Tobias Auberger and Tanja Hitzel-Cassagnes - Mzes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12 At that point, however, we can argue for an alternative view, i.e., against the notion of democracy necessarily and exclusively being based on strong identities. Contrary to this perspectives we can trust in the institutional engineering capacity of “democratic institutions” insofar as political institutions and esp. inclusive and participatory procedures and processes can foster identity building 5 . The establishment of political institutions and their democratic domestication may in general very well be accompanied by emerging civic identities, in particular if they are backed by positive participatory rights. The European process of constitutionalisation should – insofar as it successfully establishes a thick net of constitutional law guaranteeing political and civil rights to its citizens at the European level, e.g. by enriching the notion of “European citizenship” with enforceable positive individual rights –be considered to be able to counter or to “neutralise” (Priban 2005) the set of primordial identities in the shape of strong ethnical, cultural and national identities. Although European identity cannot be expected to simply substitute the national ones due to its multilayered constitutional structure, multidimensional identities and solidarities may be developed. Nevertheless, the prospect of fostering a political or civic sense of identity within the framework of an open-ended project of Europeanisation will certainly rely on the legitimacy of the participatory processes. Only if these processes are rendered inclusive and transparent, open to reciprocal understanding and mutual acceptance, European citizens can be expected to accept the European Union as legitimate, and not to be alienated from the polity as such. Only under these conditions one can hope that the emergence of a new civic European identity is – in Priban's (2005: 251) words – indeed able to marginalise ethnos as a foundational principle. 3.3. Equality or Asymmetry? Reforms of the founding treaties as well as the drafting of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the work of the Convention were highly intertwined with the pre-accession processes and the enlargement-debates in general. Neither having been represented in all institutional contexts preparing and negotiating constitutional reforms nor having been endowed with equal voting-power, the (at the time) candidates of enlargement were highly involved in these debates. They took part, for instance, in the preparation and discussion of the Draft Constitution where they were granted hearing-rights (see Anderson 2005, Walker 2003, 5 Habermas (XX), Michelman (XX), Gerstenberg (XX), for instance, argue in this direction.
13 Weiss 2005, Dangerfield 2006, Barani 2006). On the other side, in anticipating the joining of the European Union the candidate countries started to reform their legal systems and made first efforts to “Europeanise” their legal codes in order to prepare enlargement – esp. after they became obliged to “gradually” harmonise their national legal systems (see Kühn 2005). On the one hand, this process led to various negotiations about specific transitional measures and, on the other hand, it influenced the efforts of constitutional and institutional reforms insofar as the inclusion of the candidate countries was ameliorated and their concerns were taken more seriously into consideration. However, it might be – inspired by an ex-post-facto evaluation of this situation – exactly this experience of just being allowed to articulate one’s own stance without being systematically and formally empowered to participate, that nurtured anxieties about a potential asymmetric functioning of the European Union with regard to the new Member States after enlargement. If we have a look at these concerns, different levels of political and legal integration have to be regarded, in the first place distinctively the formal and the informal level of the European Union’s functioning. Regarding the formal level of changing the institutional composition and the decision-making and voting rules in the treaties the readings are rather optimistic insofar as the formal adjustments are appraised to enable an equal participation and cooperation between old and new member states (see Bertea 2005, Dangerfield 2006, Ellison 2005, Osajda 2006). However, this is only one side of the medal – especially acknowledging the Unions rather informal and sub-institutional mode of functioning in policy-formation and law-making – the informal level is quite crucial in twofold distinct areas. Firstly, considering the inter- and intra-institutional will-formation, far more than procedural cornerstone-rules matter; decisive in this respect are the informal techniques and practices of cooperation, deliberation and bargaining, so that decision-making processes are highly a result of a complex web of negotiating games between institutional (and non-institutional) actors, also relying on settled forms of coalition- and block-building. Apart from worries about the decision-making efficiency in general (esp. in the Council and the Commission) worries about the cooperative scheme and the equal footing of the new actors within these games were articulated. Now again, this situation might be interpreted as of just being a question of (elite) socialisation in order to adapt the traditional “rules of the game” and fit in smoothly. Yet, it might also be a starting point to sensitise for potential
Page 1 and 2: Tobias Auberger and Tanja Hitzel-Ca
Page 3 and 4: 3 common feature: They conceive the
Page 5 and 6: 5 Even in reality, as certain studi
Page 7 and 8: 7 openness and reversibility. Thus,
Page 9 and 10: 9 portant role in the European fore
Page 11: 11 Apart from the fact that these c
Page 15 and 16: 15 hierarchies and asymmetries are
Page 17 and 18: 17 2. By requiring national courts,
Page 19 and 20: 19 tional role and function but als
Page 21 and 22: 21 Biography (incomplete) Albi, Ann
Page 23 and 24: Kühn, Zdenek (2005) The Applicatio

Tobias Auberger and Tanja Hitzel-Cassagnes - Mzes

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?