The eu’s Legitimacy in the Eye of the Beholders

Chapter 6 – The Dutch Discourse

After several theoretical chapters we arrive at the first empirical chapter. In this chapter, the findings of the Dutch discourse⁸⁰ are presented. We start by looking at the general search results. The next section investigates the relationship between the facets of legitimacy and the evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy. The third part of the chapter assesses whether multi-level governance is taken into account both on the level of articles and observations. Finally, an overview is presented of the entire discourse in which the perceptions of the EU’s legitimacy are analysed.

6.1 – General Findings

We start with the keyword search results. In Het NRC Handelsblad (NRC), the search resulted in a total of 49 articles. The articles were distributed equally among the periods: 24 in period one and 25 in period two. The close-reading analysis resulted in 301 observations, of which 144 were found in period one and 157 in period two.⁸¹

The search for articles in De Volkskrant resulted in 39 articles. There were 18 hits in period one. The same keywords in period two resulted in 21 articles. The close-reading analysis of De Volkskrant articles resulted in 211 observations. The majority of the observations, 122 to be exact, were found in period two and 89 observations in period one.⁸²

Before analysing the judgement of the EU’s legitimacy, let us see what the general position toward the European project as a whole is in the articles. The data are clear: both Dutch newspapers are supportive of the European project as a whole. All articles in the NRC are positive except for one (April 30, 2004). There are three negative articles in the Volkskrant, two in period one (December 15, 2000 and June 14, 2001) and one in period two (May 26, 2005).

The general judgement of the EU is thus overwhelmingly positive, but this positivity is not reflected in the appreciation of its legitimacy. Most of the observations in the Dutch discourse evaluate the EU’s legitimacy negatively.

Table 6.1: Dutch Distribution of Judgements

Judgement/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Positive	17,2%	19,7%	18,6%
Negative	82,8%	80,3%	81,4%

6.2 – Facets and Judgements of Legitimacy

The general perception is supportive of the EU, but the evaluation of its legitimacy is overwhelmingly negative. Now let us investigate how the conceptualisation of legitimacy influences the evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy.

6.2.1 – Dimensions and Judgements of Legitimacy

The first facet we will analyse is the dimension. More than half the observations in both periods use a universalist concept of legitimacy to assess the EU. A nationalist concept is used by the rest observations, except for a small number of observations, which combine both dimensions in their assessment. This marginal category is not being included in the rest of the analysis, except for its in tables. All marginal contributions from now will on only be mentioned at the start of the analysis and then largely ignored.
Table 6.2: Dutch Distribution of Dimensions

Dimension/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Universalist	52,2%	56,9%	54,9%
Nationalist	45,1%	38,7%	41,6%
Both	2,6%	4,3%	3,5%

Let us now analyse the distribution of evaluations within dimensions. There was no major shift in the distribution between the periods, but as we will see this is not the case for all facets and discourses. Overall, the overwhelming majority of the observations which use a universalist conceptualisation come to a negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy. Those observations that rely on nationalist concept of legitimacy more often lead to a positive evaluation in comparison, but still are more often negative.

Table 6.3: Dutch Dimension * Judgement Crosstabulation

Dimension/Judgement	Positive Evaluation	Negative Evaluation
Universalist	10,7%	89,3%
Nationalist	25,8%	74,3%
Both	55,6%	44,4%

To establish whether there is a relationship between dimensional conceptualisation and the evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy we will compare the category’s distribution to the national distribution (Table 6.1: The overall percentage). This comparison shows that a universalist conceptualisation leads more often to a negative evaluation than the average Dutch observation. Those, on the other hand, that use a nationalist conceptualisation leads less often to a negative evaluation than one would expect based on the distribution of judgements within Dutch discourse.

6.2.2 – Components and Judgements of Legitimacy

A focus on different components of legitimacy might also impact the evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy. Most observations focus on input legitimacy in the Netherlands. In period one, observations focussing on throughput legitimacy come in second place and those focussing on output legitimacy in third place. They switched places in period two. Overall, the majority of the observations focus on input legitimacy, output legitimacy is the focus of almost a fifth of the observations, whilst the least observations focus on throughput legitimacy.
Table 6.4: Dutch Distribution of Components

Component/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Input	67,4%	62,4%	64,6%
Throughput	18,0%	13,6%	15,6%
Output	14,6%	24,0%	19,7%

The distribution of evaluations within components is stable. Overall, those observations that focus either on input or throughput legitimacy are very likely to lead to a negative perception of the EU’s legitimacy. Most observations that focus on output legitimacy lead to a positive evaluation. We will see that this, a non-marginal category with more observations with a positive than a negative assessment of the EU’s legitimacy, is a unique result.

Table 6.5: Dutch Component * Judgement Crosstabulation

Component/Judgement	Positive Evaluation	Negative Evaluation
Input	10,6%	89,4%
Throughput	10,0%	90,0%
Output	51,5%	48,5%

Observations that focus either on input or throughput legitimacy lead more often to a negative evaluation than the average Dutch observation. Those that focus on output legitimacy are a completely different story. They lead much more often to a positive evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy than the national average.

6.2.3 – Models and Judgements of Legitimacy

The final facet of legitimacy is the use of a certain model of political order and related types of legitimacy. The distribution of observations using the different models (or not using them) to assess the EU’s legitimacy is stable, except for an increase in the number of observations that focus on direct legitimacy in period two. Overall the majority of observations focus on direct legitimacy. About a fifth of the observations do not use a model of a political order to assess the EU’s legitimacy. Indirect legitimacy is the focus of just over a tenth of the observations and a marginal number of observations combine both models.
Table 6.6: Dutch Distribution of Models

Model/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Neither	25,8%	19,0%	22,1%
Direct	58,8%	67,0%	63,3%
Indirect	13,3%	12,2%	12,7%
Both	2,1%	1,8%	2,0%

Observations that focus on direct legitimacy are most often negative in their evaluation. Also observations not using any model often lead to a negative evaluation, whilst observations focussing on indirect legitimacy lead less often to a negative evaluation, they are though more often negative than positive in their evaluation.

Table 6.7: Dutch Model * Judgement Crosstabulation

Model/Judgement	Positive Evaluation	Negative Evaluation
Neither	24,8%	75,2%
Direct	12,7%	87,3%
Indirect	33,8%	66,2%
Both	40,0%	60,0%

If we compare the distribution within models to the average distribution of evaluations we get a somewhat different story. Those observations focussing on direct legitimacy are more often negative in their evaluation than the Dutch average. On the other hand, observations that do not use any model or focus on indirect legitimacy are less likely to lead to a negative evaluation compared to the national average.

6.2.4 – Conclusions on Facets and Judgements of Legitimacy

There are three important conclusions. First, the categories with the most observations lead more often to a negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy than the average Dutch observation. In the same order as presented above, these are a universalist conceptualisation, a focus on input legitimacy and a focus on direct legitimacy. In two cases – universalist conceptualisation and a focus on direct legitimacy –, the category leads the most often to a negative evaluation in comparison to the other categories within the facet. Observations focussing on throughput legitimacy are the most often negative, but the difference with those focussing on input legitimacy is marginal: both very often lead to a negative evaluation.

Secondly, both the number of observations using a combination of both dimensions and those combining both models to assess the EU’s legitimacy are marginal.

Finally, of all the categories with more than a marginal number of observations there is only one perspective that leads more often to a positive evaluation than a negative evaluation, namely those focussing on output legitimacy.