Public Sphere and Civil Society?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Public Sphere and Civil Society? Transformations of the European Union John Erik Fossum, Philip Schlesinger and Geir Ove Kværk (eds) ARENA Report No 2/07 Public Sphere and Civil Society? Tranformations of the European Union John Erik Fossum, Philip Schlesinger and Geir Ove Kværk (eds) Copyright © ARENA ARENA Report Series (print) | ISSN 0807-3139 ARENA Report Series (online) | ISSN 1504-8152 Printed at ARENA Centre for European Studies University of Oslo P.O.Box 1143, Blindern N-0317 Oslo, Norway Tel: + 47 22 85 76 77 Fax: + 47 22 85 78 32 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.arena.uio.no Oslo, May 2007 Cover picture: Demonstration by European Federalists in favour of the European Union. CE | Luxembourg (town) | P-001997/00-19 | 02/12/85. © European Community Preface The present report is produced under the framework of the CIDEL project, under work package 2 “Europe’s Common Interest and Communicative Space“. CIDEL – Citizenship and Democratic Legitimacy in the EU – was a 3- years (2002-2005) joint research project with ten partners in six European countries. The project was coordinated by ARENA, University of Oslo, and supported by the European Commission’s Fifth Framework Programme for Research, Key Action ‘Improving the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base’. More information including a list of all publications from the project is available at: http://www.arena.uio.no/cidel Erik Oddvar Eriksen Scientific Responsible CIDEL project Table of contents Introduction John Erik Fossum, Philip Schlesinger and Geir Ove Kværk ………….. 1 Chapter 1 Multiple Voices: An Interdiscursive Concept of the European Public Sphere Patrizia Nanz……………………………………………………... 11 Chapter 2 Discursive Processes in the European Institutional System Tanja Hitzel-Cassagnes……………………………………………. 29 Chapter 3 Towards a Europeanised Public Sphere? Comparing Political Actors and the Media in Germany Ruud Koopmans and Barbara Pfetsch……………………………...... 57 Chapter 4 The European Convention as Communicative Environment: The Challenge of Multilingual Deliberation Chris Longman…………………………………………………….. 89 Chapter 5 Political Roof and Sacred Canopy? Religion and the EU Constitution Philip Schlesinger and François Foret………………………………… 113 Chapter 6 Organised Civil Society in the EU Constitution-making Process Geir Ove Kværk…………………………………………………… 141 Chapter 7 Conceptualising (and Tentatively Mapping) the EU’s Social Constituency John Erik Fossum and Marit Eldholm………………………………. 225 Introduction John Erik Fossum, Philip Schlesinger and Geir Ove Kværk1 ARENA – University of Oslo and University of Glasgow This report derives from the research carried out under work package 2 (Europe’s Common Interest and Communicative Space) of the research project CIDEL – Citizenship and Democratic Legitimacy in the European Union (2002-2005), which was made up of ten partner institutions from six European countries. CIDEL was a multi-disciplinary project (initially with 20 researchers) in the fields of political theory, law, political science, media research, and sociology. It branched out to include further researchers under the seven different work packages. The project was financed by the European Commission’s Fifth Framework Programme for Research, Key Action “Improving the Socio-economic Knowledge Base”. Towards a Citizens’ Europe? The main purpose of CIDEL was to examine the prospects for a citizens’ Europe through analysing what kind of order is emerging in Europe. A key question was to examine whether the EU is best understood as a mere problem-solving entity based on economic citizenship; whether it is moving towards a value-based community premised on social and cultural citizenship, or whether it is moving towards a rights-based post-national union, based on a full- fledged political citizenship. Work package 2 contained two sub-projects 1 Philip Schlesinger ([email protected]), University of Glasgow. John Erik Fossum ([email protected]) and Geir Ove Kværk ([email protected]), ARENA – Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo. 2 Fossum, Schlesinger and Kværk which were focused on the prospects for a viable European public sphere (or spheres) and the nature and character of European civil society respectively. CIDEL formulated a theoretical framework such designed as to address the question of the prospects for a citizens’ Europe. It did so, cognizant of the fact that there are different conceptions of the EU, among decision-makers, analysts, and the general public. Hence, to prevent foreclosing core ways of framing the EU, CIDEL developed three different conceptions of the EU qua polity, and from each of these it derived a set of specific polity prescriptions, institutional arrangements and a concomitant conception of public sphere within the EU. Before presenting these in more detail, we will first spell out WP 2’s two sub-projects. WP 2’s first subproject focused on the question of a citizens’ Europe with particular emphasis on the notion of a European public sphere. It took as its point of departure that the EU’s development as a new kind of polity has been closely connected with its development as a communicative space. Traditionally, political theory and media theory have thought of communicative space and public spheres in terms of what goes on inside nation-states. But this kind of perspective is rapidly ceasing to be adequate, as the EU manifests more and more of the characteristics of a supranational polity. The main questions asked were: - What are the prospects for a European public sphere? - Is a uniform public sphere needed, or are overlapping public spheres a more viable option? - What do our findings tell us about the EU as a polity? Most of the chapters of this report touch on these questions, and notably so the first three chapters. This report supplements the investigation of the public sphere conducted in Fossum and Schlesinger’s (2007) edited volume, which covers conceptual, theoretical and empirical analyses of the concept of a European sphere. That work systematically assesses the development of a European public sphere in relation to CIDEL models I and III, and does so with attention to different public sphere configurations, notable among which are general-particular and strong-weak publics. These two dimensions, which are developed versions of Nancy Fraser’s (1992) distinction between strong and general publics, help situate the question of a European public sphere within a territorial and institutional space. Within the rubric of general public the book contains analyses of media, the challenges of language and different language regimes, the role and salience of religion in the Union, and EU constitution making. Within the category of strong public, the book assesses Introduction 3 the public-sphere-generating effects of the core EU institutions (European Parliament, Commission and Council). Work package 2’s second sub-project was set up to take stock of the status of the EU as a rights-based post-national union, through the examination of the conditions for, as well as actual patterns of, social movement activism. This project was closely linked to work package 3 on constitutionalisation, and focused on central requirements pertaining to the emergence of rights, which rights, whose rights and how extensive such are (Eriksen et al. 2003). Further, and of particular interest was whether a more rights-oriented EU would lead to social mobilisation. This was studied in relation to the two Conventions (see Kværk’s and Longman’s chapters in this report). To illustrate how CIDEL linked different conceptions of the public sphere with different conceptions of the EU as polity, we will briefly outline the three CIDEL models applied to public sphere. According to the notion of the EU as a problem-solving entity, what is the underlying conception of public sphere? In institutional terms, this model depicts the EU as a trans-national entity with a criss-crossing network of related issue-oriented – and confined – epistemic communities. These are involved in practical problem-solving and do not amount to an overarching European public in democratic terms. They are hardly pan-European. They are also narrowly confined issue communities rather than comprehensive publics. On both counts they do not qualify as general publics. Such a notion of a partial public is based on very weak institutional and constitutional supports. The rights foundation of such an entity is weak, as there is no fully developed supranational level with an independent rights-granting ability. Citizens have the right of free movement and the right to work, but they obtain their political rights from the national level. According to the EU as a value-based community, what is the underlying conception of public sphere? This model, strictly speaking, conceives of a coherent public sphere. It emulates the public sphere notion associated with the nation-state. The model presupposes a common European citizenship and a set of common institutions at the EU level that are able to foster a common European public sphere. The model goes well beyond institutional requirements to include common cultural factors, such as a common language, a common identity, and a shared sense of community. These are seen to rest on pre-political values. Analysts who work with this conception of community, denounce the EU precisely for lacking a public sphere with such foundations, and a critical question is how profound this deficiency is in 4 Fossum, Schlesinger and Kværk today’s Europe. To what extent do current developments move the Union towards this model? A common religion is probably one of the strongest foundations for a coherent community. During the European Convention’s work, there were strong efforts to set up the EU as the bearer of the Christian character of the European heritage, as is shown in Schlesinger and Foret’s chapter. According to the EU as a rights-based post-national union, what is the underlying conception of the public sphere? This conception of the EU does not conceive of the public sphere in monolithic terms, but rather as a set of overlapping publics.