Three questions the cultural sector should be asking the commissioner-designate for culture

The European Parliament has scheduled the confirmation hearing of Glenn Micallef, the Commissioner-designate for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture, and Sport, for 4 November 2024. During this three-hour hearing, Micallef will face questions from Members of the CULT (Culture and Education), EMPL (Employment and Social Affairs), LIBE (Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs), and JURI (Legal Affairs) Committees of the European Parliament. He will also need to provide written responses to pre-submitted questions posed by the Committees ahead of the hearing, by October 22.

Due to the limited number of questions allowed, the questionnaire combined several important topics into two broad questions on culture. It touched upon the future of Creative Europe in the next EU seven-year budget, the impact of AI on the cultural sector, working conditions of artists—along with other scattered points. These are recurring themes that were highlighted in Micallef’s mission letter and are likely to shape the policy agenda for the coming years.

While Culture Action Europe looks forward to Micallef’s responses to the questionnaire and hopes for his strong performance at the hearing, we believe it is equally important to ask the Commissioner-designate more fundamental questions about culture’s role in Europe that go beyond specific policy issues. 

Here are three questions Culture Action Europe believes the cultural sector should be asking the new European Commissioner for Culture.

Q1. How will you address the instrumentalisation and mainstreaming of culture? 

In recent years, the European Union has increasingly framed culture through its spillover effects or ‘mainstreamed’ it into other sectors. In all strategic documents, from the New European Agenda for Culture to the EU Work Plan for Culture 2023–2026, culture is celebrated for its contributions to economy, regional development, innovation, well-being, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability, as exemplified by New European Bauhaus. On the surface, this brings visibility to culture and opens the door for funding from various EU programmes, such as Horizon Europe or the Single Market Programme.

However, cultural policy mainstreaming raises several concerns.

First, in helping others, culture overlooks its own needs. Has the mainstreaming of cultural policy genuinely improved the state of the cultural sector? Artists continue to suffer from poor working conditions, culture’s role is sidelined in discussions about AI (despite the fact that cultural data is heavily used in AI development), and culture’s core funding programme—Creative Europe—is jeopardised every policy cycle. It was not even mentioned in Micallef’s mission letter.

Second, mainstreaming often leads to instrumentalisation. In evidence-based public policy, culture is expected to ‘prove’ its value by demonstrating benefits to other sectors. At a practical level, this creates burdensome conditionalities: to secure funding, cultural organisations must tick numerous boxes: green, social, innovative, inclusive… While these values are important, conditionalities—if not backed by sufficient funding and capacity-building—often overshadow the main goals of cultural projects, forcing them to fit into pre-set policy agendas and homogenising cultural expression. Evidence-based policymaking often translates into problem-based thinking, where cultural projects need to prioritise reactive measures rather than re-imagine or shape the future beyond the immediate crises.

The EU itself confirms this position: the European Court of Auditors states, ‘In terms of EU funding, culture is mainly a means of achieving other EU priorities and objectives (e.g. supporting urban and regional development, enterprise, tourism) rather than a core priority itself’ and calls to improve the current strategic framework for culture.

The recent decision to exclude culture as a distinct point from the UN Pact for the Future, instead merging it with sports, signals that culture is increasingly seen as either entertainment or a tool to ‘contribute to more effective, inclusive, equitable and sustainable development.’ The mantra of ‘culture is the answer to everything’ has been diluted to the point where culture loses its own distinct policy.

Thus, the critical question is: how does the EU leadership plan to address the negative consequences of mainstreaming? And what alternative cultural policy models should the EU explore to safeguard the autonomy and intrinsic value of culture?

Q2. How will EU cultural policy coexist with national cultural policies, especially in the current political environment?

There is an inherent conflict between EU and national cultural policies.

On the one hand, the concept of a formal ‘cultural policy’ was introduced by UNESCO in the 1960s when nations grew concerned that globalisation and emerging technologies were eroding their distinctiveness. Cultural policy was designed and further institutionalised as a tool for national governments to preserve their uniqueness through culture. Ultimately, cultural policy has served to protect national interests.

On the other hand, the EU began supporting culture in the 1970-80s to build a sense of European identity. During periods of enlargement, it was necessary to unite diverse countries under a single European project. The 1985 Adonnino Report summarises it well, ‘It is also through action in the areas of culture and communication, which are essential to European identity and the Community’s image in the minds of its people, that support for the advancement of Europe can and must be sought.’ Today, many respondents in our State of Culture report affirm the existence of a shared European culture and cultural heritage. EU programmes such as Erasmus and Creative Europe have come to symbolise the growing sense of European identity across national boundaries.

Therefore, a concept originally coined for national governments was repurposed for supranational EU goals. Some may argue that this is simply a matter of scale: just as culture played a key role in nation-building in 19th-century Europe, it can be similarly used to construct a pan-European identity. However, scholars like Benedict Anderson (‘Imagined Communities’) and Jürgen Habermas (‘The Postnational Constellation’) have shown that this approach is unlikely to succeed given Europe’s vast diversity. 

With the rise of far-right governments, this clash becomes more pronounced. The EU continues to claim progressive values like respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and human rights, while conservative authoritarian regimes invest heavily in culture but restrict artistic freedom. Increasing censorship and politicised national funding are pushing more artists toward EU support. Yet, the EU isn’t without its contradictions: it views culture as a tool for peace-building and democracy, often sidelining the uncomfortable realities of cultural policy—failures of multiculturalism, culture wars, propaganda, and limitations on artistic autonomy. As more member states prioritise national culture protection, what will happen to the core European values in the cultural sector, and how will this change shape future EU policies? 

Moreover, the tension between national and supranational cultural policies raises questions about competences. While the EU has a limited mandate over cultural affairs, there is growing sentiment to expand its role. Should cultural competence be strengthened in EU Treaties? Are there viable alternatives to an EU-level cultural policy, which is primarily a national tool? This unresolved issue continues to fuel debates about cultural diplomacy versus international cultural relations, unity versus diversity, and ultimately, the authority over shaping Europe’s cultural future.

Q3. How do you see the role of the cultural sector in EU cultural policy?

Are we beneficiaries, problem-holders, clients, consumers, prosumers, participants, artists, or creators? The easy answer is that the cultural sector representatives are stakeholders meant to be included in policy-making through participatory governance—like the annual Youth Policy Dialogues. But stakeholders come in many forms: from those blocking the European Quarter with tractors, to those receiving accolades from EU institutions, and even those remaining largely unaware of ongoing policy changes. Mr Commissioner-designate, how will you bring cultural sector representatives to the table—and in what capacity? What is the political potential of culture for you?

While describing its role, the cultural sector likes to refer to the Porto Santo Charter of 2021. The document analyses two concepts: democratisation of culture and cultural democracy. The former ensures that everyone, regardless of background, has access to culture—a view summed up by the Hungarian Presidency’s motto, ‘Access is success’. The latter goes beyond access and calls for active citizen participation in culture. 

The cultural democracy paradigm has gained recognition for empowering citizens to not just engage with, but actively shape the cultural life of their communities. The Porto Santo Charter lays out the vision: cultural democracy pushes for pluralism, decentralised decision-making, and the sharing of power. It requires an equitable relationship between those who hold institutional authority and the communities in which they are embedded (and whose diversity they may wish to represent)—whether it’s in institutional governance, planning programmes, distributing funding, or organising exhibitions. 

The question now is: can EU institutions truly support this model of cultural democracy through its existing and new policy tools and competences, or will it remain an ideal of the sector?

These are Culture Action Europe’s key questions for Commissioner-designate Glenn Micallef—and, at the same time, for the cultural sector to reflect upon. Our State of Culture report gives us a solid basis for this introspection we are keen to engage in over the coming months. We are excited to present the report on October 16 at 13:00 CET: join us for the launch to discuss the future of cultural policies in Europe.