The eu’s Legitimacy in the Eye of the Beholders

1.3 – The Central Research Question

The problem definition and the aim presented above form the basis for the central research question, which goes as follows:
What are the reasons for the European Union’s legitimacy deficit

and how can this deficit be overcome?
The first part of the central research question is explanatory, but more is expected from research for a master’s thesis in the field of public administration. It should also offer (policy) advice on how one might solve the problem or at least point in the direction of possible solutions, hence the second part of the central research question.

Several research questions are formulated that will systematically guide us toward this goal.

1. 
   How is the modern nation-state legitimised?
   

This question is theoretical in nature and it is the set up for the first part of the theoretical framework. Two related issues are discussed from a historical perspective. First, a definition of legitimacy is introduced, namely as a consensus, which is different from the one usually adapted by scholars within the field of public administration. Then we will investigate the consensus that has developed on our current political order: the nation-state. A political order dependent on two versions of republicanism – universalist and nationalist – enshrined in mongrel concepts.

2. 
   What are the different facets that form the legitimacy of a political order?
   

After the historical, some might say, philosophical approach to legitimacy, this second research question will return us to the for many more familiar territory of public administration. The common approach to legitimacy within public administration is introduced and arguments given for rejecting it. Then a component framework of legitimacy is developed with which we can analyse the role the idea of representative democracy plays within the current discourse. A discussion of the concept of multi-level governance as the system of EU governance and its relation to legitimacy forms the third part of this chapter. The distinction between models of direct and indirect legitimacy is introduced in order to make sense of this reality. The components, models and the two versions of republicanism are the basis for a multi-faceted understanding of legitimacy.

3. 
   What is the influence of the mass media on the legitimacy of a political order?
   

The public discourse is where we can find the consensus on legitimacy or lack thereof. As said in modern societies public discourse is mediated by the mass media. The mass media’s role as objective mediator is often criticised. In chapter four, the last theoretical chapter, we will discuss the ideal of public discourse and the role of the mass media, but more importantly the (imperfect) role they actually play with regard to the EU’s legitimacy.

4. 
   How will the EU’s legitimacy deficit be investigated?
   

This question is the methodological question of the research questions, which is discussed in chapter five. What is the research strategy? What are the methods of inquiry chosen and why? What are their strengths, weaknesses and how could they limit the research? Finally, the framework of analysis is operationalised and three hypotheses are formulated.

5. 
   How is the EU’s legitimacy perceived in the public discourse in the Netherlands?
   
6. 
   How is the EU’s legitimacy perceived in the public discourse in the United Kingdom?
   
7. 
   How is the EU’s legitimacy perceived in the public discourse in France?
   

These three questions guide the empirical chapters on the three discourses. The quantitative findings of the research are presented, but neither interpretation nor comparison will yet be given. At the end of these chapters one should have developed a preliminary understanding of the role different facets of legitimacy play in the perception of the EU’s legitimacy deficit in each country.

8. 
   What are the similarities and differences between these public discourses?
   

It is this question that gives us ‘the full story’. In chapter nine, the quantitative data of the three discourses is compared then they are placed in their qualitative context. This narrative approach to the findings will uncover the full ‘stories’ hidden behind the numbers and also check their reliability.

1.4 – What is the Research’s Significance?

The research’s significance is important to address. The academic significance is shown by placing this research within the current body of knowledge and then showing its novelty. The democratic legitimacy of the EU has become a ‘top priority’ on the European agenda, but it is not just on the political agenda, also many scholars have tried to come to terms with Europe’s (democratic) legitimacy deficit (c.f. Bursens and Baetens 2004: 1).

In order to make sense of the EU’s legitimacy deficit this research draws from four bodies of knowledge: first, the literature on theories of (democratic) legitimacy (e.g. Beetham and Lord 1998; Bernard 2001; Scharpf 1999) and secondly, the literature on multi-level governance (e.g. Bekkers et al. 2007; Marks 1993; Marks, Hooghe and Blank 1996). The third body of knowledge is on the role of the public sphere, public discourse and the mass media, in general and with regards to the legitimacy of (democratic) political orders, specifically the EU (e.g. Oosterbaan and Wansink 2008; Ward 2004). The final body of knowledge is a historical perspective on legitimacy: specifically of the nation-state and the role of nationalism in this process (Hont 2005).

The combination of theories of (democratic) legitimacy, multi-level governance and the role of the mass media are not new in analyses of the EU’s legitimacy deficit (e.g. Bursens and Baetens 2004; Liebert and Trentz 2008; Peters et al. 2005). The application of Istvan Hont’s historical perspective is the novelty of the research. The use of a historical analysis is relatively new within the field of public administration in general, but it is quickly catching on. Case-in-point is that the central theme of Festival der Bestuurskunde 2009: Democratie tussen Wal en Schip ¹² was the application of the counter-factual approach to the future of democracy: A historical method applied to the realm of politics. The novel application of historical analysis in this research will enhance the body of knowledge on the subject of the EU’s legitimacy deficit.

Now for the practical significance of this research. Gambling with legitimacy is for any political order a form of Russian roulette, but for a novel political order the odds are stacked against it. Would legitimacy break down then the road of reasoned elaborations is closed. A political order that does not want to disappear will then either have to resort to bribery or worse force (Matheson 1987).¹³ But even if the system does not break down completely there could be serious consequences if the peoples do not perceive the EU as legitimate. Larry Siedentop asks: “How will [the nation-states] react if disillusionment with the European project as an ‘elitist conspiracy’ creates a resurgence of nationalism?” (2000: 224-225). Whether extreme left or right rises to the occasion neither presents an attractive alternative to democratic politics.¹⁴ Siedentop wrote this in 2000 and one might recognize this disillusionment in the success of the PVV and other nationalist parties in the last European elections.

So much for the societal significance and urgency of the subject matter, but there is also a contribution to the everyday life of policy practitioners. If the EU is not perceived as legitimate then as a result neither are EU-regulation and policy-procedures. For practitioners in the field of public administration this means the legitimacy deficit taints all policy. This research might help us understand the reasons for the legitimacy deficit, which in turn might lead to better policies for solving it. This is necessary for the EU is not going to disappear, because Member States have an interest in keeping it, but it is a source of authority, which needs legitimacy for its policies to be accepted.