The Social Legitimacy of EU governance

1. The Social Legitimacy of EU governance Identity workhop 26 May 2010 Izmir University of Economics Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

2. The Social Legitimacy of EU governance 1. Social Legitimacy as precondition and result of EU governance Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

3. The liberal democratic criteria of legitimate governance • Social-legitimacy: agreement on political identity • Input-legitimacy: popular authorisation and accountability of public officials • Output-legitimacy: effective performance (problem solving) Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

4. Social legitimacy as precondition of governance • The principle of popular sovereignty presuppose that the question of who constitutes the people has been settled to mutual agreement • Majority decision making requires sufficient trust between citizens to accept that being outvoted does not constitute a threat to their essential interests Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

5. How much “we-feeling” is necessary for the EU (1) • Federalists: European identity exists because of common historical stages of society • Christianity, Renaissance, Enlightenment, industrialisation • Common founding goal of the EU: avoid repetition of war • Common enterprise: ever closer union as concept to master the globalisation Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

6. How much „we-feeling“ is necessary for the EU? (2) • Neofunctionalists: transnational political identities could spill over from one elite to another before embracing a wider public • Haas 1958: organised political actors would be gradually persuaded to shift their loyalities and expectations towards a new centre Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

7. How much “we-feeling” is necessary for the EU? (2) • Intergovernmentalists: assume that political identities would and should remain national • Moravcsik: preferences continue to be formed at the national level Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

8. Contra-arguments against an European identity • Union is not territorially bounded – citizens do not know with whom they form a political solidarity • No ethnic affiliation • Strong national identity avoids the creations of an European identity – nations remains the dominant arena for political socialisation Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

9. My Assessment: EU does not need the same strong identity as on nation state level • non-state political system • No monopoly of violence • No right to dig deep into the taxpayers pocket • But „thin” European identity is needed • European public forum of shared communication • Acceptance of majority decisions Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

10. How an European identity can be formed? • Performance: utititarian and affective support • Use of symbols (flag) • Construction of insider-outsider relationships (passport and citizen rights) • Participation (election to the EP) • Everyday objects (single currency) • Scharpf: “Just as playing together can create teams, living under a common government and participating in common political processes can create political identities” Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

11. Identity can be constructed around civic values instead of ethno-cultural attributes • Habermas: Solidarities will need to shift away from exclusive ethno-cultural constructs as societies become more multicultural • National loyalties (ethno-centered) and European loyalties (civic-centered) can co-exist • Civic elements: EU as political project to fulfill goals which cannot be reached at the national level Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

12. Empirical analysis: Does an European identity exist? • Many citizens have a multi-tiered sense of belonging • Multiple tiers of identity tend to be cumulative rather than contradictory • Trust to other nationalities has grown from 1.55 to 1.75 (scale 0-3) between 1976-90, compared to a steady level of 2.25 between members of the same national community (Eurobarometer) • Existence of European identity differs between the member states Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

13. The Social Legitimacy of EU governance 2. The Constitutional Debate: Intergovernmental vs. Supranational Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

14. Degree of European identity shapes the proposals for appropriate EU governance • Strong European identity – far reaching supranational policies possible • Weak sense of European identity – limited space for supranational policies Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

15. Constitutional Debate: Executive - Commission vs. European Council • Permanent European Council President: just a question of efficiency or a power shift towards the member states? • Election of the Commission President: a politisation of the Commission? Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

16. Constitutional Debate: EP as co-legislator • UK, France: Distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditures should remain • Controversy about the principle ‘QMV in Council = Codecision in the EP’ Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

17. Constitutional Debate: Involvement of NP at the European level • German Foreign Minister: EP has not enough legitimacy • Demand for an institutional representation of NP via a second chamber • Demand for a Congress of national parliamentsto monitor the principle of subsidiarity Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics

18. Conclusion • Social legitimacy of EU governance influenced by: • National identities • Elite Discourse • Participation/Public Debate • Performance of EU governance Ass. Prof Dr. Alexander Bürgin Izmir University of Economics