Advertisement

Die EU und das Scheitern demokratischen Experimentierens

  • Jan Zielonka
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Die EU ist ein bemerkenswertes demokratisches Experiment Noch nie zuvor wurde ein ebenso ambitioniertes demokratisches Projekt über den Nationalstaat hinaus versucht. Dieser Beitrag argumentiert allerdings, dass die Versuche der EU, eine funktionierende Demokratie aufzubauen, gescheitert sind. Dies wiederum erschwert es der EU, schmerzliche Eingriffe in politisch sensible funktionelle Bereiche zu legitimieren. Dass das demokratische Experiment der EU gescheitert ist, bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass wir einfach zu den Nationalstaaten mit ihren parlamentarischen Systemen zurückkehren können. Europa ist ein hoch integriertes System, und wir werden unsere gemeinsamen Bemühungen immer regulieren und legitimieren müssen. Nationale Demokratien sind für den Umgang mit grenzüberschreitender Wirtschaft und Politik nicht gut geeignet. Da Europas erstes demokratisches Experiment gescheitert ist, müssen wir schnell ein anderes, hoffentlich besseres, konzipieren. Der Beitrag wird zwei mögliche Alternativen betrachten und prüfen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Alonso, Sonia, John Keane und Wolfgang Merkel. Hrsg. 2011. The Future of Representative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Archibugi, Daniele. 2004. Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics. A Review. European Journal of International Relations 10 (3): 437-473.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, Benjamin. 1994. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bartolini, Stefano. 2005. Restructuring Europe. Centre formation, system building and political structuring between the nation-state and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, Ulrich. 2013. German Europe. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bellamy, Richard. 2007. Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beramendi, Pablo. 2012. The Political Geography of Inequality: Regions and Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Castells, Manuel. 2010. The Rise of the Network Society: Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2. Aufl.Google Scholar
  9. Dahrendorf, Ralf. 2003. The Challenge For Democracy. Journal of Democracy 14 (4): 101-114.Google Scholar
  10. Darnstädt, Thomas. 2011. More Problems than Answers: The Pitfalls of the Merkozy Fiscal Pact. Spiegel Online, 16. Dezember 2011. Online unter www.spiegel.de/international/europe/more-problems-than-answers-the-pitfalls-of-the-merkozy-fiscal-pact-a-803923.html, Zugriff am 21.06.2016.
  11. Dimitriadi, Angeliki. 2016. Deals without borders: Europe’s foreign policy on migration. ECFR Policy Brief, April 2016.Google Scholar
  12. Ferdinand, Peter. Hrsg. 2000. The Internet, Democracy and Democratization. London: Frank Cass Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, Anthony. 2014. Turbulent and Mighty Continent. What Future for Europe? Cambridge: Polity Press, 2. Aufl.Google Scholar
  14. Grofman, Bernard, Alexander H. Trechsel, Mark Franklin. Hrsg. 2014. The Internet and Democracy in Global Perspective: Voters, Candidates, Parties and Social Movements. Heidelberg/London: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  15. Habermas, Jürgen. 2009. Europe: The Faltering Project. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Held, David. 1993. Democracy: From City-States to a Cosmopolitan Order? In Prospects for Democracy, hrsg. David Held, 13-52. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hix, Simon. 2011. Party politics in the European Union. In Handbook on Multi-Level Governance, hrsg. Henrik Enderlein, Sonja Wälti und Michael Zürn, 227-238. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Inglehart, Ronald F. und Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Keane, John. 2013. Democracy and Media Decadence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kelemen, R. Daniel. 2004. The Rules of Federalism. Institutions and Regulatory Politics in the EU and Beyond. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kickert, Walter. 1993. Complexity, Governance and Dynamics: Conceptual Explorations of Public Network Management. In Modern Governance, hrsg. Jan Kooiman, 191-204. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Kreppel, Amie. 2002. The European Parliament and Supranational Party System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kühnhardt, Ludger. Hrsg. 2008. Crises in European Integration. Challenges and Responses, 1945-2005. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  24. Linz, Juan J. und Alfred C. Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Majone, Giandomenico. 2009. Europe as the Would-be World Power. The EU at Fifty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Manent, Pierre. 1996. On Modern Individualism. Journal of Democracy 7 (1): 3-9.Google Scholar
  27. Merkel, Wolfgang. 2010. Are dictatorships returning? Revisiting the ‘democratic rollback’ hypothesis. Contemporary Politics 16 (1): 17-31.Google Scholar
  28. Merkel, Wolfgang 2014. Is there a crisis of democracy. Democratic Theory 1/2: 11-25.Google Scholar
  29. Morgan, Glyn. 2005. The Idea of a European Superstate. Public Justification and European Integration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Müller, Jan-Werner. 2010. The Promise of Demoi-cracy: Diversity and Domination in the European Public Order. In The Political Theory of the European Union, hrsg. Jürgen Neyer und Antje Wiener, 197-203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rokkan, Stein, Derek Urwin, Frank H. Aarebrot, Terje Sande, Pamela Malaba. 1987. Centre-Periphery Structures in Europe. New York/Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  32. Sartori, Giovanni. 1989. Video-Power. Government and Opposition 24 (1): 39-53.Google Scholar
  33. Sassen, Saskia. 2006. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Scharpf, Fritz W. 2013. Monetary Union, Fiscal Crisis and the Disabling of Democratic Accountability. In Politics in the Age of Austerity, hrsg. Armin Schäfer und Wolfgang Streeck, 108-142. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  35. Shin, Doh Chull und Jason Wells. 2005. Is Democracy the Only Game in Town? Journal of Democracy 16 (2): 88-101.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, Paul. 2008. The End of European Integration. Anti-Europeanism Examined. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. The Economist (no author). 2011. Beware the Merkozy Recipe, 10. Dezember 2011. Online unter www.economist.com/node/21541405, Zugriff am 21.06.2016.
  38. Traynor, Ian. 2013. Stop the Strasbourg shuttle. The Guardian 24. April 2013. Online unter https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/24/europa-six-ideas-save-eu, Zugriff am 20.06.2016.
  39. Tsoukalis, Loukas. 2016. In Defence of Europe. Can the European Project Be Saved? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. van Middelaar, Luuk. 2013. The Passage to Europe. How a Continent became a Union. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Zielonka, Jan. 2012. European Disintegration? Elusive Solidarity. Journal of Democracy 23 (3): 54-61.Google Scholar
  42. Zielonka, Jan. 2014. Is the EU doomed? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St Antony’s CollegeOxfordUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations