Which way to Cultural Democracy?

After this year’s CDEU Policy Conversation, where Commissioner Micallef opened his intervention by reinforcing that the Culture Compass “asserts the vital role that culture plays in our society for our values, for our economy, and for our relations with other countries and partners, including as a tool for diplomacy” it makes sense to return to such an important pillar, which is set to serve as a strategic anchor for culture within the 2028–2034 MFF. 

Three months have now passed since the Compass was published. This gives us the opportunity to move beyond first reactions and ask a more pressing question: to what extent does the Culture Compass genuinely create space for culture to be advanced as a strategic asset? And, crucially, whether this recognition will be followed by corresponding cross-sectoral funding arrangements, in line with the Compass’s transversal ambition, extending beyond AgoraEU. 

Already in its overarching motto “Europe for Culture, Culture for Europe”, the Compass conveys a vision of culture that is no longer treated as a self-contained sector, but as something that cuts across the core domains of European society.  Not only is culture framed as a transversal resource, embedded in policy areas ranging from democracy and social cohesion to education, health, climate action and external relations, but also explicitly positioned as a strategic asset for addressing the most pressing challenges the EU is currently facing: 

The question, then, is how this narrative is translated into concrete initiatives. 

MEASURING CULTURAL IMPACT 

The Compass is an ambitious framework which proposes 20 flagship initiatives, several of which are closely aligned with the network’s proposals outlined in the discussion paper Towards the Culture Compass: a Sector Blueprint. Proposals like the EU Artists’ Charter for fair working conditions, the Report on the State of Culture in the EU, with its promised strong focus on artistic freedom, and the EU cultural data hub, all represent fundamental measures that could allow cultural life to flourish by creating the conditions that enable individuals and artists to experiment and push boundaries. 

Nonetheless, it is important to ensure that these measures, conceived as tools to collect and analyse data, monitor trends, and pool best practices, do not become merely a display of quantitative figures. Instead, the approach should better reflect the modus operandi of the arts, including the systematic collection of data on the qualitative impact of culture, particularly on democratic resilience, social cohesion, and civic engagement, if the Compass’s overall philosophy is to be respected. Without such indicators, there is a real risk that artistic practices rooted in social engagement remain underrepresented within evidence-based policymaking, as their value lies in long-term processes, participation and collective transformation rather than easily quantifiable outputs. 

It is promising to see how this lens informs the Compass’s ideological backbone, as it is stated at the very beginning how: 

PARTICIPATION VS ACCESS 

A central tension seems to run through the Culture Compass: on one hand, culture is often framed in a traditional way, as a space or object of consumption; on the other hand, certain elements point to an approach more closely aligned with the principles of cultural democracy, as articulated in the Porto Santo Charter: culture as a field of active participation, plural practices, and shared authorship, where communities play an active role in shaping cultural expression. 

Elements of this second approach are indeed present in the Compass. Proposals grounded in an intergenerational fairness perspective, such as peer-learning initiatives for democratic citizenship through culture, point towards a broader understanding of participation. Likewise, the intention to foster stronger cross-sectoral cooperation between culture and education policies, encouraging partnerships among artists, cultural institutions, community-based organisations, schools and non-formal education providers, represents a meaningful step away from a limited vision of culture and the arts as something to be merely contemplated within the traditional “temples of culture.” Even if these measures focus predominantly on youth, they lean towards a model that interacts more directly with social reality and local communities. 

While implementing the initiatives aimed at broadening access to culture, such as DiscoverEU Cultural Routes or the European Heritage Label, we need to make  sure that they don’t limit their potential to access, but that they enable a more concrete participation and are explicitly linked to democratic engagement. In other words, these actions should be designed to empower individuals and communities to co-create cultural meaning rather than merely consume it. 

Initiatives centred on community engagement and human-centred design, such as those developed through projects like Ahead or Training for the Contact Zones , demonstrate how heritage sites and meaningful urban or rural settings can be reimagined not merely as places to visit, but as contexts in which local communities actively shape their use, interpretation, and reinvention, avoiding the trap of receiving funding solely through a tourism lens. 

If culture, as envisioned by the Compass, is to function as a vector for shifting mindsets and mobilising communities around the major challenges Europe faces, then a deeper, more grassroots and socially engaged approach needs to be mainstreamed. This requires initiatives that prioritise process, dialogue and collective action, fostering local ownership, social cohesion and active citizenship through artistic practice. If participation is valued ideologically, it must also be made legible institutionally.  

WHAT’S NEXT? 

The Compass marks a promising first step in shifting the focus from simply widening access to culture to fostering cultural democracy, where participation is at the heart of cultural practice. Still, this does not mean that there is no room for improvement.  

The next step is to translate this vision into concrete initiatives that ensure culture is funded and operationalised across sectors. As the MFF negotiations continue, civil society keeps calling for 2% of the EU budget for culture, both through AgoraEU and other funding programmes. We advocate for the upcoming Joint Declaration ‘Culture for Europe – Europe for Culture’ to include a clear a political commitment to 2% for culture. 

At the same time, the Council of the EU, representing Member States’ governments, will soon begin working on the next key institutional framework for the cultural sector: the Work Plan for Culture. Reflections around the Compass provide a crucial opportunity to keep the sector actively engaged and ensure discussions tackle the gaps that remain. 

This policy pill is not intended as a comprehensive analysis of all the initiatives included in the Cultural Compass, but rather as a focused reflection on how the narrative framing of culture is reflected in some of its most prominent initiatives. For a more detailed and systematic analysis of the Culture Compass, we refer readers to ‘The EU’s new culture strategy is out. Culture Action Europe unpacks!’.