What is there to be legitimized in the EU (original) (raw)
Related papers
This paper focuses on the problematique of building the legitimacy (one of the most used and misused concepts in Political Science) of governance (one of the most fashionable concepts in contemporary political discourse) within the context of the European Union (one of the most novel of political experiments). Whether intentionally or not, the EU has become a formidable producer of such arrangements, but lacks a “formula” for their legitimation. The author presents three sets of principles that might be used to guide the design of European Governance Arrangements (EGAs) in order to enhance their legitimacy. He concludes with some caveats, underlining inter alia that EGAs will not resolve all policy issues in the supra-national realm, and they will not work unless firmly based on explicitly political choices involving their charter, the composition of participants and the rules for decision-making. Purely technocratic or administrative considerations will not suffice.
Can the European Union be legitimized by Governance
European journal of legal studies, 2007
is one of the most frequently used and misused concepts in political science. It ranks up there with 'power' in terms of how much it is needed, how difficult it is to define and how impossible it is to measure. Cynically, one is tempted to observe that it is precisely this ambiguity that makes it so useful to political scientists. Virtually any outcome can be "explained" (ex post) by invoking it-especially its absence-since no one can be sure that this might not have been the case. For legitimacy usually enters the analytical picture when it is missing or deficient. Only when a regime or arrangement is being manifestly challenged by its citizens/subjects/victims/beneficiaries do political scientists tend to invoke lack of legitimacy as a cause for the crisis. When it is functioning well, legitimacy recedes into the background and persons seem to take for granted that the actions of their authorities are "proper," "normal," or "justified". One is reminded of the famous observation of U.S Supreme Court Justice, Lewis Powell, with regard to pornography: "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it". With regard to legitimacy, it would be more correct to say: "I may not be able to define (or measure) it, but I know it when it is not there". Now, if this is true for polities-i.e., national states-that have fixed boundaries, unique identities, formal constitutions, well-established practices and sovereignty over other claimants to authority, imagine how difficult it will be to make any sense of the legitimacy of a polity that has none of the above! The European Union (EU) is, if nothing else, a "polity in formation". No one believes that its borders and rules are going to remain the same for the foreseeable future. Everyone "knows" that it is not only going to enlarge itself to include an, as yet undetermined, number of new countries, but it is also very likely to expand the scope of its activities and to modify the weights and thresholds of its decision-making system. If this were not enough, there is also the fact that the EU is an unprecedented experiment in the peaceful and voluntary creation of a large-scale polity out of previously independent ones. It is, therefore, singularly difficult for its citizens/subjects/victims/beneficiaries to compare this object politique non-identifié with anything they have experienced before. No doubt, there exists a temptation to apply the standards that they are already using to evaluate their EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES : ISSUE 1 respective national authorities, but eventually they may learn other normative expectations with regard to EU actions and benefits. I. One definition and five implications First, let us try to define legitimacy in a way that is generic enough to allow us to apply it to the widest possible range of polities. Legitimacy is a shared expectation among actors in an arrangement of authority such that the actions of those who rule are accepted voluntarily by those who are ruled because the latter are convinced that the actions of the former conform to pre-established and acceptable norms. From this, I draw the following implications: (1) The basis upon which these norms are pre-established can vary from one arrangement to another-not only from one country or culture to another, but also within a single country/culture according to function or location. While it is often claimed that in the contemporary context "democracy" provides the exclusive basis for exercising authority, this denies the possibility (and obvious fact) that particular arrangements within an otherwise democratic polity can be (and often are) successfully legitimated according to other norms. 1 It also obscures the fact that "democracy" can be defined normatively and institutionalized historically in such a different fashion that authority relations which are legitimate in one democracy would be regarded as quite illegitimate in another. The "coincidence" that all of the EU members are self-proclaimed democracies and recognize each other as such does not eo ipso provide the norms for its legitimation-indeed, well-entrenched differences in the democratic institutions of its members may actually make it more difficult. (2) The unit within which relations of sub-and super-ordination are being voluntarily
In the past years there are an increasing number of attitudes and events that suggest a chronic need for a better communication between European Union and its citizens. One of the main issues concerns the perception, among citizens, of a lack of legitimacy and transparency of EU and its institutions. In order to identify and analyze some of the causes, we suggest that an important variable that should be considered is the communication strategy of the EU. In this article we explore some interpretations of legitimacy that can be associated to the perception of EU's institutions among the European citizens and the main points expressed by the European Commission with regard on the Communication Strategy. right to command its subordinates, as well as emphasizes the subordinates' right to disobey a particular authority. 6 The issue of legitimacy in the European Union arises in relation to new types of political formation, new centers of power and new policies, which represents both a united and divided society. Also, the EU represents both an intergovernmental organization and a supranational entity. The only certainty is that the EU is a continuously emerging supranational entity whose success in the future became more and more dependent on the citizens' support.
The Issue of the European Governance
European Public Law: EU eJournal, 2016
The present text is dedicated to an important issue related to the development of the European Union – European governance - due to its contribution to the democratization of the entire European construction, to the good functioning of the European institutional system and to a larger involvement in the problems of the European society. In order to highlight the importance of the European governance we structured our paper into four main parts. First, we presented a few aspects related to the concept of governance, then we made reference to the relationship between the nature of the European Union and the framing of the concept mentioned above. The part concerning the birth of the good governance mechanism is, in turn, dedicated to analysing a few aspects concerning multi-level governance, the concept of “capacity building” and the types of multi-level governance. We concluded by a short presentation of the principles that represent the basis of the good governance and of its import...
European Governance, or Governmentality? Reflections on the EUâs System of Government
2009
This paper offers a critical exploration of the term 'governance', its rise to prominence within EU political discourse, and the new forms of authority and expertise it has come to be associated with within the EU's evolving political regime. Its argues that a critical understanding of EU governance might be advanced if scholars look beyond the conventional political science literature (where governance is often ontologized as that form of politics and authority which reflects the social reality of administering complex societies), and interpret it instead in terms of recent debates about neoliberal governmentality. I ask, what does the Commission's appropriation of this ambiguous concept reveal about the way EU politicians, experts and policy makers are re-conceptualising Europe and the problem of European government? Drawing on insights from critical discourse analysis, sociology and anthropology (including my own ethnographic fieldwork among EU officials in Brussels), I examine the different meanings and uses of the term 'European governance' and the normative assumptions that underpin its use in the EU context. These arguments are subsequently developed through a critical examination of the Commission's Green Paper on the Future of Parliamentary Democracy and the Commission's advocacy for the Open Method of Coordination, which, I suggest, is not as open, inclusive or democratic as its rhetoric suggests. I conclude that European governance should be interpreted as an ideological keyword and form of advanced liberal governmentality, one that simultaneously promotes a technocratic style of steering and managing while concealing the way power and decision-making are increasingly being exercised in nontransparent ways by networks of European elites based around the EU's institutions.
The Transformation of Governance in the European Union
Eurobarometer surveys regularly confirm that in a number of policy fields, citizens consider the European Union to be the appropriate level for political action. Even a brief look into the Maastricht Treaty shows that the European Union has very broad political competencies. In the EU, collectively perceived problems are dealt with by means of targeted public policy with the aim of collectively binding decisions. This corresponds to a general notion of governance . However, the notion of governance is commonly used with reference to the state and cannot be easily applied to the institutional system of the European Union. On the other hand, the political integration of Western Europe has led to a qualitative change both in the conditions under which governments act and in their ability to govern in the interests of their citizens. At the same time, the European Union -and more precisely its supranational community component -has been transformed into a political order with an action capacity of its own. The transfer of political competencies to the European level proceeds in small steps in the daily practice of governance and of adjudication. In large intervals, the results of these processes are codified in treaty form by intergovernmental conferences. In the light of these briefly sketched features and developments, it seems fruitful to have a closer look at "governance in a dynamic multi-level system". The first part of this paper recalls the political and legal controversy about the nature of the political order of the Union with the aim of justifying the use of the term "governance" with reference to the EU. More or less isolated from the discussion on the nature of the EU and its possible or desirable future development, scholars increasingly deal with the effects of the integration process on responsible and effective governance within the member states. This debate is linked to a broader concern about the problems and prospects of governance under the conditions of increasing internationalization which finds its expression in the transnational expansion of functional subsystems of society, increasing interdependence and the globalization of problems. Policy analysis has started to deal with the changes in institutional structures and political processes caused by the Europeanization of policies. These questions are discussed in the second part which draws on the contributions to a forthcoming book edited by the authors (Jachtenfuchs/Kohler-Koch 1995). The third part focuses the meaning and the possibility of legitimate and efficient governance beyond the state framework. The fourth part discusses different institutional models for dealing with the problems of governance in a dynamic multi-level system resulting from the integration process. In the light of the perspective developed in this paper, the final part puts forward some general empirical, theoretical and normative questions for further research.