Democratic participation is the foundation of any healthy democracy. It is not just another feature of the system or a procedural box to tick. It is what gives democracy its legitimacy. When people are shut out of the process, democratic institutions may remain in place, but the spirit of democracy begins to fade. Last week, Europe offered a telling example of how that can happen.
In Brussels, the Greens and Socialists sought to formalise restrictions on which industries, and by extension which citizens, should be allowed to engage with elected representatives on tobacco legislation. The Constitutional Affairs Committee outright rejected the proposal. The EPP coordinator was clear that Members of Parliament must remain free to decide for themselves with whom they engage in order to carry out their democratic responsibilities. It was the right decision and an important reminder that democratic representation depends on open dialogue, not selective access.
Just days later, a similar effort emerged in the Netherlands. A group of doctors filed a complaint against a consumer platform that helps adults participate in the European Commission’s consultation on the Tobacco Products Directive. The platform is transparent, participation is voluntary, and submissions go through official Commission channels.
The complaint argues this participation should be restricted. The timing is difficult to ignore. After failing to limit engagement through democratic processes in Brussels, some are now seeking the same outcome through regulatory and legal pressure. The method has changed, but the objective remains the same.
That raises a simple question: What exactly is being challenged? The European Commission runs public consultations so that people affected by legislation can have a say in shaping it. The revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) will affect millions of adult consumers across Europe. Helping those citizens participate in an official consultation is not a distortion of democracy. It is an expression of it. Dismissing that participation as a “misleading campaign” avoids engaging with the views being expressed.
At its core, this debate is about who gets a seat at the table. Some voices are treated as legitimate participants in the policymaking process, while others are not. Public health groups are encouraged to engage. Consumers and retailers face growing efforts to limit their involvement. That is not an open consultation. It is a process that risks favouring certain perspectives before the discussion has even begun.
The real test of democratic debate is whether policymakers are willing to hear from those most affected by their decisions. When certain voices are seen as inconvenient, the answer should be better arguments, not fewer participants. The European Parliament recognised that this week. It would be concerning if others took a different view.
Democratic accountability is not limited to approved stakeholders or preferred perspectives. It requires listening to citizens with differing interests and opinions. A consultation that selectively restricts participation may still be called open, but it no longer reflects the principle it was designed to uphold.
The Commission launched this consultation to hear from Europeans. Many of those Europeans have now taken part. The appropriate response is to engage with their views, not challenge their right to participate.
That leaves a simple question. If the case for stricter tobacco regulation is strong, why should opposing voices be excluded from the discussion? Good ideas can withstand scrutiny. Public debate is strengthened by disagreement, not weakened by it.
Alexandr Vondra is a Member of the European Parliament, Czechia, ECR Group
