When Do They Speak? Deliberation and Democratic Decision-Making in the European Union (original) (raw)
Related papers
Deliberative democracy and the European Union: a reappraisal of conflict
2013
Connecting the relevant literature in sociology, political theory and European studies with original empirical research, this article calls for a reappraisal of conflict when addressing the issue of the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. It offers a critical account of rationalistic and consensus-based deliberative democracy both in the classical theories of deliberative democracy and in the practices institutionalised in the EU. Drawing on the model of 'discursive democracy' theorised by John Dryzek, it provides an account of the contentious debate over the EU Services Directive (also known as the Bolkestein Directive). It is argued that the EU can function as a polity where democratic legitimacy is granted by deliberation. However, this holds only under two conditions. First, deliberation must be conflict based; that is, it must allow for the voicing of dissent and its channelling into political institutions. Second, supranational institutions and decision making can only be responsive and engage in alleviating conflict through deliberation when conflict is structured along transnational-as opposed to national-lines.
Representation through Deliberation: The European Case
2011
This paper shows that the main pattern of European democratisation has unfolded along the lines of an EU organised as a multilevel system of representative parliamentary government and not as a system of deliberative governance as the transnationalists propound. But the multilevel EU has developed a structure of representation that is theoretically challenging. In order to come to grips with this we present an institutional variant of deliberative theory, which understands democracy as the combination of a principle of justification and an organisational form. It comes with the following explanatory mechanisms: claimsmaking, justification and learning which in the EU also program institutional copying and emulation mechanisms. We show that the EU has established an incomplete system of representative democracy steeped in a distinct representation-deliberation interface, which has emerged through a particular and distinct configuration of democratisation mechanisms.
Deliberation and the problem of democratic legitimacy in the EU
2006
What kind of democracy does the EU require and what model of deliberative democracy can account for post-national legitimacy? The author contends that democracy can only prevail with egalitarian procedures of law making in place through which the citizens can influence the laws that affect them. A model premised on the presuppositions of an idealized discourse should be confined to some very limited sets of constitutional questions and be supplemented with a variant of democratic discourse modelled on a less demanding concept of democratic legitimacy. The concept of a working agreement is introduced in order to establish such concept legitimacy as well as to account for the constitutional developments of the EU. Shorter version of paper prepared for the conference 'Intersubjektivität und internationale Politik. Motive aus dem Werk von Jürgen Habermas in Internationalen Beziehungen und
Deliberation by political representation: A lost cause?
Within parliamentary context my paper proposes that political representation, due to its imperative on „representativeness‟, sets restrictions on deliberation as parliamentary practice. These representative restrictions include e.g. pre-fixed party platforms and pre- negotiated agreements and compromises. Hence, in their parliamentary activity, MPs are representing interests as they are in constant strain to constitute judgments. Whether these judgments and assessments are self-reliant or dependent in nature, they are implicitly bound to the principle of responsiveness of legislative representation. My paper explores this dilemma deliberative democratic theory is facing when pre-fixed interests as regards forming opinions are introduced to the constellation of deliberative process of parliamentary procedures. The main theoretical question – in what way political representation can be per se deliberative after all? – is simultaneously turned into asking to what extent deliberative theory can be outstretched without losing its analytical aptitude of criticizing aggregative models of representation and thus highlighting the appreciation of deliberation. In this vein, my paper traces recent discussions where the spectrum of traditional principal–agent -form of representation is broadened. These prospects can complement the fundamental aspect of the legitimation of parliamentary rule being dependent on how deliberative the parliament is in its actions besides being representative.
Deliberative Democracy and the Legitimacy of the European Union: A Reappraisal of Conflict
Political Studies, 2013
Connecting the relevant literature in sociology, political theory and European studies with original empirical research, this article calls for a reappraisal of conflict when addressing the issue of the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. It offers a critical account of rationalistic and consensus-based deliberative democracy both in the classical theories of deliberative democracy and in the practices institutionalised in the EU. Drawing on the model of ‘discursive democracy’ theorised by John Dryzek, it provides an account of the contentious debate over the EU Services Directive (also known as the Bolkestein Directive). It is argued that the EU can function as a polity where democratic legitimacy is granted by deliberation. However, this holds only under two conditions. First, deliberation must be conflict based; that is, it must allow for the voicing of dissent and its channelling into political institutions. Second, supranational institutions and decision making can onl...
Connecting the relevant literature in sociology, political theory and European studies with original empirical research, this article calls for a reappraisal of conflict when addressing the issue of the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. It offers a critical account of rationalistic and consensus-based deliberative democracy both in the classical theories of deliberative democracy and in the practices institutionalised in the EU. Drawing on the model of 'discursive democracy' theorised by John Dryzek, it provides an account of the contentious debate over the EU Services Directive (also known as the Bolkestein Directive). It is argued that the EU can function as a polity where democratic legitimacy is granted by deliberation. However, this holds only under two conditions. First, deliberation must be conflict based; that is, it must allow for the voicing of dissent and its channelling into political institutions. Second, supranational institutions and decision making can only be responsive and engage in alleviating conflict through deliberation when conflict is structured along transnational -as opposed to national -lines.
Conditional Deliberation: The Case of Joint Parliamentary Committees in the EU
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2014
Deliberation, as a mode of interaction based on the logic of reason-giving argumentation, is a core feature of the European Union institutions. Yet only few studies have explored the conditions that make deliberation possible in practice. This study examines the institutional determinants of deliberation within joint parliamentary committees (JPCs)-longstanding instruments of EU enlargement policy. The empirical analysis reveals a dynamic relationship between 'deliberation' and 'debate' as extreme modes of interaction that co-exist within the same setting. It also suggests that deliberation is a product of participants' constant efforts to maintain equal power relations and low issue-area sensitivity. This study provides new evidence on deliberative politics at the EU level. In addition, it highlights the role of inter-parliamentary deliberation as a catalyst for political cooperation and policy coordination , at a time of intensifying enlargement fatigue and growing Euroscepticism both at home and abroad. * The authors are grateful to two anonymous referees for their useful comments, and Banu Demir Pakel, Cavit Pakel, Tolga Bolukbasi, Zeki Sarıgil for their helpful suggestions on the earlier versions of the article.
dalus The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy
2017
This essay proceeds in three steps. First, it will briefly outline the often invoked “crisis” of representative democracy and its major symptoms. Second, it will discuss a popular yet, as I shall argue, worryingly misguided response to that crisis: namely, the switch to plebiscitarian methods of “direct” democracy, as advocated, for example, by rightist populist forces in many European Union member states. The United Kingdom’s Brexit referendum of June 2016 illuminates the weaknesses of this approach. Third, it will suggest a rough design for enriching representative electoral democracy with nonelectoral (but “aleatory,” or randomized) and nonmajoritarian (but deliberative and consultative) bodies and their peculiar methods of political will formation (as opposed to the expression of a popular will already formed). One core question of political theory is how best to make collectively binding decisions: who should make those decisions, and by what rules and procedures? The modalitie...