Röviddel a rendszerváltás után, az 1990-es évek elején átalakult a hazai mezőgazdasági repülés. Az addig biztos munka és megélhetés szinte egyik napról a másikra bizonytalanná vált, a szakmában maradó pilóták és repülőgép-szerelők pedig egy újfajta kihívással szembesültek: a vállalkozói életformával. Beszélgetésünk harmadik részében ezt a nem könnyű időszakot idézzük fel László Ferenccel.
- Hogyan élted meg a Repülőgépes Szolgálat végét és a vállalkozói létbe való átmenetet?
- Már néhány évvel korábban is ment a lázadozás, hogy mi ugyanazért a tarifáért dolgozunk, mint az előző évtizedekben. Amikor a régi öregek kezdték, egy jó helyen lévő mezőgazdasági pilóta majdnem többet keresett, mint egy Malév kapitány. Aztán változtak a dolgok, a Malévnél komoly fizetések voltak, nálunk pedig megállt minden. Amikor mi kezdtünk, a körépület volt Budaörsön és egy faház. Aztán felépült az ötemeletes irodaház, és akkor mondtuk, hogy ebből baj lesz. Egy darabig még alakultak brigádok, de később már nem. Szükségmegoldásként ekkor jelentek meg a kétpilótás brigádok. Azt vettük észre, hogy az üzemeltető állomány állandó maradt, az irodaházban viszont olyan osztályok lettek, amiről addig nem is tudtunk és mindegyik tele lett. A hangárosok is látták, hogy rengeteg irodista van. A vállalati üdülőbe már nem is tudtunk menni, mert ők januárban lefoglalták a helyeket. Megvolt, hogy mennyit dolgoztunk, tudtuk, hogy mennyi a tarifa, a szorzóval felszoroztuk és gyakorlatilag megcsináltuk helyettük a saját bérszámfejtésünket. Amikor jött a számítógépes csoport, nekem mindig reklamálnom kellett, mert soha nem stimmeltek a számok. Akkora lázadás volt, hogy a TV-híradó is foglalkozott vele, de olyan nagy változások nem történtek.
By Karolina Borońska-Hryniewiecka (Polish Academy of Science & Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne) & Jan Kotýnek Krotký (Masaryk University)
On 9 May 2026, we celebrate Europe Day and the fourth anniversary of the closing event of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) hailed as a landmark transnational democratic experiment. During CoFoE hundreds of randomly selected citizens from all EU Member States deliberated alongside Members of European Parliament (MEPs) and national parliaments (MPs), producing far‑reaching recommendations for the European Union’s future.
Yet, for all the fanfare, the political follow‑up has been sobering. Most visibly, member state governments have declined to open the process of treaty reform based on the Conference’s proposals, despite the European Parliament’s plea to do so. While the CoFoE inspired a new generation of European Commission’s Citizens Panels and made them a permanent feature of the EU’s participatory toolbox, these deliberative fora remain largely disconnected from parliamentary arenas where political conflict and decision‑making actually take place. At the same time, the EU and its member states are experiencing the crisis of representative democracy manifested by decreasing trust in parliaments, increasing polarisation, populist electoral gains and widespread citizens’ dissatisfaction with democracy in general.
Four years on, one uncomfortable question looms: is the EU drifting towards a model of citizen participation that is rich in symbolism, but thin on political impact and true connection with representative policy-making?
Our recent JCMS article analyses how both MEPs and MPs talk about increased citizen participation in EU policy‑making. We depart from the premise that citizen participation is more likely to gain attention and appreciation from members of parliament when it is institutionally “coupled” with representation and the formal policy-making stage. To achieve our goal, we examine debates in the European Parliament, inter-parliamentary committee meetings, and several national parliaments between 2020 and 2023. We explore the underlying factors behind these positions, such as party ideology, institutional level, and views on European integration. Based on this analysis, we develop a refined typology of political discourses on EU‑level deliberative mini‑publics (DMPs), distinguishing between consultative, sceptical and power‑sharing stances.
A consultative Union – by design
Our first key finding is both simple and striking: across arenas and party families, a consultative discourse clearly dominates which means that parliamentarians overwhelmingly appreciate citizen participation and see value in deliberative mechanisms – as long as they remain advisory and do not fundamentally redistribute decision‑making power. In this discourse, citizens should be regularly asked, listened to, and perhaps even involved “permanently,” but final authority must stay firmly with elected representatives.
In practice, it suggests that most parliamentarians support what we call a “consultative Union”: a system where citizen participation is welcomed, but structurally non‑binding. The Commission citizens panels fit this logic very well – they create new spaces for citizen input, yet their policy-shaping potential remains largely discretionary.
MPs and MEPs: more similar than you might think
The second and unexpected finding concerns the relationship between national and European parliamentary arenas. While we might expect supranational MEPs to be more supportive than national MPs of transnational citizen involvement in EU policy-making, and national MPs to be more sceptical of EU‑level participatory innovations, our analysis suggests otherwise. We find no significant discursive differences between MEPs and MPs.
Such finding not only confirms that political conflict increasingly cuts across, rather than between, the national and supranational levels but is also normatively important since any EU participatory instrument that aspires to be more than window‑dressing needs the support of both national and European parliamentarians. The example of CoFoE showed how quickly legitimacy clashes emerge when that support is uneven.
Power‑sharing or populist plebiscites?
Perhaps the most politically explosive insight from our study is that not all calls for “giving power back to the people” mean the same thing. At first glance, there seems to be substantial support for what we label power‑sharing discourse: representatives who are willing to put citizens on an equal footing with politicians and accept binding forms of citizen involvement in EU decision‑making.
But once we look closely, this power‑sharing discourse splits into two very different strands.
In what we call deliberative power‑sharing discourse parliamentarians advocate binding deliberative mechanisms whose recommendations would directly shape EU reforms – and see citizens as partners in co‑constructing policy. This language is most prominent among Greens/EFA, the radical left and some liberal actors, who stress that strong participation can reinforce representative democracy.
On the other hand, plebiscitary power‑sharing discourse opposes institutionalized, transnational citizen deliberation postulating instead referendums that bypass parliaments and EU institutions. This strand is particularly visible among Eurosceptic and far‑right representatives, who demand EU‑wide referendums on European questions and present them as the only “real” expression of the people’s will.
This finding matters for how we interpret populism’s relationship to democratic innovation. It shows that far‑right and hard Eurosceptic parties may be enthusiastic about direct‑democracy instruments, yet deeply hostile to transnational deliberative settings such as CoFoE due to their distrust of EU‑organised participatory forums as biased or manipulated. Instead, they favour top‑down referendums whose questions and framing they hope to control. In this plebiscitary power‑sharing discourse, citizens are invoked less as co‑deliberators and more as a weapon, or at least a legitimating force for decisions aimed at weakening EU institutions.
Beyond consultation: reconnecting citizens and parliaments
What follows from these findings for the EU’s broader “citizen turn” is that the real challenge is not to invent ever more participatory instruments, but to better connect existing deliberative experiments to representative politics at both EU and national levels.
Our study suggests that while many politicians are not opposed to citizen involvement per se, they are often wary of deliberative designs that either sideline them or appear to instrumentalise citizens. This is precisely why thinking seriously about institutional linkages matters: for example, involving both MEPs and national MPs in transnational citizens’ assemblies, or hosting pan‑European citizen panels in national parliaments during rotating EU Council presidencies.
At the moment, the Commission‑led citizens’ panels risk reproducing the main weakness of CoFoE: citizens are invited to deliberate, but their recommendations are only loosely coupled to the arenas where political conflict is structured and decisions are actually taken. This fuels suspicion that participation serves primarily to legitimise pre‑set policy trajectories – “democracy without politics”, as some have called it.
Karolina Borońska-Hryniewiecka is Associate Professor at the Institute of Political Studies, Polish Academy of Science, and Associated Research Fellow at the CESSP, Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne. She is currently leading an NCN OPUS-funded project exploring transnational political discourse on EU institutional reform. Her work appeared in, among others, West European Politics, European Political Science Review, Journal of European Integration, and Parliamentary Affairs.
Jan Kotýnek Krotký is Assistant Professor at the International Institute of Political Science, Masaryk University. He is currently leading a post-doctoral project on citizen participation in the EU, supported by the Czech Science Foundation. His articles appeared in journals such as West European Politics, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, and European Security.
The post “Consulting Citizens? Be Our Guest – But Only on Our Conditions” appeared first on Ideas on Europe.