Open Letter to the European Union
The Saga to Publish the Voices of the People
A unique academic study sponsored and censored by the EU
The European Union financed the Voices of the People study and then banned its publication without any justification. The struggle to overcome this startling embargo delayed the book’s release by two years. The volume is now available in Portuguese, in digital format and limited print copies.[1]
However, in early 2024, we still face several constraints to its wider availability, notably its publication in English. This essay explains why. It reviews the main facts of the case, raises pertinent questions and offers constructive ideas on which to move forward.
It would have been easier not to write this letter and relive an episode that caused needless trouble, harm, and pain. The awkwardness of it all is compounded by the fact that, to make headway, we are obliged to “speak truth to power.” Yet this power – the European Union – is an institution of global influence that claims ownership of the study we produced and could, if it so desired, muzzle it at will. Hence, our trepidation.
Still, to avoid this issue would be dishonest to ourselves and others. Our readers, the people of Guinea-Bissau, its public authorities and legislators, our academic colleagues in Africa and elsewhere, and European citizens, who helped underwrite this research project, have a right to know the real story.
Basic Facts
The Voices of the People initiative was designed to advance scientific research and promote democratic development in Guinea-Bissau. The project was established by DEMOS, a research center based in Paraguay and Guinea-Bissau, and funded by the European Union (EU).
In 2018, DEMOS carried out the first public opinion survey in the history of Guinea-Bissau. Its findings were presented in a public event led by the EU ambassador. The following year, the EU agreed to sponsor a DEMOS proposal to develop the survey results through data mining, a focus group study and a comparative review of public opinion in Africa, and to “disseminate these findings through publications, presentations and trainings.”
Under this contract, DEMOS produced three substantive reports and the edited volume, Voices of the People, in Portuguese, along with an English translation of this text.[3] For all we know, no other country in Africa has carried out a public opinion study of this scope and originality.
During the month of November 2021, EU officials reviewed and praised the book manuscript and described it as a “fantastic study.” Yet in an abrupt turnaround, on November 29, 2021, the EU resolved to embargo the publication.[4] Despite repeated requests, the EU never explained this sudden reversal or requested any alterations of the work produced.
The EU’s decision to suppress a unique and ambitious scientific study in Africa left us dismayed. Our project had devised an innovative way to enhance understanding of the people – the demos – of Guinea-Bissau. It interviewed hundreds of citizens from all walks of life and involved dozens of researchers. The undertaking required more than three and a-half years of labor, at least two of which were provided at no cost to the EU. Suddenly, we saw all our efforts, sacrifice, ingenuity and resources used to fund this endeavor thrown away, for what?
EU sanctions also prevented DEMOS from carrying out activities devised to disseminate the Voices of the People study and engage citizens of Guinea-Bissau in a discussion on novel insights and ideas for their country. DEMOS had organized a series of presentations, workshops and media outreach events in Guinea-Bissau to promote the use of this information to contribute democratic solutions, by fostering social accountability, inclusion and civic dialogue.
Rather than bolster democracy and science, the EU’s act of censorship disempowered Bissau-Guinean citizens, suppressed academic freedom and curtailed scientific progress. In a perverse turn of events, a project paid for by EU citizens to advance knowledge and human rights in West Africa led to the opposite outcome.
To overcome this shattering experience, DEMOS made several efforts to engage in a dialogue with EU authorities and offer solutions. As a way out, it suggested the EU could disassociate itself from the publication and transfer its copyright to DEMOS, for volume editions in Portuguese and other languages. None of these appeals worked. DEMOS then organized an online petition, signed by scores of scholars from around the world, to get the book released.
In October 2022, DEMOS delivered print copies of the volume to the EU Commission for International Partnerships in Brussels. The books bore a black swath with white letters that read “CENSORED by the European Union”. A cover letter detailed the EU’s contract violation resulting from its embargo of the study. A few weeks later, the EU Commission advised DEMOS it could “go ahead” with the publication. The positive step led to a protracted negotiation to settle the terms under which the study would be published.
By April 2023, the EU had indicated it could not transfer the copyright to DEMOS, due to internal hurdles, but stated DEMOS could publish the volume in Portuguese and English, in unlimited print and digital copies. However, it prohibited any sale of these books. This restriction hindered prospects of publishing the English volume with an academic press, to which the EU originally agreed. No publisher of scholarly texts that we know of would consent to bear the costs of production and distribution of a book it could not sell. This constraint has barred DEMOS from using market instruments to make the volume widely available to the public, including libraries and research centers around the globe.
To resolve this impasse, DEMOS requested formal mediation, as specified in its agreement with the EU. Yet the EU rejected this proviso. This left DEMOS with no other recourse, per its contract, but to seek legal counsel in Belgium. In short, the impasse set off by the decision to censor our study, in November 2021, delayed the effort to publish this volume by two full years.
Relevant Questions
The key facts of the case raise a number of significant yet unanswered questions. We discuss several of them here in the interest of openness and quest for constructive answers. The following questions are divided into two groups: one examines the decision to prohibit the publication of the Voices of the People, and the other considers the challenges involved in trying to resolve this dilemma.
First, on the decision to place an embargo on our study.
· Why did the EU censor the Voices of the People study? What caused such a radical change of heart, after following our research project for three and a half years and praising its results?
· Why has the EU failed to provide any reasons for the decision to embargo the study?
· Who were the EU officials involved in this act?
· What were their motivations? Were they political? Did their nationality or professional background have any bearing on their decision?
· Did these EU officials have discretionary power to override the contract signed with DEMOS?
· Did these officers consider how their decision would affect the EU’s reputation; human rights in Guinea-Bissau; or the advancement of the social sciences in Africa?
· Why is the EU still placing restrictions to the volume’s wide distribution? Why hold back its publication in English by an academic press?
Second, on the dispute resolution process.
· If EU contracts stipulate that disputes must be settled amicably first, then why not facilitate dialogue to resolve these issues in a positive way?
· Why do EU contracts establish formal mediation as a second step in resolving legal disputes, when these can be disregarded at will? Can the EU just ignore the terms set in its own contracts?
· Why are small NGOs in Africa required to pursue legal remedy in Belgium, when it is practically impossible for them to do so? Shouldn’t the EU have an interest in providing a level playing field when it comes to resolving contract disputes?
· Why set obstacles to dialogue and formal mediation, when the alternative to this – taking the EU to court in Belgium – is prohibitive to all but a trickle of NGOs? Is this a fair way to treat EU partners in the developing world?
· Why prohibit the use of market instruments to disseminate knowledge produced under EU research projects? Why not explore ways of using both formulas together: free-of-charge access and market distribution?
Constructive Ideas
To err is human. Normal mistakes can be fixed. But if repeated often, they become embedded errors.[5] How can we prevent the recurrence of failures that undermined the Voices of the People project? This section builds on the adage of turning lemons into lemonade and considers seven lessons or ideas for improvement. Some of them draw on informal conversations with people familiar with EU management.
1. Administer proper contracts. The EU typically provides a subvention or grant contract to support research projects carried out by independent organizations that seek to generate public information. Unlike the service contract DEMOS signed, grant agreements generally vest intellectual property rights to the contractor. Had EU management informed DEMOS and allocated the subvention contract set in its administrative procedures, we would have been spared this painful situation.
2. Authorize copyright transfers. The EU should have appropriate legal instruments to reassign intellectual property rights. Other multilateral agencies can do this in a matter of days. The EU does not appear to have such instruments at hand. It would help if it did. This could allow the EU, for whatever reason, to simply disassociate itself from any study over which it retained the copyright, rather than suppress its publication. Legal mechanisms of this kind could prevent infringements on academic freedom and conflict over such issues.
3. Facilitate an ombudsman. DEMOS signed its contract with the EU Commission for International Partnerships (INTPA), which has no ombudsman or liaison office for its contractors.[6] Disputes between NGO contractors and EU Delegations are normally handled in-country. But if dialogue is blocked by high-ranking EU officials, say, an ambassador or a director in Brussels, contractors will have no communication channel or way to reach an amicable settlement. An INTPA ombudsman could level the playing field for NGOs in the developing world and enable constructive dialogue with EU authorities, something we wish we had had.
4. Enshrine formal mediation. EU contracts should disallow any party to eschew the other party’s request for formal mediation. This clause is particularly important for NGO contractors in the developing world, whose chances of getting legal representation in Belgium are close to nil. The EU should be mindful of the huge asymmetries at stake. Formal mediation should be treated as a right, rather than a privilege that can be bestowed or ignored at will.
5. Uphold EU values. EU power relies considerably on its prestige. The idea of a giant bully, unbound by its own rules, censoring the Voices of the People in a small, poor African country, should be an anathema to EU officials and citizens. By contrast, upholding EU values, through fair management practices, transparency and accountability, enhances the EU’s global standing. Public presentations of our study in Bissau, the survey in 2018 and initial findings in early 2021, shored up credibility and respect for the EU. While the act of censorship has done nothing but the contrary. The EU will always be more trustworthy when it stands by liberty.
6. Improve access to knowledge. Many EU projects in Africa pay for goods that must be distributed free of charge. These policies are sensible under certain circumstances. In others, they can hamper market development and create dependency on charity, which can feel condescending to beneficiaries. The EU ban on selling copies of the Voices of the People follows this playbook. This injunction has effectively barred the volume’s publication in English. Academic publishers are not charities. They do not review, copy-edit, design, layout, print, bind, promote and distribute their books for free. The EU should know better. At current prices, its subsidies will allow us to distribute only 300 print copies of the volume in Portuguese.
Why restrict DEMOS from recovering costs incurred in printing and shipping additional copies? Why forbid book sales to citizens of Guinea-Bissau or libraries around the world? Our Portuguese edition is available for free at the DEMOS website. Yet this should not foreclose the sale of paperback copies. It seems unfitting to restrict market opportunities in Africa that the EU would not hesitate to offer to its own citizens. An honest exchange over the best way to disseminate our study would help find better outcomes.
7. Listen and learn. The willingness to listen can make all the difference. We know the value of this first-hand from our effort to listen to the Bissau-Guinean people and understand where they are at. Power tends to create social distance, fuel egos and deceive. Were the saga to publish the Voices of the People to teach us one final lesson it is this: listening empowers all parties involved. It fosters humility and creates a sense of mutual recognition, even when disagreements persist. Listening can help overcome mistakes, make amends and find sensible solutions. This, if it is not too much to ask, is our best hope for the future of the Voices of the People initiative.
We close by appealing to the EU’s core founding values - freedom, transparency, justice, accountability and democracy – which inspired us to listen to humble citizens across Guinea-Bissau and create a unique study. These principles need constant affirmation to prevent institutions from breeding cynicism and conceit, which corrode the ideals that make democracy possible. The EU will always muster inspiration and respect on the strength of these core values.
** Text prepared by Miguel Carter, PhD, Director, DEMOS – Center for Democracy, Creativity and Social Inclusion.
Endnotes
[1] A digital copy of the volume, in Portuguese, can be found here.
[2] Further information on DEMOS and the Voices of the People initiative, see: www.demos.org.py
[3] A brief account of the Voices of the People project and recognition of the decisive support provided by several EU officials can be found in the volume’s acknowledgements. A synopsis of the study’s main research achievements can be found here.
[4] In mid-December 2021, the EU proposed an amendment to its contract with DEMOS, which would allow the EU to deny the publication of the edited volume and its ancillary studies. DEMOS rejected the proposal, arguing that it violated the EU’s agreement to publish the research findings. Moreover, DEMOS claimed that this would contravene the principles of academic freedom and transparency on which the project was based. The EU, nonetheless, unilaterally decided to implement the new clause and censor the study.
[5] Robert Chambers (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First (London: ITDG).
[6] The EU has a European Ombudsman, which is largely inaccessible to small international contractors.