Advertisement

The crisis of modern democracy

  • Jan Zielonka
Chapter
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series

Abstract

The assumption that Euro-paralysis in the foreign and security field stems solely from international developments may well be wrong.1 In fact, this chapter will try to show that the roots of the problem may also be found in domestic developments. The argument is not merely about the obvious linkage between domestic and international issues.2 It is also about judgment criteria and some essential cause-effect equations. If politicians ignore solidarity calls within their own domestic borders, can one expect them to act less selfishly across these borders? If people do not trust their own national governments, why should they endorse a European government with its still-nascent forms of representation? If European nation states fail to pass the efficiency test can the Union, composed of 15 such inefficient states, do any better?3 Common policies within the Union are not made in a social, political, and cultural vacuum. Those policies are part of a complex democratic process sweeping across the entire continent. If Europe’s democracy is in trouble, then diplomatic, military, and any other policies within the Union can hardly work. In short, democratic paralysis implies paralysis in the foreign and security field. This chapter will try to assess the credibility of this claim.

Keywords

Foreign Policy Security Policy Foreign Affair National Parliament European Citizen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See David Singer, “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations”, in The International System: Theoretical Essays, Klaus Knorr and Sidney Verba, eds. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp. 77–92.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Jack Hayward, “Governing the New Europe”, in Governing the New Europe, Jack Hayward and Edward C. Page, eds. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), p. 405.Google Scholar
  3. See also Wolfram F. Hanriender, “Dissolving International Politics: Reflections on the Nation state”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 72, No. 4 (December 1978), pp. 1276–87.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    See, e.g., Andrea di Robilant, “Italy Takes It On the Chin for Poor Presidential Leadership: Europe’s Stability May Be a Spur for Much-Needed Constitutional Reform at Home”, The European, February 22–28, 1996, p. 8.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper, 1947), second edition, p. 269.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe (London: Macmillan 1994), p. 37,Google Scholar
  7. also Jean-Marie Guéhenno, La fin de la démocratic (Flammarion: Paris, 1993),Google Scholar
  8. as well as Herman van Gunsteren and Rudy Andeweg, Het Grote Ongenoegen: Over de Kloof Tussen Burgers en politiek (Haarlem: Aramith Uitgevers, 1994).Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    The sources are Hans-Joachim Veen, Norbert Lepszy and Peter Mnich, The Republikaner Party in Germany: Right-Wing Menance or Protest Catchall? (Westport: Praeger, 1993), p. 45 (Washington Papers No. 162), and the Guardian, September 20, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. See Flora Lewis, “Politics, Like It or Not, Requires Human Involvement”, International Herald Tribune, November 5–6, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    For a comprehensive analysis of the problem see Yves Mény, La Corruption de la République (Paris: Fayard, 1992).Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    See Galen A. Irwin, “The Dutch Parliamentary Election of 1994”, Electoral Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (March 1995), pp. 72–6.Google Scholar
  13. For a detailed analysis of electoral change see Mark N. Franklin, Thomas T. Mackie, Henry Valen et al., eds, Electoral Change. Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), especially pp. 406–27.Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    Peter Mair, Party Democracies and Their Difficulties (Leiden: University of Leiden, 1994), p. 10.Google Scholar
  15. Also see Peter Mair, “Myths of Electoral Change and the Survival of Traditional Parties: the 1992 Stein Rokkan Lecture”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1993), pp. 121–33.Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    See Dieter Fuchs and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, “Citizens and the State: A Relationship Transformed”, in Citizens and the State, Dieter Fuchs and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 427.Google Scholar
  17. 13.
    See also Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair, “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party”, Party Politics, No. 1 (1995), pp. 5–28.Google Scholar
  18. 14.
    Full details of party finances and membership in twelve countries are reported in Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair, eds. Party Organizations: A Data Handbook on Party Organizations in Western Democracies, 1960–90 (London: Sage, 1992).Google Scholar
  19. 15.
    See Alan Ware, “The Party Systems of the Established Liberal Democracies in the 1990s: Is This a Decade of Transformation?”, Government and Opposition, Vol. 30, No. 3 (1995), p. 323.Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    See Jack Hayward, “Organized Interests and Public Policies”, in Governing the New Europe, Jack Hayward and Edward C. Page, eds. (Oxford: Oxford Polity Press, 1995), p. 247.Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    See also Ignacio Ramonet, “Médias en danger”, Le Monde Diplomatique, February 1996, p. 1.Google Scholar
  22. 19.
    For a comprehensive analysis of this problem see Michael J. O’Neill, The Roar of the Crowd: How Television and People Power Are Changing the World (New York: Times Books, 1992).Google Scholar
  23. 20.
    David Webster, “New Communications Technology and the International Political Process”, in The Media and Foreign Policy, Simon Serfaty, ed. (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1991), p. 223.Google Scholar
  24. 21.
    See Richard Cohen, “Waiting for New Meaning in a Post-Cold War World”, International Herald Tribune, October 27, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 22.
    Giovanni Sartori, Comparative Constitutional Engineering (London: Macmillan, 1994), pp. 149–50.Google Scholar
  26. 23.
    See Alain Minc, L’ivresse démocratique (Paris: Gallimard, 1995), p. 97.Google Scholar
  27. 24.
    Here I draw heavily on Giovanni Sartori’s, “Video-power”, Government and Opposition, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1989), pp. 48–9.Google Scholar
  28. 25.
    See Tony Benn, “Shallow Media Coverage of Politics”, The Times, May 14, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. 26.
    See David R. Gergen, “Diplomacy in a Television Age: The Dangers of Teledemocracy”, in The Media and Foreign Policy, Simon Serfaty, ed. (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1991), pp. 48–9.Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    See Bob Franklin, “Televising the British House of Commons: Issues and Developments”, in Televising Democracies Bob Franklin, ed. (London: Routledge, 1992), p. 7.Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    See Ralf Dahrendorf, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (London: Chatto & Windus, 1990), p. 10.Google Scholar
  32. See Francis Fukuyama, “The Primacy of Culture”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 1995), pp. 7–14.Google Scholar
  33. See also Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 59 (February 1994), pp. 3–5.Google Scholar
  34. 29.
    See Geoff Mulgan, “Party-Free Politics”, New Statesman and Society, April 15, 1994, p. 16.Google Scholar
  35. 30.
    Max Kaase and Kenneth Newton, “Theories of Crisis and Catastrophe, Change and Transformation,” in Beliefs in Government, Max Kaase and Kenneth Newton, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 29.Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    See also Robert D. Putnam, Robert Leonardi and Raffaella Y. Nanetti, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 88.Google Scholar
  37. 32.
    This was well argued in Arend Lijphard, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), especially p. 229.Google Scholar
  38. 33.
    See especially Ronald Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 484.Google Scholar
  39. 34.
    See especially Jan W. Van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough, “Introduction: The Impact of Values”, in The Impact of Values, Jan W. Van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  40. 36.
    Mattei Dogan, “Comparing the Decline of Nationalisms in Western Europe: the Generation Dynamic”, International Social Science Journal, No. 136 (May 1993), p. 189.Google Scholar
  41. 38.
    See Wolfgang Streeck, “Vielfalt und Interdependenz: Überle-gungen zur Rolle von intermediaren Organisationen in sich ändernden Umwelten”, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. 39 (1987), pp. 471–95,Google Scholar
  42. U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage, 1992),Google Scholar
  43. S. Crook, J. Pakulski and M. Waters, Postmodernisation: Change in Advanced Society (London: Sage, 1992).Google Scholar
  44. 39.
    See Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control. Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century, (New York: Robert Steward, 1993), p. 65.Google Scholar
  45. 40.
    Ignacio Ramonet, “Agonie de la morale”, Le Monde Diplomatique, Vol. 41, No. 487 (October 1994), p. 1.Google Scholar
  46. See Charles S. Maier, “Democracy and Its Discontents”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 4 (July/August 1994), pp. 48ff.Google Scholar
  47. 41.
    See especially Loek Halman, “Is There a Moral Decline? A Cross-National Inquiry into Morality in Contemporary Society”, International Social Science Journal, No. 145 (September 1995), pp. 419–39.Google Scholar
  48. 42.
    See Ronald Inglehart, “Changing Values, Economic Development and Political Change”, International Social Science Journal, No. 145 (September 1995), pp. 394–5.Google Scholar
  49. 43.
    Guido Lenzi, “Reforming the International System: Between Leadership and Power-Sharing”, Internationale Spectator, Vol. 30, No. 2 (April–June 1995), pp. 49–69.Google Scholar
  50. 44.
    by David Held in “Democracy: From City-States to a Cosmopolitan Order?”, in Prospects for Democracy, David Held, ed. (Oxford: Polity Press, 1993), pp. 13–52.Google Scholar
  51. 45.
    See Ian Davidson, “Rethink in the West”, Financial Times, April 13, 1994.Google Scholar
  52. 46.
    See Robert B. Reich, The Work of Nations (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), p. 304.Google Scholar
  53. See also Geraint Parry, ed., Politics in an Interdependent World: Essays Presented to Ghit a Ionescu (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1994), p. 208.Google Scholar
  54. 47.
    William Brock quoted in CSIS News, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring 1994), p. 8.Google Scholar
  55. 49.
    See Ronnie D. Lipschutz, “Reconstructing World Politics: The Emergence of Global Civil Society”, Millennium, Vol. 21, No. 3 (1992), pp. 389–420,Google Scholar
  56. or Peter J. Spiro, “New Global Communities: Nongovernmental Organizations in International Decision-Making Institutions”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter 1995), pp. 45–55.Google Scholar
  57. See also a classical study by Samuel P. Huntington, “Transnational Organizations in World Politics”, World Politics, Vol. 25, No. 3 (April 1973), pp. 333–68.Google Scholar
  58. 50.
    Susan Strange, “The Limits of Politics”, Government and Opposition, Vol. 30, No. 3 (1995), p. 298.Google Scholar
  59. Non-governmental pressures on the functioning of the European Union are analyzed by, e.g., Justin Greenwood and Karsten Ronit, “Interest Groups in the European Community: Newly Emerging Dynamics and Forms”, West European Politics, Vol. 17, No. 1 (January 1994), pp. 31–52,Google Scholar
  60. or Andrew M. McLaughlin and Justin Greenwood, “The Management of Interest Representation in the European Union”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1 (March 1995), pp. 143–56.Google Scholar
  61. 51.
    See R.A.W. Rhodes, “The Hollowing Out of the State”, Political Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 2 (1994), pp. 138–9.Google Scholar
  62. See also Patrick Dunleavy, “The Globalization of Public Services Production: Can Government be ‘Best in the World’?”, Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer 1994), pp. 36–64.Google Scholar
  63. 52.
    Wolfgang C. Müller and Vincent Wright, “Reshaping the State in Western Europe: the Limits to Retreat”, West European Politics, special issue on “The State in Western Europe: Retreat or Redefinition”, Vol. 17, No. 3 (July 1994), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  64. 54.
    A powerful historical argument for the latter hypothesis is provided by Alan Milward, The European Rescue of the Nation State (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 18ff.Google Scholar
  65. 55.
    See Ernst B. Haas, “Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration”, International Organization, Vol. 30, No. 2 (1976), pp. 173–212.Google Scholar
  66. 56.
    See J.H.H. Weiler with Ulrich R. Haltern and Franz C. Mayer, “European Democracy and Its Critique”, West European Politics, special issue on “The Crisis of Representation in Europe”, Vol. 18, No. 3 (July 1995), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
  67. 57.
    Giovanni Sartori, “Video-Power,” Government and Opposition, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1989), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
  68. See also Benjamin Barber, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  69. See Max Gallo, “Oublier les nations, un mirage dangereux,” Le Monde Diplomatique, No. 22, May 1994.Google Scholar
  70. 58.
    See Trevor Smith, “Post-Modern Politics and the Case for Constitutional Renewal”, Political Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 2 (1994), p. 128.Google Scholar
  71. See Dominique Wolton, La dernière utopie: naissance de l’Europe démocratique (Paris: Flammarion, 1993), pp. 76–7.Google Scholar
  72. 59.
    This dilemma is brilliantly analyzed in Robert A. Dahl, “A Democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness versus Citizen Participation”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 109, No. 1 (1994), pp. 23–34.Google Scholar
  73. 60.
    See Robert A. Dahl, “Democracy and the Chinese Boxes”, in Frontiers of Democratic Theory H.S. Kariel, ed, (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 372–3.Google Scholar
  74. 61.
    See John Hoffman, Beyond the State (Oxford: Oxford Polity Press, 1995), p. 213.Google Scholar
  75. 62.
    See, e.g., Elizabeth Meehan, Citizenship and the European Community (London: Sage, 1993).Google Scholar
  76. 63.
    See Rudy Andeweg, “The Reshaping of National Party Systems”, West European Politics, special issue on the Crisis of Representation in Europe, Vol. 18, No. 3 (July 1995), p. 58.Google Scholar
  77. 64.
    See, e.g., M. Westlake, “The European Parliament, the National Parliaments and the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference”, Political Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1 (1994), p. 7.Google Scholar
  78. Also Jean-Claude Piris, “After Maastricht, Are the Community Institutions More Efficacious, More Democratic and More Transparent”, European Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 5 (October 1994), pp. 449–87.Google Scholar
  79. 65.
    See David Held, “Democracy: From City-States to a Cosmopolitan Order?”, in Prospects for Democracy, David Held, ed. (Oxford: Oxford Polity Press, 1993) pp. 37–44.Google Scholar
  80. 66.
    See Jason Alexander, “Power Politics”, The Economist, A Survey of the World Economy, 7 October 1995, p. 44.Google Scholar
  81. 67.
    This is well argued in Robert B. Reich, The Work of Nations (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), pp. 305–7.Google Scholar
  82. 68.
    This is well argued in Michael Walzer, “The Concept of Civil Society” (or the introduction) in Toward a Global Civil Society, Michael Walzer, ed, (Providence and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1995), pp. 1–4 and 7–28.Google Scholar
  83. 69.
    See Wolfram F. Hanrieder, “Dissolving International Politics”, in Perspectives on World Politics, Michael Smith, Richard Little and Michael Shackleton, eds. (London: Croom Helm, 1981), pp. 137–8.Google Scholar
  84. 70.
    Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword. The Democratic Governance of National Security (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 1.Google Scholar
  85. 71.
    See, e.g., T. Clifton Morgan and Sally Howard Campbell, “Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: So Why Can’t Democracies Fight?”, in Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 35, No. 2 (1991), special issue — Democracy and Foreign Policy: Community and Constraint, Bruce J. Bueno de Mesquita, Robert W. Jackman and Randolph M. Siverson, eds., pp. 187–212,Google Scholar
  86. or Antonio Cassese, ed., Parliamentary Control Over Foreign Policy: Legal Essays (Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1980).Google Scholar
  87. 72.
    Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1955), p. 20.Google Scholar
  88. 73.
    For a historical overview of the problem see Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam (Glasgow: Abacus, 1985).Google Scholar
  89. Modern cases are discussed, e.g., in David P. Forsythe, “Democracy, War and Covert Action”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 29, No. 4 (1992), pp. 385–95.Google Scholar
  90. 74.
    See Ole Holsti, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann Consensus”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4 (1992), pp. 439–66.Google Scholar
  91. As far as specific European case studies are concerned see, e.g., Philip P. Everts, ed., Controversies at Home. Domestic Factors in the Foreign Policy of The Netherlands (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985), p. 363,Google Scholar
  92. or Kjell Goldman, Sten Berglund and Gunnar Sjöstedt, eds., Democracy and Foreign Policy: The Case of Sweden (Aldershot: Gower, 1986), p. 206.Google Scholar
  93. 75.
    See Robert C. Johansen, “Military Policies and the State System as Impediments to Democracy”, in Prospects for Democracy, David Held, ed. (Oxford: Oxford Polity Press, 1993), p. 218.Google Scholar
  94. 76.
    Robert A. Dahl, Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy versus Guardianship (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1985), p. 51.Google Scholar
  95. 77.
    Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited, Part One: The Contemporary Debate (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 1987), p. 115.Google Scholar
  96. 78.
    Valentine Herman, Parliaments of the World: A Reference Compendium (London: Macmillan, 1976), p. 879.Google Scholar
  97. For a more recent illustration of this argument see Stelios Stavridis, “The “Second” Democratic Deficit in the EC: The Process of European Political Cooperation,” in International Relations and Pan-Europe, Frank R. Pfetsch, ed. (Muster and Hamburg: Lit Verlag, 1993), p. 174.Google Scholar
  98. 81.
    See Michael Gallagher, “Electoral Systems and Voting Behaviour,” in Developments in West European Politics, Martin Rhodes, Paul Heywood and Vincent Wright, eds. (London: Macmillan, 1997), p. 128.Google Scholar
  99. 82.
    The point is well argued in Stelios Stavridis, “The Democratic Control of the CFSP,” in Common Foreign and Security Policy. The Record and Reforms, Martin Holland, ed., (London and Washington: Pinter, 1997), pp. 137–40.Google Scholar
  100. See also Joseph H.H. Weiler, The European Parliament and Its Foreign Affairs Committees (New York: Oceana Publ, 1982), p. 58.Google Scholar
  101. 85.
    See Christopher Hill, “European Foreign Policy: Power Bloc, Civilian Model or Flop?” in The Evolution of an International Actor: Western Europe’s New Assertiveness, Reinhardt Rummel, ed. (Boulder: Westview, 1990), pp. 46–7.Google Scholar
  102. 86.
    See Philip Everts, Laat dat maar aan ons over. Democratie, buitenlands beleid en vrede (Leiden: DSWO Press 1996), pp. 111–27.Google Scholar
  103. 88.
    See Philippe C. Schmitter, “An Alternative Strategy for the Future of European Integration: Democratization,” Paper presented at an EUI Robert Schuman Centre seminar in Florence, February 25, 1997, p. 12.Google Scholar
  104. 89.
    See Commission of the European Communities, Increased Transparency in the Work of the Commission, SEC(92) 2274, Brussels, 1992,Google Scholar
  105. or Commission of the European Communities, Openness in the Community, COM (93) 258, Brussels, 1993.Google Scholar
  106. 90.
    Juliet Lodge, “Transparency and Democratic Legitimacy”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 32, No. 3 (September 1994), p. 355.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jan Zielonka 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Zielonka
    • 1
  1. 1.European University InstituteFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations