Abstract
In this chapter, I examine the argumentative discursive process through which accountability is exercised in debates that follow statements by Commissioners in the European Parliament (EP). The accountability practice is characterised as an activity type (van Eemeren in Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2010), based on a careful examination of the institutional setting and combined with the analysis of actual debates. The characterisation highlights the conventionalised elements of the practice, offering us some indications on what to look for when examining the argumentative pursuit of accountability in these debates. In the characterisation, I pay special attention to the linguistic indicators associated with different argumentative aspects of the process. Following van Eemeren et al. (Argumentative indicators in discourse: a pragma-dialectical study, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2007), I take it that identifying argumentative indicators is in principle fruitful as it refines the analytic tools used to examine argumentative practices. However, as the examination in this chapter shows, as a result of the highly institutional nature of the practice, the multiple purposes it has and the consequent indirectness and implicitness, argumentative indicators are less straightforward than they are in other practices. The examination of EP debates on statements suggests we may need to think of different types of indicators to help us navigate more complex institutionalised argumentative practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The literature on political accountability identifies three aspects of accountability practices: (i) putting an agent under the obligation to provide information about her conduct, i.e. monitoring, (ii) putting the agent under the obligation to justify the conduct and (iii) imposing sanctions on agents whose conduct is not satisfactory, i.e. enforcement (Tsai 2011). While in its complete form, accountability involves all three aspects, scholars recognise that “certain instances of accountability do not include aspects of answerability [i.e., monitoring and justification], while others go without elements of enforcement” (Schedler 1999, p. 18). The understanding of accountability as an argumentative activity applies mainly to the view of accountability as answerability rather than to the view of accountability as enforcement.
- 2.
- 3.
See Mohammed (2016c) for a discussion of the rationale underlying such a reconstruction of the disputed position in accountability practices.
- 4.
The complete texts of treaties, legislation, case law and legislative proposals can be viewed using the EUR-Lex database of EU law available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en.
- 5.
In the rules of procedure for the 7th term, these are rules 110 and 111.
- 6.
This is a simplified version of the scheme. See Mohammed (2016c) for an elaborate version and for the discussion of it.
- 7.
So far, none of the eight motions of censure brought before Parliament has been adopted. In 1999, the Santer Commission stepped down before Parliament forced its resignation.
References
Andone, C. 2015. Pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability. Argumentation 29 (1): 1–18.
Bovens, M., D. Curtin, and P.T. Hart (eds.). 2010. The real world of EU accountability: What deficit?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colomer, J.M. 2011. Governance. In The encyclopedia of political science ed. G.T. Kurian, 687–690. CQ Press Library.
Corbett, R., F. Jacobs, and M. Shackleton. 2011. The European Parliament. London: John Harper Publishing.
Europa. 2011. Parliament’s powers and procedures. Retrieved on May 30, 2017 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00003/Powers-and-procedures.
European Parliament. 2011. Immediate EU measures in support of Italy and other Member States affected by exceptional migratory flows (debate). Retrieved on August 14, 2012 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20110215+ITEM-014+DOC+XML+V0//EN.
European Parliament. 2012. Conclusions of the European Council meeting (1–2 March 2012) (debate). Retrieved on June 15, 2012 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20120313+ITEM-006+DOC+XML+V0//EN.
European Parliament. 2013. Suspension of the SWIFT agreement as a result of NSA surveillance (debate). Retrieved on December 2, 2013 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20131009&secondRef=ITEM-019&language=EN.
European Parliament. 2014. Future of the Safe Harbour Agreement in the light of the NSA affair (debate). Retrieved on October 2, 2016 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20140115+ITEM-016+DOC+XML+V0//EN.
European Parliament. (2015). European Agenda on Security (debate). Retrieved on May 30, 2017 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20150707+ITEM-014+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.
European Parliament. (2016a). Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. 8th Parliamentary Term. Retrieved on October 1, 2016 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getLastRules.do?language=EN&reference=TOC.
European Parliament. (2016b). Refugee emergency, external borders control and future of Schengen (debate). Retrieved on May 30, 2017 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20160202+ITEM-010+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.
European Parliament. (2016c). Communication on implementing the European agenda on migration (debate). Retrieved on May 30, 2017 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20160308&secondRef=ITEM-011&language=EN.
European Union. 2012. The European Union explained—How the European Union works. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2775/87270.
Hix, S., A. Noury, and G. Roland. 2007. Democratic politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
House of Commons Information Office. 2005. Parliamentary Questions. Factsheet 1. Retrieved on May 30, 2017 from https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p01.pdf.
House of Commons Official Report. 2002. House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Feb 2002 (pt 3): Prime Minister’s Question Time, vol. 379, cc853–cc854. Retrieved on May 30, 2017 from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020206/debtext/20206-03.htm.
Leonard, D. 2010. Guide to the European Union. The definitive guide to all aspects of the EU. London: Profile Books Ltd.
Lewiński, M., and M. Aakhus. 2014. Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation 28 (2): 161–185.
Mohammed, D. 2009. The honourable gentleman should make up his mind. Strategic manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Mohammed, D. 2013. Pursuing multiple goals in European parliamentary debates: EU immigration policies as a case in point. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 47–74.
Mohammed, D. 2016a. Goals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation 30 (3): 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9370-6.
Mohammed, D. 2016b. Not just rational, but also reasonable: Critical testing in the service of external purposes of public political arguments. In Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 2015, vol. I, ed. D. Mohammed and M. Lewiński, 499–514. London: College Publications.
Mohammed, D. 2016c. What’s in a good argument about evaluative claims? Argumentation in accountability practices. In Argumentation, objectivity and bias. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–23 May 2016, ed. L. Benacquista and P. Bondy. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Mohammed, D. 2016d. It is true that security and Schengen go hand in hand. Strategic manoeuvring in the multi-layered activity type of European Parliamentary debates. In Dialogues in argumentation, ed. R. von Borg, 232–266. Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
Mulgan, R. 2000. ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept. Public Administration 78 (3): 555–573.
Mulgan, R. 2004. Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rogers, R., and R. Walters. 2006. How Parliament works. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Staab, A. 2011. The European Union explained. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Schedler, A. 1999. Conceptualizing accountability. In The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies, ed. A. Schedler, L. Diamond, and M.F. Plattner. Boulder and London: Lynne Riener Publishers.
Tsai, L.L. 2011. Accountability. In The encyclopedia of political science, ed. G.T. Kurian, 5–9. CQ Press Library.
van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2005. Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, ed. D. Hitchcock, 75–84. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
van Eemeren, F.H., and B. Garssen. 2010. In varietate concordia—United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia 7 (1): 19–37.
van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the editors of this volume and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. This work has been supported by grants of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT): SFRH/BPD/76149/2011 and PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014, as well as by an exploratory grant for international projects, awarded by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (FCSH), Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mohammed, D. (2018). Exercising Accountability in European Parliamentary Debates on Statements: An Argumentative Perspective. In: Oswald, S., Herman, T., Jacquin, J. (eds) Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Argumentation Library, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73971-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73972-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)