The eu’s Legitimacy in the Eye of the Beholders

8.3 – Multi-level Governance

The third part of the analysis is whether or not multi-level governance is taken into account in the discourse. Libération is the only newspaper with an article that takes multi-level governance into account (March 14, 2006). This brings the percentage of articles that do not take it into account for Libération to 96,9%. Le Figaro does not have any articles ‘with multi-level governance’, thus their percentage of observations is 100% ‘negative’.

The observations percentages are even lower. In period one, only 1 observation takes multi-level governance into account, but clearly not consciously, because there is not a single article that did. In period two, 5 observations were found that take it into account. So also in the final discourse the numbers speak for themselves.

Table 8.8: French Distribution of Multi-level Governance

MLG/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Yes	1,0%	1,3%	1,2%
No	99,0%	98,7%	98,8%

8.4 – Overview of the Legitimacy Discourse

In the French discourse perceptions with 24 or more observations are seen as common.⁹⁰ There were some shifts between the two periods worth mentioning. The percentage of observations characterised by a nationalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on output legitimacy and not using a model of political order leading to a negative evaluation went from 5,8% to 4,9%. Its counterpart focussing on direct legitimacy declined from 6,7% to 3,6%. On the other hand, the percentage of perceptions characterised by a nationalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation increased from 4,8% to 8,1%. Now for the overview of the French discourse, which looks as follows:


Table 8.9: French Facets * Judgement Crosstabulation

Facets/Judgement			Positive Evaluation	Negative Evaluation
Universalist	Input	Neither	9	14
		Direct	10	131
		Indirect	3	14
		Both	1	0
	Throughput	Neither	3	9
		Direct	1	26
		Indirect	1	5
		Both	0	3
	Output	Neither	10	4
		Direct	10	22
		Indirect	1	6
		Both	0	0
Nationalist	Input	Neither	2	13
		Direct	8	36
		Indirect	2	9
		Both	0	1
	Throughput	Neither	2	13
		Direct	0	1
		Indirect	0	13
		Both	0	0
	Output	Neither	16	25
		Direct	5	21
		Indirect	5	19
		Both	0	1
Both	Input	Neither	0	0
		Direct	2	1
		Indirect	0	0
		Both	0	0
	Throughput	Neither	0	1
		Direct	0	1
		Indirect	0	0
		Both	0	0
	Output	Neither	2	2
		Direct	0	4
		Indirect	1	0
		Both	0	0

Four perceptions characterise more than 24 observations. In order of size these are:

1. 
   universalist, input, direct, negative with 26,8% (131),
   
2. 
   nationalist, input, direct, negative with 7,4% (36),
   
3. 
   universalist, throughput, direct, negative with 5,3% (26), and
   
4. 
   nationalist, output, neither, negative with 5,1% (25).
   

Like in the previous discourses the only element they have in common is their negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy. Further, the dimensional conceptualisations are evenly divided among the most common perceptions: two universalist and two nationalist. With regards to the components, two perceptions focus on input, one on throughput and also one on output legitimacy. Finally, three perceptions focus on direct legitimacy, whilst one does not use any model of political order and none focus on indirect legitimacy.

We finish the analysis of the French discourse with three final remarks. First, the perception characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation is once again the most common, but it is not as large as in the Dutch discourse. Secondly, much like in the Dutch discourse, many observations use a nationalist concept of legitimacy in combination with a focus on output legitimacy, but because it is more evenly divided it does not show at first glance. Finally, the perspective with the most positive observations is characterised by a nationalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on output legitimacy and does not use any model of a political order.