Legitimization of the EU: Meeting Religion in the Public Sphere

Author(s):  
François Foret
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 673-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayte Peters

Democratically legitimized European integration calls for developments in culture and society—which arise naturally in the scope of on-going political, economic and institutional European Union (EU) integration—to be publically debated so they may be politically processed. The space where this happens is the public sphere, or, in the context of the EU, the European public sphere. The latter complements national public spheres. Successful integration among EU Member States is made possible by adhering to a common set of values at the same time as respecting the national identities of the Member States and fostering cultural diversity. By way of Union citizenship rights, individuals are able to make use of and actively promote the Europeanization of societies and cultures. Yet citizens are affected by Europeanization to differing degrees, with only a minority of citizens actively partaking in transnational exchange. In order to account for European integration democratically, the EU treaties hold provisions allowing for a close institutional interdependence of national and European democracy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (779) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Werner Müller

The EU will not become something like a traditional nation-state anytime soon, and no supranational public sphere is likely to ever replace national public spheres.


Author(s):  
Dennis Lichtenstein

In research on the transnationalization of the public sphere, speakers are coded in claim analysis (Adam, 2007; Koopmans & Statham, 2010) and in research on European identity (Lichtenstein & Eilders, 2015, 2019). Speakers are politicians, societal actors or journalists who are given voice in a news story. In claim analyses, a speaker directs, for instance, a thematic demand or decision towards another actor. In research on European identity, speakers address an EU frame in a news story. The variable “speaker” provides a broad categorization of the first or most important speaker in an article. He or she is more precisely classified using further variables which target the actors’ degree of organization, his or her country of origin and his or her more detailed function within the EU or other international institutions.   Field of application/theoretical foundation: In research on the transnationalization of the public sphere, speakers are coded to measure interactions between countries (horizontal transnationalization) and to analyze the extent to which EU actors get a voice in the coverage of national media outlets (vertical transnationalization). They are also coded to analyze to which extent civil society actors are heard compared to politicians. The share of EU and international speakers differs between countries, media outlets, and policy fields. In research on European identity the variable additionally enables to differentiate between the kinds of speakers who are given a voice in the collective construction of European identity.   References/combination with other methods of data collection: Content analyses that examine the claims of speakers in transnational public spheres has been combined with interview studies with journalists, politicians, and interest groups (Koopmans & Statham, 2010).   Example study: Koopmans & Statham (2010)   Information on Koopmans & Statham, 2010 Authors: Ruud Koopmans, Paul Statham Research question/research interest: Analysis of the visibility of the EU level in the transnational public sphere, the inclusiveness of public demands, and public contestation regarding EU decision making Object of analysis: National quality newspaper, popular press, regional papers from seven countries Timeframe of analysis: 1990–2002   Information about variable Variable name/definition: speakers “If a claim has more than one actor (e.g., a coalition), the following priority rules apply: 1) actors mentioned in the article as 'leaders', 'organizers', 'spokespersons', etc. have priority, unless, of course, they do not make any claims; 2) organizations, institutions or representatives thereof (e.g., 'National Organization of Peasants') have priority over unorganized collectivities or individuals (e.g., 'peasants', 'farmer X'); 3) active actors or speakers have priority over passive audiences/rank-and-file participants (e.g., if a party representative addresses a crowd at a peace rally, the party representative has priority). If there are several actors or no actor at all who have priority according to these three criteria, the order in which they are mentioned in the article decides (with, again, the main headline as the start of the article). If of one physical actor two functions are mentioned, the highest level capacity in terms of the scope variable (see below) is coded. E.g., if the article says “Portuguese prime minister and current Chair of the EU Presidency Guttierez” would be code as “EU presidency” even if Portuguese prime minister would be mentioned first. However, the precondition would be that the EU presidency function is really mentioned in the article - that you know that the Portuguese prime minister is present Chair of the Council is not decisive, it should be explicitly mentioned. (…) Only if two capacities are at the same scope level the rule is that the first mentioned is coded.” (Koopmans, 2002, p. 24; https://europub.wzb.eu/Data/Codebooks%20questionnaires/D2-1-claims-codebook.pdf) Level of analysis: Claim Scale level: Nominal Reliability: 84%   References Koopmans, R. & Statham, P. (2010) (Eds.). The Making of a European Public Sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kosař ◽  
Jiří Baroš ◽  
Pavel Dufek

Separation of institutions, functions and personnel – Checks and balances – Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia – Short tradition of separation of powers in Central Europe – Fragile interwar systems of separation of powers – Communist principle of centralisation of power – Technocratic challenge to separation of powers during the EU accession – One-sided checks on the elected branches and empowering technocratic elitist institutions – Populist challenge to separation of powers in the 2010s – Re-politicising of the public sphere, removing most checks on the elected branches, and curtailing and packing the unelected institutions – Technocratic and populist challenges to separation of powers interrelated more than we thought


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Gennadiy Chernov

This paper deals with the growing populism movement in Europe. This movement is critical of the European Union and its certain economic and immigration policies. The studies dominant in the field look at different communicative aspects of these phenomena. They point at styles and rhetoric related to populism and failures of the pro-EU forces to communicate effectively why these policies are right and populist citizens are wrong.This paper argues that the problem is not in successes or failures of communication per se, but in shutting out many European citizens from the debate in the public sphere. Not finding reflections of the concerns in the media and policies, and having fewer options to relay their messages to elites perceived to be in power in the EU, these citizens become ‘populist citizens’, and they start voting for populist parties in growing numbers.The article concludes that studies of a communicative aspect of populism need not only discuss mediation, but the policies related to this mediation. Policies may be successful only when people accept them after a free debate. That is what was in the heart of the communicative acts in European history.


2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karolina Stefaniak

Usually the quality of EU translations is not a prominent topic in the public sphere, and when it is brought up as an issue, it is mostly criticized in the context of its allegedly high costs and the apparently low quality. The critics, however, are often unaware of the motives behind the particular translation choices, which they perceive as awkward, unusual or simply wrong. This article argues that these choices result from the particular position of translation in respect to the process of legal drafting in the EU and that of translators in respect to the draftspersons, which results not only in intellectual, but also in ethical dilemmas of the translators. It is further argued that what may be considered an error from an outsider’s point of view is actually a conscious choice made by a translator trying to reconcile various divergent interests.


Author(s):  
Brieuc Lits

This paper seeks to shed light on astroturf lobbying, a strategy that recently invaded the European public. Its purpose is to simulate citizen support for a specific issue whilst keeping its identity secret. The public sphere is envisaged as a constellation of issues around which gravitate interest groups that try to influence the debate, and doing so by carefully frame their messages. In the case of the shale gas debate in the EU, the question that emerged is to see whether astroturf groups convey the economic frames used by the oil and gas companies they represent, or if they mobilised environmental frames such as shale gas opponents. Results show that the astroturf group mostly emphasized the safety of hydraulic fracturing and tried to counter the environmental frames of competing NGOs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document