scholarly journals The Twin Challenges to Separation of Powers in Central Europe: Technocratic Governance and Populism

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kosař ◽  
Jiří Baroš ◽  
Pavel Dufek
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Central Europe ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Eu Accession ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Eu

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

The Democratic Function of the Public Sphere in Europe

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 673-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayte Peters
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Democracy ◽  
European Public ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
The Eu

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.

scholarly journals The EU's Democratic Deficit and the Public Sphere

2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (779) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Werner Müller
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Public Spheres ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Eu

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.

scholarly journals Speakers (European/Global Public Sphere)

10.34778/2zk ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Lichtenstein
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Research Question ◽  
News Story ◽  
European Identity ◽  
Priority Rules ◽  
The Public ◽  
National Quality ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Eu

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.

In Praise of Separation

2019 ◽  
pp. 102-120
Author(s):  
Jonathan H. Marks
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Public Health Agencies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Agencies ◽  
Competition Laws ◽  
The Public Sphere

This chapter offers a novel theoretical approach to the ethical hazards arising from public-private interactions. It outlines the role that separation of powers plays in the public sphere, regulating interactions between different branches of government. Antitrust or competition laws play a parallel role in the private sphere, regulating interactions among corporations. Given these norms for addressing reciprocity and influence in the context of public-public and private-private interactions respectively, the chapter makes the case for analogous norms to govern public-private interactions. Rationales for public-private partnerships (PPPs) are analogous to claims that have been decisively rejected when offered as justifications for violations of separation of powers. These rationales similarly fail to justify the public-private partnership paradigm. If public health agencies wish to preserve their independence, integrity, and credibility, they should maintain arm’s length relationships with industry. The chapter outlines a set of principles that can help public officials interpret existing norms (such as conflicts of interest policies) and develop new norms to govern interactions with the private sector.

scholarly journals European Populism: A Communicative Aspect

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Gennadiy Chernov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
European History ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Communicative Acts ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Media ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Eu

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.

Democracy and constitutional reform: Deliberative versus populist constitutionalism

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 1116-1131
Author(s):  
Simone Chambers
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Constitutional Reform ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
Popular Participation ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People ◽  
Important Means ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Citizen’S Participation

Constitutional reform has been an important means to push populist authoritarian agendas in Hungary, Poland, Turkey and Venezuela. The embrace of constitutional means and rhetoric in pursuit of these agendas has led to the growing recognition of ‘populist constitutionalism’ as a contemporary political phenomenon. In all four examples mentioned above, democracy, popular sovereignty and direct plebiscitary appeal to the people is the rhetorical and justificatory framework for constitutional reform. This, I worry, gives democracy a bad name and reinforces the widespread suspicion that citizens should not be directly involved in constitutional reform as popular participation can lead to dangerous majoritarianism and is easily manipulated by elite actors seeking to weaken constitutional checks and balances. But the problem, I argue, is not inherent in citizen’s participation in constitutional reform. In contrast to populist constitutionalism, I develop an idea of deliberative constitutionalism in which citizens can participate in constitution-making and reform without hijacking constitutionalism for majoritarian, nationalist or anti-pluralist ends. Deliberative constitutionalism as I understand it has four features: a Habermasian co-originality thesis that articulates the interdependence of democracy and liberalism mediated by a conception of discourse; a proceduralized idea of popular sovereignty that reduces the tension between appeal to the people and respect for pluralism; the centrality of the public sphere over the voting booth as the cradle of democracy; institutional innovations intended to include citizens in constitutional reform (including through referendums) but avoid majoritarian and populist pathologies.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Margit Cohn
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
Short Overview ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Made In

The introduction to the book offers a short overview of the contents of the book. This book is a treatise on the executive branch, which addresses, theoretically and comparatively, the nature of the executive as a body that is the dominant player in the public and political sphere but is also required, under the separation of powers principle, to be subservient to the law made by legislature according to the constitution of a polity. Three arguments are made in the book. First, to grasp the nature of executive power, one should reject hierarchic accounts of the public sphere: searches for the wielder of the final word should be replaced by a model which rests on networks and inter-branch tensions. Secondly, under this ‘internal tension’ vision of constitutionalism, the executive branch is to be considered as concurrently subservient to law and dominant over it. Finally, much of public law is shaped in ways that enable this seeming contradiction. The thirteen forms of ‘fuzzy’ law presented in the book, generated by constitutions, legislators, and executives, enable the executive to act relatively unfettered without losing the legitimacy arising from the existence of formal law, which, in effect, sets limited constraints on executive action. Ranging from open-ended or semi-written constitutions to unapplied legislation, these forms of legality span both constitutional and administrative aspects of public law. The introduction briefly discusses the structure of the book, which is divided into four parts.

scholarly journals Multilingual Legal Drafting, Translators’ Choices and the Principle of Lesser Evil

2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karolina Stefaniak
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Public ◽  
Conscious Choice ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Lesser Evil

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document