P&G Lectures PDF

Week 1 Lecture 1a: monday 2nd The basic idea of the course Three dimensions - Policy → what type of political systems are we dealing with? - Politics → how do actors decide? - Policies → what do they decide collectively Defining a state The world is organised...

Week 1 Lecture 1a: monday 2nd The basic idea of the course Three dimensions - Policy → what type of political systems are we dealing with? - Politics → how do actors decide? - Policies → what do they decide collectively Defining a state The world is organised in political communities known as “states” Core units of political organisations in the world, with a special status under International Law, and no authority above them Not fixed entities, arbitrary, not homogeneous, often contested Three defining features 1. Territory 2. People 3. sovereignty - highest power & authority, independent from other states - state has monopoly of physical force (Weber) - legal monopoly legitimate (accepted by citizens) exercised by government The state in historical context Fairly modern European creation → Treaty of Westphalia (1648) often presented as foundation of modern state bc of principle of territorial sovereignty Reinforced by processes like: mercantilism, American and French revolutions, rise of nationalism in the 19th century, capitalism, industrialisation, establishing welfare states, colonisation (diffusing European principles of statehood over the world) and decolonisation ( leading to the creation of entirely new states) Problematising the state State is a western, modern invention, and so is terminology that goes with it → sovereignty and property in int. law shaped by european interests Linklater → the modern state is a totalising project combining 5 monopolising powers 1. Right to monopolise legitimate means of violence over claimed territory 2. Exclusive right to tax within territorial jurisdiction 3. Right to demand undivided political allegiance 4. Sole authority to adjudicate disputes between citizens 5. Sole subject of rights and representation in international law Binding citizens into a “state community” changes their moral/political community and separated them from the rest of the world Comparing states Legal and political sovereignty → all states are equal under international law No equal political sovereignty (capacity to act autonomously) States have similar core functions 1. external security 2. internal security 3. well-being of citizens  but not the same capacity to act states can be compared in terms of material capabilities, but these are not determining their power one-to-one realm of the discipline of IR Comparative politics Focuses mainly on internal organisation & features of states - Political systems - Politics - Political behaviour - Policies & policymaking - Government and governance Government and governance Government → formal governing of a state by constitutionally assigned institutions Governance → refers to the idea that governing goes way beyond formal institutions and policies, but happens in much broader networks with public and private actors, at different and over different levels Internet governance → network where new ideas are created that shape our world and it’s formed by business, think tanks… Is the state in crisis? Mismatch between global organisation of economy and fragmented political organisations Argument Susan Strange → states as “hollow trees”: still standing but defective when it comes to their authority over economic and other processes on their territory There are social forces that restrict the autonomy of states to determine their own fate Lecture 1b: wednesday 4th EU multilevel governance EU observer (newspaper for EU news) What is the European Union? In search of an academic explanation - A state? → what about the state’s monopoly on use of coercion - Quasi federation? → state sovereignty is kept - International organisation? → strong supranationalism Need to understand transformation and development from an economic union of 6 into a socio-economic/political union of 27 EU as an interplay between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism - Intergovernmentalism → state remain in charge, the interests of individual states are taken into account - Supranationalism → states have delegated their power (EU commission → decides on behalf of the union, not for the countries) - Clear catalogue of which competence falls where (either in Brussels or in the MS themselves) ❖ Exclusive competences → member states have absolutely no say, have transferred all powers (common market, eurozone) ❖ Shared competences → shared but members can only act if EU doesn’t want to. (environmental policy)  ❖ coordinating/supporting competences → EU is powerless, can advice but they have no binding power (foreign policy, education) - Set of policies that impacts each EU citizen’s life on a daily basis How can we study the EU What is the EU and how did it come into being - EU integration theories ❖ Neo-functionalism 1. need of transnational interest groups to push governments to support further integration 2. integration driven by elites, the governors need to belief in the project 3. Need of supranational institutions that create policies that favour EU as a whole 4. Spillover effect → integration in one policy area will necessarily lead to integration in other policy areas ❖ Intergovernmentalism → integration only happens if states allow for, they have the power to stop it at anytime How does the European Union work - Theories of EU policies ❖ Multi-level governance → only states at supranational level picture is not complete, need to take into account much more actors ❖ Comparative politics Discussing competing ideas This leads Hix/Hoyland to test whether 4 key elements of a political system (Almond and Easton) apply to EU 1. Stable and clearly defined set of instructions for collective decision making and rules governing inter-institutional relations → absolutely present in EU 2. Citizens recognise the system’s effectiveness to realise their political desires → citizens think they are not important and that their vote will not matter, however now vote turnout growing 3. Collective decision have significant impact on distribution of economic resources + allocation of values across the system → problematic, 4. Exhibits continuous interaction, it’s a permanent feature of political life (not only one 2 hour meeting a year) If the EU is like a political system, shouldn’t it be more democratic and legitimate? - Democratic deficit linked to what we regard the union to be (Schimdt) - She argues that EU=regional state ❖ Shared sovereignty ❖ Variable boundaries ❖ Composite identity ❖ Highly compound governance ❖ Fragmented democracy Week 2 Lecture 2a: monday 9th Polity: Trias politica and forms of government UK doesn’t have a codified constitution (not every constitutional rule in one same document) Legislative power Unicameralism → denmark Bicameralism → US, NL, Spain - Two chambers have same function - Two chambers have different functions (german system, upper house represents the länden) - Additional checks and balances Executive power Head of state vs head of government - Some presidents are only ceremonials - The ones with real power are the ones that are also the head of government (Germany, US…) Role of prime minister → has much more power than other ministers but in paper it’s not like that Presidential system - President both head of state and of government, directly elected - Dualism with a parliament - President can draft legislation but then that needs to go to the parliament - Lot of power for one only person (Can choose and fire ministers…) Parliamentary system - Government represents a majority from the parliament - Government accountable to the parliament - Implies government dependent on support from the parliament → fragmented landscapes may weaken system Semi-presidential system - France - President has a lot of power but the executive power is divided between president and government, who is accountable to the parliament - President directly elected - Cohabitation (can go right if from same parties, bad if different parties) Swiss president rotates each certain time Bosnia-Herzegovina → presidency rotates between 3 major ethnic groups in the country (Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats) Judiciary power Judicial activism → judges go beyond their work and do quasi legislative work by interpreting laws too much Decide on constitutionality - Constitutional court (Germany, Spain) - Supreme court (US, India)  - Parliament (Netherlands → one of the chambers reviews the constitutionality of the projects of law approved by the other chamber) Separation of powers Democracies should be based on separation of powers to avoid absolute power - Independence and interdependence of powers - Powers are “limited and spread” - Powers keep eachother in balance How? - Independence of judiciary → courts should be neutral and have “position of ingratitude” (do not show gratitude or give favours towards those who appointed them) - Parliamentary control over government (vote of no-confidence, motion of censure, impeachment…) - President may have possibility to dissolve the parliament, use veto right (checks and balances to restrain power) Vertical organisation of authority Degree of concentration of power at central (national) level. Unitary states → central government is the only sovereign body Federal state → regional entities have guaranteed autonomy by the constitutions to have specific competences - Asymmetrical federalism in Russia → different degrees of autonomy for different subnational entities Confederal states → emphasis is on independent regional entities that delegate limited competences to central level What diverse forms of government reflect All countries have an unique configuration, both in terms of the horizontal and vertical organisation of power Which system is preferable? Depends on the historical, social and political context Representation in democracies How are citizens represented? Representative democracy or direct democracy Deliberative democracy → democracy should go hand in hand with fair and open debates, that shape preferences of citizens, weighing arguments and interests of different groups, leaving room for compromise and consensus-building - Deliberative representative democracy (deliberative + representation) Majoritarian democracy → power concentrated in hands of majority of parties and elected representatives Consensus democracy → seeks to reflect plurality of society, seeking consensus => coalitions And beyond democracy? Great variety in non democratic states → increased interest of comparative politics in different types of authoritarian regimes Very few examples of totalitarian regimes Lecture 2b: wednesday 11th The EU’s executive politics Within the European Union, mostly associated with the European Commission  - As such, the EC needs to be understood as an agent of the individual member states (the principals), to which competences have (or have not) been delegated Risks associated with agency - The agent may not be neutral (f.ex. target of lobby groups) - The agent may want to increase its influence → EC wanted its own source of founding and France retired his representative from the council (1960s) - The agent may want to increase its independence → EC incredibly autonomous actor, The principal may counter by - Careful agent selection → yet, forming the EC is a collective effort, you can only control your representative - Control → monitoring or task specification Is this delicate principal-agent relationship that has shaped the EC’s powers over the last 7 decades - 3 conferences in 9 years but since 2007 there is nothing, the EU its the most divided ever - Politics of a dual executive → executive power shared between European Commission and Member States Should the European Commission, then, be seen as any other national government? - In terms of structure? ❖ A core executive (the college of commissioners) ❖ A bureaucracy (the DGs → Directory generals, who work like ministers) ❖ A network of quasi-autonomous agencies ❖ You can understand the EC as a national government in this - In terms of administrative accountability ❖ Consists of limited parliamentary scrutiny by the EP and the national parliaments ❖ The EP cannot force an individual commissioner’s resignation ❖ The EC belongs to the most transparent EU institutions - In terms of political accountability ❖ Is the EC a legitimate political leader → The EC president should be nominated taking into account EP election results ❖ Proposed commissioners undergo EP hearing The “Buttiglione case” The “Bratusek case” ❖ The EC as a whole needs to be approved by the EP ❖ The EC as a whole may be censured by the EP The EU’s legislative politics Does the EU’s legislative branch resemble most member state’s bicameral systems? - It does so more and more, but only due to a gradual transfer of legislative competences The European Parliament: from an imponent actor to a co-legislator - Structure ❖ Political leadership → EP president and 14 vice presidents ❖ Political groups → 8 and non-inscrits (MEPs that do not belong to any of the existing groups)  ❖ Committees The Council of ministers: between unanimity and QMV - Structure ❖ The council of ministers ❖ COREPER and COPS ❖ Working groups - Decision making power ❖ Unanimity ❖ QMV (55% of MS, representing 65% of population The EU’s judicial politics The European Court of Justice (ECJ) as the EU’s engine for further integration? - Structure → 27 judges and 11 advocate generals - Powers → infringement, judicial review, preliminary ruling, competence conflict Week 3 Lecture 3a: monday 16th Introduction Much politics does not happen in parliaments or governments, but in our minds and in out interaction with fellow human beings - Durable patterns of orientations to politics and regime matter = “political culture” Can go in two directions - Bottom-up → a political culture that feeds politics & decision-making - Top-down → political culture used to build consensus over politics Political culture is not homogeneous → cleavages & polarisation Civil society What is civil society? - Space between individual citizens and government, in which citizens can organise themselves independently from the state (space of trade unions, media, NGOs, churches…) How does civil society matter to democracy? - A way to constrain the power of the state → counterweight for the state - Channels for deliberation & participation, essential to a deliberative democracy - Often seen as an important factor in a stable, qualitative democracy - Necessary, but not a sufficient condition Four dimensions determining quality of civil society (Foa & Ekiert) 1. Quality of the public sphere 2. Composition and organisation of civil society 3. Interaction with institutional actors 4. Normative direction of civil society Civil society and hegemony: Gramsci: ruling class exerts cultural “hegemony” through civil society → wide acceptance of values of ruling class throughout society (seen as “common sense”) CIvil society as a platform for opposition/control Gramsci: “war of position” (cultural predominance) instead of “war of manoeuvre” (revolution) Bobbio: political democracy vs societal democracy Societal democracy implies - Continuous control of the governing bodies by civil society - Checks and balances - Political decisions are determined by developments in civil society → qualitative democracy has a high degree of participation in a high number of areas Main obstacles for societal democracy in western countries - Oligarchies - Invisible power - Limited spaces → lack of democratic culture in many societal domains In authoritarian states  - Authoritarian states seek to make civil society part of the state’s coercive structures → structure of dissent under communism Political culture Pattern of attitudes, values and beliefs about politics Idea that one gets socialised into a political culture shared by a large part of the population A proper political culture feeds political traditions and gives backbone to political system Based on classic text by Almond & Verba → three types of political culture (participant, subject, parochial) - Almond & Verba argued that “civic culture” is most optimal for democracy → mix of activity and passivity leads to appropriate level of participation Putman → active citizens participation enhances quality of government Inglehart → distinction between materialism and post-materialism - Leads to a culture shift leading to more participation & mobilisation on the basis of awareness (cognitive mobilisation) and putting new issues on the agenda But political culture is not per se homogeneous (sub-cultures and cleavages) Moreover → participation is not even If social groups have their own particular political culture, enduring political cleavages may occur Cleavages can be religious, ethnic, linguistic, centre-periphery, urban-rural, regional… The impact they have on the political system diverges, depending on whether - Cleavages reinforce each other → leading to political fragmentation - Cleavages are cross-cutting → mitigating each other The role of media: watchdog or fourth power? Media are major agents of political socialisations Positive contribution - Give broad access to information, thus empowering citizens - Provide public forum of debate - Act as public watchdog, exposing abuses of power Concerns - May promote certain political views or interests - Have no democratic accountability The political role of mass media → main theoretical views - Pluralist model → marketplace where political views can be discussed - Dominant-ideology model → conservative force that promotes interests of elites and subverts democracy (concentration of media ownership) - Elite-values model → bias of non-representative group of editors and journalists - Market model → media reflect views of public rather than manufacture them Pressure groups Social movements refer to broader, loose networks of organisations with a broad agenda - Traditional social movements - New social movements ❖ Often linked to post-materialism and post-industrial society  Functions - Interest aggregation → collecting, selecting demands in coherent programme - Interest articulation → expressing and politicising Indirect means of pressure - Campaigning, manifestations, media attention, social media…. - Seeking to influence the public opinion - Visibility and size matter, as well as internal characteristics, organisation and leadership, receptivity of the public opinion Direct means of pressure - Lobbying lawmakers and policy makers - Usually behind the scene, regulated or not - Success depends on access points → to whom do you have access? To how many? At what level? - Pressure often most effective at stage of agenda setting and policy formulation - Multiple pressure groups but corporate power has more influence Corporatism & tri-partism Corporatism – organisation of political system on the basis of interest representation by corporate groups who jointly formulate or bargain over government policies Neo-corporatism → democratic, loose form of corporatism - Tri-partite consultations between employers, employees and government at the basis of the social model in many European countries What do pressure groups mean for democracy May reflect pluralism of society May put new issues on the agenda May contribute to deliberative democracy May have possitive effect on participatory characteristics of a solid democracy BUT - Interest representation might be uneven - May be a threat to democracy if they become too powerful Lecture 3b: wednesday 18th Can we speak of political culture at the EU level? Pattern of attitudes, values and beliefs about politics, whether they are conscious or unconscious, explicit or implicit Difficult to speak of due to heterogeneity What were some of the components of political culture? - Pride and identity, competences, citizenship, political support, trust, alienation The meaning of all of this Do citizens understand the EU? Do citizens believe their participation in politics is effective How do citizens evaluate the EU? - Cognitive → do the citizens have knowledge of the system - Effective → do you feel part of the political culture (do you feel spanish?) - Evaluative → how do you evaluate the political system? If you’re happy with the outcome it is less probable that you participate  So, can we speak of one EU political culture, with a few subcultures? Typology of EU-active interest groups The European Union’s transparency register largely overlaps with the book’s typology - Firms - Business associations → usually for a same business area - Governmental associations - Citizen groups → NGOs - Non-profit organisations - Professional associations - Research institutes - Trade unions Social movements Social movements as both national and transnational - Black monday protests → starters on Poland, protests for the right to abortion Within which political system do EU-based interest groups operate Between corporatism (giving access to privileged interests) and pluralism (all interests groups should be able to have their voice heard) EU pluralist system with certain elements of corporatism Designed pluralism → at every single state of drafting they invite interests groups to give an opinion on the drafting table - Bias because the commission gets to choose who they invite Why target EU level? Demand for access by interest groups - Growing policy impact and political europeanization - Globalisation Demand for supply by EU institutions - Need for information and expertise (epistemic communities) - Enhance influence in the policy-making process - Input and throughput legitimacy (“government with the people”) Virtually all EU institutions become the target of interest groups Who is the target more specifically European Commission - Its role in agenda-setting, policy-formulation - Legal initiative - Need for expertise → creating advisory committees (favouring Euro groups and promoting less represented social interests) Council of ministers - Not part of the EU transparency register as meetings behind close doors - The rotating council presidency being the prime target European Parliament - Becoming a more and more important lobbying target Complexity of interest group activity at EU level The EU’s institutional structure constantly evolves and provides for many access points The EU prefers a consensus-based approach to policy making Dividing lobbying attention between subnational and supranational level is costly (financially, time-wise and human capital-wise) Finding the right balance between inside and outside lobbying strategies Transparency European Parliament → was the first institution to create a voluntary register and Code of Conduct for interest groups (already in 1996) EU commission → 2011 → Joint European Transparency Register 2021 → mandatory register voted but not yet implemented Remaining challenges → revolving door principles (movement of personnel between executive, legislative, regulatory agencies and lobby groups) Week 4 Lecture 4a: monday 23th Political parties Understanding political parties - Functions: interest articulation, aggregation, representation, mobilisation - Party systems ❖ Outside democracy one-party system (China) ❖ Dominant one-party system (South-Africa → African National Congress) ❖ Two-party system (US, UK) ❖ Multi-party system - Party system determined by electoral system and other factors (historical factors, cleavages, race…) - Two party system pushes parties to “hold the middle ground”? - Iron law of oligarchy → all large-scale organisations end up being controlled by a small group of leaders Situating political parties - Left-right spectrum ❖ Greens – socialists – christian democrats – liberal – conservatives ❖ How about nationalists, regionals. Agrarians. Communists, populists… - Alternative left-right spectrum: GAL–TAN ❖ Green, alternative, liberal – traditional authoritarian, nationalists - Party landscape may reflect cleavages, but parties may also be broad and transcend social strata - New issue parties → parties may be established as one-issue parties (see anti-migration parties, parties for animal rights…) Problematising left and right - Origin → french revolution (supporters of revolution to the left, supporters of ancien régime to the right) - Left-right may refer to different dimensions ❖ Degree of economic liberalism → from state intervention/ welfare state (left) to free market and deregulation (right) ❖ Degree of political liberalism → from strong emphasis on equal rights and liberties (left) to illiberalism (right) ❖ Attitude to change → from progressive (left) to conservative (right) ❖ Identity orientation → from equal rights for smaller communities (left) to emphasis on traditional identity: nation, family, religion (right) ❖ Issue orientation - Confusing terminology ❖ US → liberal refers to political liberalism (more to the left) ❖ Europe → liberal refers to economic liberalism (more to the right) ❖ “New right” → marrying traditions of neoconservatism and neoliberalism: Thatcherism and Reaganism ❖ “Third way” social democracy → accepting market and elements of neoliberalism  - Parties may combine different left and right features - Parties often situate differently along the dimensions - A changing party landscape with few anchor points Trends and challenges in Europe - Decline of traditional parties (partisan dealignment, decline of party membership, volatile voting behaviour) Electoral systems Choice of electoral system based on combination of different principles: representativeness, effectiveness/stability, legitimacy Many electoral laws represent compromises between these principles, but also reflect traditions, national unique features Majorities in parliament often do not represent majority of votes The bigger picture Who votes? Universal suffrage? How many votes? Tax suffrage and multiple votes How is voting organised? Turnout → weak legitimacy in case of low turnout Ban on coalitions to make the opposition to you weaker not letting the rivals join strength Plurality-majority system First past the post/single member districts (UK, Canada, India) → one seat per constituency, the party with the highest number of votes gets the seat (no need for absolute majority) Problem of disproportional representation Sometimes with requirement of absolute majority in 1st round, and possible 2nd round (France) → you need an absolute majority to get the seats Proportional representation Party list system (open or close)/ multi-member district → the percentage of votes determines the seats that you’ll have Problem of possible fragmentation of political landscape Single-transferable vote → candidates ranked in order of preference Lecture 4b: wednesday 25th The EU democratic deficit discussion The EU mainstream democratic deficit discussion centres around the following arguments - Eu decisions are taken by the national executive without national parliamentary scrutiny → still the case after Lisbon treaty? - The European Parliament is too weak - There are no proper “European elections” - The EU is too distant - Policy drift Yet, there are also alternative views regarding the EU’s democratic deficit - An EU democratic deficit should not be out concern as it only is the result of the nation state’s failure Politics within the EU institutions  European Commission - Partisan politics? ❖ Reflecting the electoral mood, the EC may be predominantly centre-right or centre-left ❖ Commissioners are to pursue EU wide interest, through this is tainted through their partisan affiliation at home (EU should be neutral) Council of ministers - Ministers come with their beliefs from their national political parties - Overall, very limited politics within these institutions as we do not see party competition for dominance within these. EP - By far most representative and democratic institution - 8 political groups indirectly appeal to voters in regular elections - The political groups are characterised by ❖ Highly sophisticated administration ❖ Large degree of internal heterogeneity ❖ Surprisingly high voting cohesion → only so can they have a say in the legislative process Except key issues where they can do national parties vote or personal vote (euthanasia, same sex marriage) ❖ Increasing competition between groups → coalitions between political groups EP elections - Often described as second-order national contests ❖ Lower voter turnout compared to national ❖ People vote differently in EP election than they would in a national ones ❖ Votes to evaluate the national government performance Week 5 Lecture 5a: monday 30th Policy types Regulatory policies → setting rules and standards to regulate or modify behaviour - positive → say what is legal - negative → say what is prohibited Distributive policies → providing goods and services to the population Redistributive policies → redistributing resources/wealth over groups The policy cycle 1. Agenda setting - Official and not official actors - Driven by events → reactive politics (COVID) - Non-decision → the exclusion of issues or alternatives from the agenda (equally important to consider what does not make it to the agenda) - Certain issues are systematically kept of the agenda ❖ There is a small elite that wants that issue of the agenda → mobilisation of bias (Bachrach and Baratz) ❖ Unconsciously → incompetence or not considered importance - Political opportunities → combination of circumstances is exactly right (multiple streams framework) ❖ Problem stream → something gets defined as a public problem ❖ Policy stream → solution to the problem becomes available  ❖ Politics stream → political actors are favourable to the policy change 2. Policy formulation & adoption - Formulation ❖ Policy ideas ❖ Involving some times a process of consultation - Adoption ❖ Formal rules and measures adopted ❖ Done by publicly accountable bodies, having formal roles and competences ❖ Legislative power → making laws = primary legislation ❖ Executive power Delegated legislation → setting rules in accordance with powers granted by legislative power = secondary legislation Implementing acts → taking decisions to execute the law = executive orders (specific details, procedures for implementation) - Policy instruments ❖ Regulating ❖ Financial (taxation, subsidies ❖ Advocacy (inform, persuade, encourage) ❖ Offering services - 3. Policy implementation - Applying policies on the ground - By executive and administration/state bureaucracy ❖ How to control bureaucracy? Transparency rules, ombuds, audits… ❖ Possible tensions between politicians and bureaucracy - There may also be a role for private actors - Implementation might be good or weak ❖ Opposition through the backdoor → the oppositors get to twist the policy from the original decision 4. Evaluation - Evaluation of output and outcome - Types of evaluation → judicial, political, administrative - Effective (or not) → short vs long term - Efficient - Unintended consequences - Lead to policy adaptation or new policies to manage unintended consequences or improve policies → feedback loop How are decisions taken? Theories Rational decision making: cost-benefit calculation - Rationality always bounded by uncertainty, absence of full info, lack of resources, lack of knowledge… - Path dependency → tendency to follow routines and find solutions according to well known models - Tendency to satisfice - Incremental model → small, incremental changes rather than comprehensive approach  Non rational models - We are lead by our subjective representations, identities, beliefs, values - Cognitive dissonance → reality doesn’t match our belief system Lecture 5b: wednesday 2nd Principles for policy-making The principle of conferral - The union has only the competences conferred upon it by the treaties - Plus indirectly conferred powers → the Eu interprets the power that it has been conferred quite broadly The principle of proportionality - The exercise of the EU competences might not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaties The principle of subsidiarity - For shared competences, the EU may intervene only if it is capable of acting more effectively than the MS How can we understand EU policy making There are three types of decisions 1. History making → policies that determine the future of the EU (ideas, not concrete policies) 2. Policy setting → picking one option among others 3. Policy shaping → choices between policy instruments The cycle zoomed-in 1. Agenda setting → why do we talk about certain issues 2. Decision making → deciding about those issues 3. Policy implementation → who implements the decision 4. Evaluation and feedback → outcome and next steps Agenda setting in the EU Three agendas → public, media, political Peculiarities - Supranational venues → agenda set by european commission - Cross-border activities - Politicisation of the EU Multiannual action plans → in accordance with the budget plans Annual working programme Expert group Green papers White papers Proposals States can influence the discussion in the european council Citizens can use the europeans citizens initiative, vote or participate in interest groups Decision making Eu instruments - Directives → binding, objectives but not means to achieve them - Regulations → binding, objectives and means  - Decisions → binding, case specific - Recommendations and opinions → non-binding, suggestions Policy types - Distributive - Regulatory → negative and positive integration - Redistributive Policy implementation Implementation at MS level - Formal implementation → need to transpose directives - Practical implementation → setting up agencies, monitoring, compliance… Implementation at the EU level - Direct responsibility → competition policy - Comitology → formation of a committee to oversee the if the commission is not overstepping their boundaries - Monitoring member states Evaluation Assessing outcome - Direct, indirect, unintended… - Term, costs… Assessing process - Legal, open, inclusive, efficient… Feedback - Proposing changes or policy termination Theories of decision-making applied to the EU Rational models - Rational actor → the actions of the EU are the product of a perfect cost-benefit calculation - Incremental model → the actions of the EU are the best possible decisions given constrains and lack of info and resources “Non rational” models - Organisation model → actions product of how the EU is set up - Bureaucratic model → actions product of the negotiations and the different interests bureaucracies hold - Belief system model → actions product of how actors are perceived and concepts understood Week 6 Lecture 6a: monday 7th The state of democracy: democratic backsliding and autocratisation From three waves of democratisation to the wave of autocratisation (from 2006) - Electoral authoritarianism → still hold elections but cannot be considered democracies because the do not respect some of the basic rights How do democracies decline (and possibly die) Military coup Invasion Democratic erosion Autogolpe → legitimately elected leader transform the democracy in an autocracy (Tunisian president) Most democracies die because of internal subversion of democratic institutions by elected leaders Four key indicators of authoritarian behaviour 1. Rejection or weak commitment to democratic rule of the game 2. Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents 3. Toleration or encouragement of violence 4. Readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, incl. Media Populism Populism is a thin ideology combining two ideas - Society is separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps, the pure people vs. the corrupt elite - Politics should be an expression of the volonté générale, or will of the people - Populism is an add-on, that requires a host ideology Populism is a particular conception of democracy at odds with deliberative representative democracy combining three elements - Anti-pluralism - Majoritarianism - Demand for direct responsiveness and unmeditated politics (without checks and balances that can obstruct the expression of the general will) - Populism is thus about a perceived representation gpa and the rejection of the procedures of representative democracy in favour of direct representation between the people and the leader Populism and illiberalism - Rejection of “liberal” aspect of liberal democracy, which regards rights and freedoms, rule of law and separation of powers as essential conditions for democracy - Rejection of liberalism as ideology → attacking its individualism and universalism, instead promoting identity of group/nation - Questioning the “rights of others” (of minorities), which are seen to limit the “rights of the majority” Populism and authoritarianism - Authoritarian populism  ❖ Delegating power to a leader of the populist party, who incarnates the will of the majority Explanations for rise of populism Economic - Result of new cleavage created by globalisation - What does research say? ❖ Macro-level → inequality has increased, but success of populism is not significantly different between countries with different degrees of inequality ❖ Micro-level → individual socio-economic situation bad predictor of individual voting for right-wing populist parties Cultural - Reaction against value changes → feeling of cultural self-marginalisation & defending traditional values - Research ❖ Macro-level → no clear correlation at country level ❖ Micro-level —> anti-immigration attitudes good indicator of populist voting Political - Political institutions are out of reach of population, non-responsive to their demands, out of reach of the silent majority - Ontological security → people want to know who they are, that they have an identity that is not going to change tomorrow What do the parties offer? - Mobilisation by populist parties - Amplification of grievances - Securitisation → turning things into a security issue - The psychology of group-based identity threats Post-truth politics, fake news and confusion Lies undermine trust in politics and democracy & destabilise institutions Truth and politics (Hannah Arendt) - Truth and politics have never been good bed fellows - There is not the truth but there is truth in reference to something in particular → factual truth - If people cannot rely on an idea of common facts, they are forced to leave the judgement of others - This factual truth is threatened today on a major scale - Danger lies not in occasional political lies, but in political propaganda that seeks to systematically erode reality Technology has changed Digital propaganda undermines the sense of normality and seeks to destroy the very idea of objective reality - From an ideology of information scarcity to one of information abundance - Idf no fact is certain and no one’s opinion to be trusted, people may choose a strong hand to guide them Lecture 6b: wednesday 9th The EU and history 1950s and 1960s - The EU as an economic entity - Balance between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism (with states on the winning side 1970s and 1980s - EU institutions gain prominence → CJEU, EU parliament, Commission - Permissive consensus 1990s - EU as also a political entity ❖ Lack of involvement of EU citizens? ❖ The end of permissive consensus? ❖ The emergence of constraining dissensus? ❖ Democratic deficit? The EU democratic deficit discussion revisited 1. Executive not accountable - Yes but there might be a deficit ❖ Appointments are done nationally ❖ Decisions are sometimes behind closed doors (comitology) - But ❖ Commission voted by parliament ❖ Parliament hearings → commission rejected ❖ Withdrawal of confidence → commission resigned 2. Weak parliament - Fewer competences, central role for member states in comitology and council and lack of EU politics - Co-decision for most of the areas, budget approval 3. Lack of EU elections - Limited European debate, low turnout, lack of EU demography (is there a EU population?) - Elections to EU parliament and national governments, several national referenda 4. Citizens too distant - Citizens do not feel close to the EU, low trust, bad image and little satisfaction - European Citizens Initiative, indirect control, new QMV 5. Policy drift - The EU decides on “autopilot mode”, commission interprets its powers widely - Treaties have changed, integration is moving forward, national referenda on EU matters are being launched So what? If democracy is not the issue…then what fuels the ever-increasing Eurosceptisicm Deficit of legitimacy? - Rightfulness of a regime or system to rule How do we know when the system is legitimate? - Input → politics (government by the people) - Output → policies (government for the people) - Throughput → processes (government with the people)