines are ill-defined with regard to an issue. In many countries scientific advice issues from special institutions such as the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) in the United Kingdom, the Parliamentary Office for Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Options (OPECST) in France, and the disbanded Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in the United States, but these do not serve as institutions of joint scientific-political consultation.

Enquete commissions are partially modelled on various review commissions that are periodically appointed to investigate alleged failures by public officials or public institutions (for instance Royal Commissions in the United Kingdom and Congressional Committees in the United States). Enquete commissions, however, are usually established by parliamentary mandate in order to develop scenarios, strategies, and recommendations with respect to potential problems areas. Yet only a few parliaments—most notably France, Germany, Sweden, and Italy—have established rules for the membership and operations of such committees, and only these countries have significant experiences with the process of forming and evaluating enquete commissions.

German Experience

Because Germany has the most elaborate model with the broadest variety of applications, it is appropriate to include an in-depth discussion of German enquete commissions. Since 1969 the German parliament has, by standing order, permitted enquete commissions to be established by the approval of at least one quarter of its members for the purpose of providing information relevant to extensive and important issues. In practice a broader quorum distributed over the parties in power and opposition is necessary for any chance of successful work. The enabling legislation leaves open what qualifies problem areas as extensive and important.

Since the order was implemented, two to five commissions have been created in each electoral term. Roughly half have focused on topics in the fields of science, technology, and the environment. Some commissions that have been authorized by the German parliament include The Future of Atomic Energy Policy (1979–1982), New Information and Communication Technology (1981–1983), Prospects and Risks of Genetic Technology (1984–1986), Assessment and Evaluation of the Social Consequences of New Technology: Shaping the Conditions of Technological Development (1985–1990), Precautionary Protection of the Earth's Atmosphere (1987–1994), Protection of Human Beings and the Environment: Evaluation Criteria and Perspectives for Environmentally Acceptable Circular Flow Substances in Industrial Society (1992–1998), The Future of the Media in Economy and Society (1996–1998), Sustainable Energy Supply in the Modern Economy (2000–2002), and Law and Ethics of Modern Medicine (2000–2002; reinstated 2003).

These and other commissions have received a correspondingly wide set of mandates, but there are a few general purposes that underlie the task of all enquete commissions. These include:

• Establishing a political discourse with the intent of assuring, if not the preeminence, at least the influence of political and social concerns in shaping technological change.
• Searching for a consensus or well-founded dissent comprising knowledge, interests, values, and norms, and thereby preparing for compromise in the negotiation process.
• Elaborating long-term foundations for decisions and making concrete recommendations to parliamentary legislators.
• Enhancing public awareness of an issue by involving the media and by reporting to the public either as individual members or through official reports.

COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE. Enquete commissions are unique institutions for the treatment of specific societal issues because of their consciously crafted representative mix of political parties and external experts. Each party nominates representative parliamentary members according to their relative political power (they are able to elect between four and fifteen members). Because all parties with parliamentary status participate, normative and ideological perspectives are represented in a manner that mirrors the larger legislative body. Each commission reflects the proportionality of power and perspective found in parliament. External experts are chosen either by an iterative process of nomination, rejection, and acceptance or they are simply appointed in a manner proportional to the power of each party. Representation on the science side is usually fairly well balanced because the selection of experts by the parties covers the spectrum of competing paradigms and can even include extreme opinions. Parliamentary and external members have the same voting rights.

The goal of every commission is to present a report, which serves as the basis for a general parliamentary discussion, before the end of the electoral term. As a rule, recommendations for legislative decisions are also expected. Usually additional experts without voting rights are also included and their opinions are commissioned. The commissions often organize public hearings and other public dialog. Initially governmental and department officials did not participate in the process at all. The main advantage of including parliamentary members with experts is to make commissions better equipped to structure and convey recommendations pertinent to the needs of decision makers. The corresponding disadvantage is a tendency to politicize scientific findings. Another impact of incorporating scientific experts and politicians in such tightly structured dialogue is the addition of more focused, problem-orientated discourse to traditional negotiations between majority and minority parties.

Each commission serves as a working group for intense research and reflection in a particular subject area. A research staff assists each commission by procuring and processing information. One member of the commission serves as the chair and is vitally important for ensuring the integrity and overall success of the commission. The privileged position of the chair is sometimes misused to serve individual or political ends.

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION. The fairly long history of enquete commissions in Germany points to the importance of comprehensive and exhaustive dialogue at the intersection of politics and science. Though political maneuvering unavoidably comes into play when choosing members, setting an agenda, and negotiating reports, the underlying purpose is to hold open dialogues on problems and alternative solutions before party lines are settled and decisions reached. The goal is to transform solid party positions into negotiable interests. Scientific and political members agree to seek consensus and compromise, which can be further shaped by party leaders and wider government involvement. Nevertheless the commissions face constant pressure from both political and scientific interest groups, which often seek to use enquete commissions to achieve their own special interests rather than the common interest. Politicians often press particular agendas, whereas scientists repeatedly cloak their agendas in the guise of disinterested objectivity. Commissions require strong leadership if they are to bridge the differences among various stakeholders. When such leadership is present, the enquete commission is a successful model for crafting an improved and more democratic relationship between science, government, and the general public.

Whether and to what extent enquete commissions enrich and aid political culture is an open question. Case studies and empirical analyses of their mode of operation have generated serious criticisms. Party tactics repeatedly threaten the efforts of members to achieve mutual understanding and common perspectives. Often commissions are used as instruments of symbolic politics, giving the impression of governmental action that conceals an unwillingness to make real progress. For example, the commission on the future of media in economy and society was allegedly misused in this way. Its charge was to "pave Germany's way toward the information society," but one of its most distinguished members, Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, professor of law and judge at the constitutional court, commented in an essay that it was only "creeping along secret paths to non-decision." The chance was wasted to develop guidelines for new technologies (especially telecommunication and the associated changes of the occupational field), higher education, infrastructure, and the media.

By contrast the commission on genetic technology thoroughly influenced legislation on safety regulation at the work place, rules of liability, and restrictions on research with human embryos. The commission on technology assessment did not have direct impacts, but its work indirectly supported the foundation of the German Office of Technology Assessment in 1990, which offers recommendations about science and technology to parliament. The commission's report on the protection of the atmosphere was influential even at the international level. It played a decisive part in regulating and outlawing various ozone depleting chemicals within the European Union (EU) and assisted in the Montreal Protocol process.

Due to the variability in enquete commissions, it is not possible to make a general evaluation of their success in crafting consensus, aiding legislation, and guiding public discourse. Several criticisms, however, have suggested that the priorities of the enquete commission system need to be rethought in order to maximize its strengths. Critics argue that the indirect inputs into public discourse are more important functions of the commissions than direct impact on legislation. If the commissions are able to address and include important associations, not-for-profit organizations, nongovernmental organizations, the media, and influential individuals, then their procedures and reports can demonstrate parliament's ability to guide public discourse on important questions about the future development of society.

Scientists involved in enquete commissions often resent abandoning their position as (supposedly) neutral, outside analysts by engaging in the political system. Nonetheless most are able to maintain their reputations within the scientific community by crafting and supporting high quality, balanced reports. The politicians involved also have misgivings, especially concerning mandates for cooperation and consensus building with actionable recommendations. In addition engaging in long-term, complex issues usually does not offer the political payoff of involvement in more pressing, short-term issues. Usually, however, there is sufficient individual initiative among politicians to overcome these concerns.

No critics advocate abandoning the enquete commission model altogether. Some place deficiencies in the system on the early twenty-first century style of party politics and its focus on personalities and media resonance. More theoretically minded observers note a permanent overburdening of the commissions due to their hybrid structure. These critics argue that increasing the management skills and capacities of commission leaders is the only way in which improvements can be made. In the end, the continued existence of the commissions and the fact that both majority and opposition factions have initiated roughly the same number of them over ten election periods speaks for their value. Enquete commissions can be an important ingredient in the public culture of politics. They can increase understanding, elevate public discussion, and evaluate and respond to societal problems. They are especially useful in evaluating the risks and benefits presented by complex, emerging technologies.

Enquete commissions need to be used in conjunction with other procedures, such as lobbying, hearings, and stakeholder conferences, which often represent and consider interests in different ways. In spite of determined attempts to strike consensus or compromise and frame political programs, the complex and contested nature of many problems sometimes prohibits workable solutions. Yet even in these cases, enquete commissions can help improve and clarify public discourse, venture models for risk assessment, develop scenarios and options for the future, map the landscape of social values, and make tentative preparations for legislative action.

WOLFGANG KROHN

SEE ALSO Bioethics Commitees and Commissions;Royal Commissions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altenhof, Ralf. (2002). Die Enquete-Kommissionen des Deutschen Bundestages [The enquete-commissions of the German parliament]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Weaver, Kent, and Paul Stares, eds. (2001). Guidance for Government: Comparing Alternative Sources of Public Policy Advice. Tokyo and New York: Japan Center for International Exchange.

Vig, Norman, and Herbert Paschen, eds. (2000). Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press.