The eu’s Legitimacy in the Eye of the Beholders

3.3 – Legitimacy and Multi-level Governance: Models

The second important concept for the legitimacy of political orders is governance. The exact state of affairs differs, but in general one can say ‘that the old hierarchical model of government has crumbled in the Western world’⁵² (Nispen and Ringeling 2004: 2). Governance is the new steering paradigm, which replaced the paradigm of government (Bekkers et al. 2007: 3). Several important shifts were caused by this change: ‘from nation-state to supranational institutions, from government to court, from public to semi-public or private organizations, from hierarchies to markets’ (Nispen and Ringeling 2004: 2).⁵³ There are several different types of governance systems⁵⁴, but the consensus is that the European level of governance is a system of multi-level governance (e.g. Bekkers et al. 2007; George and Bache 2001; Marks 1993; Marks, Hooghe and Blank 1996).

This system crystallized from the 1980’s onwards as the system of governance of the EU (Marks, Hooghe and Blank 1996: 372). Marks describes multi-level governance as ‘a system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers, - supranational, national, regional and local’ (1993: 392). Klijn and Skelcher add that ‘[governance networks] are based on interdependencies, but not necessarily equity, between public, private and civil society actors (2007: 587). For example, governments are a special kind of actor in this network, because of (out of all the possible reasons) their democratic legitimacy (Ringeling 2004). We can distinguish three important features for the EU’s system of governance:

1. 
   ‘Collective decision-making involves loss of control for the governments of individual states
   
2. 
   Decision-making competences in the EU are shared by actors at different levels [...]
   
3. 
   The political systems of member states [...] are connected in various ways’ (Marks, Hooghe and Blank 1996: 346-347).
   

The possible impact of this form of governance on the legitimacy of a political order is unclear. Wallace et al. describe the predecessor of the EU – the European Community – as ‘less than a federation, but more than a regime’ (1983). This description is still very appropriate with regards to the EU’s system of multi-level governance. In the literature there is of yet no specific framework for the analysis of the (democratic) legitimacy of a system of multi-level governance.⁵⁵ Therefore scholars often use Beetham and Lord’s (1998) distinction between nation-state – federation – and international organisation – regime (c.f. Bekkers et al. 2007: 46; Bursens and Baetens 2004: 5). This distinction is between two models of political orders, which leads to a distinction between direct and indirect legitimacy (Bursens and Baetens 2004: 3).

The notion of direct legitimacy is derived from the nation-state, in which the power-subjects can hold the power-holder directly responsible through, for instance, periodical elections or referenda. ‘Crucial is the direct link between those who are governed and those who govern’ (Bursens and Baetens 2004: 5). In the case of the EU this translates into the notions of a ‘federal Europe’ or ‘multi-level government’.

Indirect legitimacy applies to international organisations/regimes, which usually appropriate legitimacy through the approval of the legitimised member states. Authority is legitimate if recognized and thus borrowed from the (elected) representatives of the people or is if it is recognized by other legitimate authorities (Bursens and Baetens 2004: 5; George and Bache 2001: 15).

Political Order	Type of Legitimacy
(Federal) Nation-state	Direct Legitimacy
International Organisation	Indirect Legitimacy

Figure 3.4: Models of Legitimacy
Multi-level governance does not fit either of these models. On the one hand, the EU knows Verflechtung of the different levels of government, which is exemplified by the pooling of sovereignty. Further, the EU is becoming more and more involved in the daily lives of whom it governs (Thomassen and Schmitt 2004: 385-386), which might explain the outcry for more direct legitimacy.⁵⁶ On the other hand, the nation-states are still sovereign to some extent – they have a veto on certain issues and they can and have ignored certain agreements. In short, the EU is still not a federation, yet it is more than a regime.

The exact impact of multi-level governance on the EU’s legitimacy is still largely unclear. Some argue it is a positive development⁵⁷, some see it as negative⁵⁸, whilst again others describe it as ‘an unlikely equilibrium.’⁵⁹ One thing is certain: the EU is emerging as a political order of multi-level governance, but there is no consensus on what does or does not make such a system legitimate.

3.4 – Toward a Multi-faceted Understanding of Legitimacy

This might be a good time to summarise the theoretical findings on the possible (implicit) conceptualisations of legitimacy in people’s perception with respect to the EU as an emerging political order. First and foremost there is not one single framework shared by all scholars to analyse legitimacy, but as Beethem and Lord argue ‘the starting point of any analysis of legitimacy [...] has to be an acknowledgement of its complexity (1998: 5). In acknowledgement of this complexity a framework is created in order to create, what Bursens and Baetens call, a multi-faceted understanding of legitimacy (2004: 1).

First, there is the distinction between two dimensions of legitimacy: universalist and nationalist. This distinction gives us the analytical tools to investigate whether the EU’s legitimacy is (implicitly) conceptualised by people on the basis of democratic or nationalist principles.

Secondly, the distinction between three components of legitimacy: input, throughput and output. This distinction of legitimacy into components has two uses. First, by linking components to the dimensions it becomes possible to further specify the role of the dual heritage of republicanism in the current discourse – we will turn to this in more detail in the operationalisation. Secondly, the distinction makes it possible to analyse in how far people’s perception of the EU’s legitimacy is influenced by the ideal of a constitutional representative democracy.

Thirdly, there is Beetham and Lord’s distinction between direct and indirect legitimacy, which analyses the role of the model of the political order. This distinction is a way of analysing whether the idea of the nation-state, that of an international regime or whether the reality of multi-level governance is taken into account.

The research thus distinguishes between three facets of legitimacy: dimensions (universalist and nationalist), components (input, throughput and output) and models (direct and indirect). This creates a multi-faceted understanding of legitimacy of a political order. It will help us understand the conceptualisation behind different perceptions and how it influences the judgement of the EU’s legitimacy.

.