Constructing new environments versus attitude adjustment: contrasting the substance of democracy in UN and EU democracy promotion discourses

Abstract

In contrasting UN with EU democracy promotion discourses, the article contributes to the debate on the substance of EU democracy promotion by approaching the question of ‘democratic substance’ from the vantage point of sovereignty. For its analytical framing, it draws on relevant aspects of Foucault's work on power. The article suggests that, due to their diverging obligations to sovereignty, the substance of democracy promotion in UN discourses revolves around an institutional-centric understanding, whereas in EU discourses we see a significant reconceptualization of democracy as a norms-based concept. The latter does not aim at the government of society but the ethical self-governance of socially embedded individuals. It is argued that, with the decreasing purchase of democracy as a universal political project and the growing concern with local contexts, the EU's norms-based conception emerges as better equipped to adapt to contemporary challenges of governing. The article concludes with raising some doubts about the democratic promise and potential of the democratic rationality underpinning EU discourses. Democracy, participation and political change are no longer conceived in terms of shaping and influencing public agenda but refer to socially shaping and influencing subjective perceptions and behaviours.

Notes

¹ This is not to deny that sovereignty and discipline are heterogeneous. The heterogeneity manifests itself in the difference between the sovereignty of the state and the government of society. The former finds its end solely in itself; the latter has an external objective (see Foucault 2009, 87–110). While constituting an important shift, it is subordinated here to the shift in the direction and origin of power.

² A/47/277 of 17 June 1992.

³ A/51/761 of 20 December 1996, para 8.

⁴ A/47/277 of 17 June 1992, para 57, emphasis added.

⁵ A/47/277 of 17 June 1992, para 55.

⁶ A/47/277 of 17 June 1992, para 59.

⁷ A/50/332 of 7 August 1995, para 6.

⁸ A/47/277 of 17 June 1992, para 17.

⁹ A/51/761 of 20 December 1996, para 17.

¹⁰ A/51/761 of 20 December 1996, para 18.

¹¹ In one of the earliest documents on democratization, the EU dedicates itself to the ‘setting-up of new democratic institutions’ (European Council 1991) in third countries. Following the more institution-centred model of democracy, the EU had little difficulties of aligning itself with the ‘international community’ of prescriptive democracy engineers and proclaimed to take a ‘“hands-on” approach’ (European Commission 1995, 20).

¹² Optimization is the rationale of integration (see Emerson and Noutechva 2004), whereas accommodation is the rationale for those outside the prospect of membership. This is particularly discernible in the 2011 Communication on democracy hastily drafted under the impression of the Arab Spring. All ‘stakeholders’ are envisioned to participate in ‘social dialogue’, obviously to avert further eruptions of conflict (or migration flows) rather than public decision-making, let alone contestation (European Commission 2011, 8).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jessica Schmidt

Jessica Schmidt is a postdoctoral fellow at Käte Hamburger Kolleg, Centre for Global Cooperation Research, Duisburg, Germany. Email: [email protected]