The eu’s Legitimacy in the Eye of the Beholders

6.3 – Multi-level Governance

The third element of the analysis is whether the reality of multi-level governance is taken into account in articles and observations. First the articles, four articles in the NRC (July 5, 2000, July 11, 2001, October 9, 2004 and March 4, 2005) and only one article in the Volkskrant (December 29, 2001) take multi-level governance into account. This brings the NRC to 92% not taking it into account and the Volkskrant 98%. It is though not always apparent whether the author is aware of it.

Very few observations take multi-level governance into account. There was no important shift between the two periods and the numbers speak for themselves: Only 11 out of 512 observations take it into account and again awareness of it when they did can be seriously doubted.

Table 6.8: Dutch Distribution of Multi-level Governance

MLG/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Yes	3,0%	1,4%	2,1%
No	97,0%	98,6%	97,9%

6.4 – Overview of the Legitimacy Discourse

In the final part of the chapter we will look at the discourse as a whole or rather at the discourse in all its detail and complexity. The observations are distributed among two criteria. First, what kind of perspective⁸³ on legitimacy is used in the observations, and secondly, does this lead to a positive or negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy.

The analysis of this overview focuses primarily on perceptions⁸⁴ with more than 26 observations, which is more than 5% of the entire number of observations.⁸⁵ They are the focus, because these perceptions are common in the discourse. The Dutch discourse is relatively stable. Only the number of observations that use a nationalist concept of legitimacy focus on throughput legitimacy based on no model of political order, which leads to a negative evaluation dropped from 5,2% to 1,8%. All other perceptions that were influential were so in both periods. Before we turn to the discussion let us first have a look at the overview:

Table 6.9: Dutch Facets * Judgement Crosstabulation

Facets/Judgement			Positive Evaluation	Negative Evaluation
Universalist	Input	Neither	6	10
		Direct	6	177
		Indirect	2	5
		Both	1	2
	Throughput	Neither	1	5
		Direct	1	35
		Indirect	0	4
		Both	0	2
	Output	Neither	4	3
		Direct	7	7
		Indirect	1	1
		Both	1	0
Nationalist	Input	Neither	6	33
		Direct	9	47
		Indirect	3	17
		Both	1	1
	Throughput	Neither	3	17
		Direct	0	4
		Indirect	2	4
		Both	0	0
	Output	Neither	8	13
		Direct	12	10
		Indirect	11	12
		Both	0	0
Both	Input	Neither	0	1
		Direct	0	2
		Indirect	1	0
		Both	0	0
	Throughput	Neither	0	1
		Direct	0	0
		Indirect	1	0
		Both	0	0
	Output	Neither	0	2
		Direct	6	1
		Indirect	1	0
		Both	1	0

Analysis shows us that there are four perceptions with more than 26 observations.⁸⁶ In order of size they are:

1. 
   universalist, input, direct, negative with 34,6% (117),
   
2. 
   nationalist, input, neither, negative with 9,2% (47),
   
3. 
   universalist, throughput, direct, negative with 6,8% (35), and
   
4. 
   nationalist, input, direct, negative with 6,4% (33).
   

Let us take a closer look at these perceptions. The only element they have in common is that the different perspectives of legitimacy all lead to a negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy. The dimensional conceptualisation is evenly divided among these perceptions: two all. Three perceptions focus on input legitimacy, one on throughput and none of them focus on output legitimacy. Finally, three perceptions focus on direct legitimacy and one does not use any model of legitimacy. Indirect legitimacy is not focussing on any of them.

Three final remarks on the overview are in place. First, more than a third of all observation are characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and direct legitimacy, which leads to a negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy. Secondly, although none of the possible perceptions with a nationalist conception of legitimacy and a focus on output legitimacy characterise 26 observations or more, all the perceptions with this combination of facets taken together account for more than a tenth of the observations. Finally, the perspective characterised by a nationalist concept of legitimacy combined with a focus on output and direct legitimacy leads to the highest number of observations with a positive evaluation.