The Inherently Undemocratic EU Democracy: Moving Beyond the ‘Democratic Deficit’ Debate

E. Nanopoulos, Fotis Vergis
{"title":"The Inherently Undemocratic EU Democracy: Moving Beyond the ‘Democratic Deficit’ Debate","authors":"E. Nanopoulos, Fotis Vergis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3197183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter argues that the debate on the democratic ‘deficit’ or ‘default’ of the EU, both generally and specifically with reference to the Euro-crisis, is misplaced. What is usually perceived as a crisis of EU democracy is a manifestation of a more systemic displacement of democracy, as an inherent feature of the European project. This assumption is explored by examining the ideological and normative influences that informed the EU’s construction, as well as the forces that have continued to provide a vehicle for those influences to take political and legal form. These suggest that the undemocratic nature of the EU is necessary for the survival and perpetuation of the Union’s specific vision of a common (free) market, and thus of contemporary European capitalism, as well as for the affirmation and continuity of the EU bureaucracy and a symbiotic world of socio-economic interests. Consequently, the ‘democratic deficit’ of the EU cannot be palliated through institutional reform. Moreover, the EU will likely increasingly engage in a process of building European identity based on a singular vision, resulting in the gradual exclusion of those who do not share a commitment to the EU’s market telos and the marginalisation of substantive democratic critique.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3197183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter argues that the debate on the democratic ‘deficit’ or ‘default’ of the EU, both generally and specifically with reference to the Euro-crisis, is misplaced. What is usually perceived as a crisis of EU democracy is a manifestation of a more systemic displacement of democracy, as an inherent feature of the European project. This assumption is explored by examining the ideological and normative influences that informed the EU’s construction, as well as the forces that have continued to provide a vehicle for those influences to take political and legal form. These suggest that the undemocratic nature of the EU is necessary for the survival and perpetuation of the Union’s specific vision of a common (free) market, and thus of contemporary European capitalism, as well as for the affirmation and continuity of the EU bureaucracy and a symbiotic world of socio-economic interests. Consequently, the ‘democratic deficit’ of the EU cannot be palliated through institutional reform. Moreover, the EU will likely increasingly engage in a process of building European identity based on a singular vision, resulting in the gradual exclusion of those who do not share a commitment to the EU’s market telos and the marginalisation of substantive democratic critique.
本质上不民主的欧盟民主:超越“民主赤字”辩论
本章认为,关于欧盟的民主“赤字”或“违约”的辩论,无论是普遍的还是具体的,都与欧元危机有关,是错误的。通常被认为是欧盟民主危机的,其实是民主被系统性取代的表现,而民主是欧洲一体化的固有特征。这一假设是通过考察影响欧盟建设的意识形态和规范影响,以及继续为这些影响提供政治和法律形式的工具的力量来探索的。这表明,欧盟的非民主本质对于欧盟共同(自由)市场的具体愿景的生存和延续,以及当代欧洲资本主义的生存和延续,以及欧盟官僚机构和社会经济利益共生世界的肯定和延续都是必要的。因此,欧盟的“民主赤字”无法通过制度改革来缓和。此外,欧盟可能会越来越多地参与建立基于单一愿景的欧洲认同的过程,导致那些不认同欧盟市场目标的国家逐渐被排除在外,实质性民主批评被边缘化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信