Transnational partisan networks and constituent power in the EU
Fabio Wolkenstein
The constitutional politics of the EU have been intensely debated in recent times. One widespread perception animating debate is that constitutionalization polity has taken place a largely apolitical fashion, process driven by decisions courts, notably Court Justice EU, which are made isolation from political contestation and popular participation (e.g. Glencross, 2014; Grimm, 2015; Scharpf, 2017). This led to increased calls for politicization order Fabbrini, 2016; Niesen, According this view, citizens should be endowed with ability shape, revise, legitimize evolving settlements. view voiced not only academy. Analogous concerns also expressed among activists, perhaps most prominently pan-European Democracy Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25). DiEM's express ambition establish European constituent assembly may deliberate on how transform into “fully fledged democracy” (DiEM25, 2017; see Marsili & Milanese, 2018). goal power capable revising features at large. normative logic underpinning these scholarly activist perspectives as old modern democracy itself: if democratic then its must source order, subjects whom sovereignty ultimately rests (Cohen, 2012; Habermas, 2011). But exactly we think EU? It one thing stress importance enhanced agency, quite another provide model agency can exercised. As response question, small number legal theorists recently elaborated sophisticated accounts intended resolve complex conceptual issues (Cheneval, 2011; Crum, Patberg, In article I begin outlining accounts. suggest there good reasons favor mixed power, defended Jürgen Habermas (2011) others, over those resting solely peoples member states. However, show existing kind inadequate, they under-theorize real-world come act first place. remainder aims explore abstract principles pouvoir constituant mixte connected practice. look inspiration much-neglected practice—transnational partisanship. Drawing case Christian Democratic transnationalism, specifically discuss partisan networks honed elected representatives different states provided backbone Democrats’ successful exercise supra-state power. distinctive mode cross-border organization coordination helps us imagine today's engage agents politics. sum, article's argument much learn transnationalism when it comes EU. Not does offer promising general organizing coordinating agency; final sections will show, reflecting less attractive permits what mistakes avoided future efforts politicize order. A considered vests people. essence doctrine underpins orders. people accordingly ascribed status power—the agent whose original constitution traced who retains authority decide all design. means two powers: legitimate bring existence, reform foundational norms rule fit (see Arato, Böckenförde, 2006; Kalyvas, 2005; Loughlin, 2014). On face it, difficult make sense concept context (Walker, 2007). For federal state central document some relevant seen product people, but supranational developed relatively loose association nation-states consisting many (on nation-state/member distinction, Bickerton, constitutionalization, 2015). Who might ultimate attributed, thus responsible enacting revision? Two responses question emerged theory literature. assumes “not constituted single or ‘demos’” (Crum, 2012, p. 45) several pouvoirs constituents; namely, demoi Cheneval, Lavenex, Schimmelfennig, 2015, 4). Authors defending sort position follow broadly Rawlsian argumentative strategies, invoking such devices an public reason, about design ought determined Cheneval et al. (2015, 4) write, sovereign treaty ratifications “are [must be] directly accountable organized People.” Different conclusions drawn implications account Some scholars take imply states’ participate direct unmediated fashion 2011, pp. 133–137). Other authors accept representatives, affirm positive role mechanisms play incentivizing aim subject 46–52). Either way, exercising always state's demoi. straightforward reason find strategy appealing locating seems descriptively accurate, inasmuch often said remain “masters treaties” (Grimm, 2016, 56–58); so, point realism, going it. Yet, commentators pointed out, focus domestic constituants faces sizable obstacles. If refers here, typically does, more unrestrained competence revise orders, mean powers operate unbound level? And case, happens conflicts between various arise? no answers questions. Indeed, assumption simply extends beyond state, “the involvement represented just intra-state revision” (Patberg, 2017, 206), veils problems. At work here contestable Schmittian allocation either-or any bound nullify level Cohen, Chapter 2). Aiming overcome second proposed literature topic offers possible way forward. suggestion conceive mixte, understood individuals their dual capacity members demoi, hand, citizens, other. prominent author Habermas. his topic, imagines delegates, personae, (Habermas, 68–70, thought “able address other side striking balance respective interests” 174), so devise rules prevent potential constituants, while ensuring individuals’ expectations vis-à-vis given adequate expression. Importantly, want real social force, extent certain elements current justified “idealised participant's perspective,” require revision 69). His start presumption already assumed character result Treaty Lisbon, conduct rational reconstruction practice law-making implementation post-Lisbon generalized reconstructive approach, Between Facts Norms (1996), entails asking hypothetical delegates would idealized dialogue EU's foundations. No doubt, notion presents significant advance theorizing powerfully problems noted connection seeks action-guiding politics, Habermas's wrong look. For, conceives purely terms, post hoc justificatory device institutional arrangements, effectively accepts plausibly articulated procedures contestation—without supposed apply. strong reading, say perspective solution problem justification lamented. Although generally sympathetic “more democratic” he stops short offering prescriptions That counterfactual terms raises problem. Even approach could settle questions do particular moment, must—at least extent—be adapted historical context. relegating being passive recipients norms, however, leaves little room shifting preferences communities forms collective bear concerning design.1 To understand worry better, consider interpretation dimension mixte. almost exclusively conservationist, imputes stable commitment conserve “revolutionary achievements past” p 70; Von Achenbach, 196). even currently inclined, wish reinvent themselves community, “co-evolution persona” (Niesen, 190). An allows shifts cannot, tied philosophical reflection; active participants constitution-shaping, able translate re-articulations arrangements. Moving perspective, asked inspire world.2 Niesen (2017, 190–191), example, toys idea Habermasian hold empower “future reform,” providing them “new language ground transformative citizen engagement.” Similarly, Patberg 210) interprets inviting reflection “brought world via conscious decision states.” shift emphasis phenomenological helpful alerts thinking normatively desirable reality. Patberg's Niesen's reflections too broad glean concrete urgent explored greater detail concern possibility feasible organizational models EU; ideational resources support sustain pursuit constitution-making; channels sociological legitimacy efforts—roughly, exercises citizens—can expected flow. latter appears special relevance aspires allowing space dynamic change. “deep relationship” (Arato, 131) understanding change follows earlier transcending My burden articulate empirically informed exercised end, hitherto neglected form transnational networks, like-minded spheres coordinate shaping Europe. both polity. allow contestation. properties specified, particular: These desiderata relate called entitlement (or capacity) (1 2) derive suggestions put forth superiority relative unitary ones), (and practices contestation). (3), demand approaching matter angle authors, paying attention practical realized. towards simple. around move fully headway precisely applied touch upon eschew altogether. short, guiding spell out details shapers constitution. develop model, theory-building historically oriented reconstructive. Taking departure past constitution-making constitution-shaping ask blueprint follow. set concentrate on—transnational enables supports effective power—has received shall see, tracing contours unfamiliar illuminate organized. paradigmatic am interested in, burgeoned interwar years following World War II. Transnational party were strategy, arenas deliberation founding common well sites joint action was coordinated. Because dominance parties Coal Steel Community (ECSC) Economic (EEC), turned crucial realizing powerful power.3 Let closely whether satisfy aforementioned desiderata. Conceptually speaking, White (2014, 388) “low-density networks” network generally, Kadushin, centered few nodal activities bridged national parties. What makes especially appropriate (rather than speaking individual encounters) interactions figures gradually became regularized degree institutionalized. associations Nouvelles Équipes Internationales (NEI), founded 1947, gave further structure continuity elites. primary function facilitate shared commitments informal exchange foster discussion politically spheres. topics addressed ranged present jointly espoused project, specific connecting (Gisch, 1990; Kaiser, 2007, esp. 5). Here nature itself visible: partisanship formulating proposals implementing (Rosenblum, 2008; Ypi, 2016). Insofar networked aims, harnessed realize objectives cannot achieve own—for helping synchronize actions execute larger tasks. From organization, why There different, sequential roles performed connection—roles turn. preparatory: time lay groundwork enactment challenges associated transnationally supranationally. Chief amongst lack agreement goals pursued concert. Likewise, decisions, instance, because government contribute solving problems, platforms cross-national aimed devising strategies gain and/or developing vision uphold. practice, straightforwardly interpreted having prepared later Secrétariat International des Partis Démocratiques d'Inspiration Chrétienne (SIPDIC). SIPDIC Catholic 1926 Italian left-wing Luigi Sturzo fostering lasting peace disintegrated 1939, part democratically minded under severe pressure fascist regimes, involved unable agree agenda (Kaiser, 116). although failed exchanges occurred aegis proved crucially important after three senses true. First, historians 117) facilitated helped reluctance organize transnationally—a rooted Church international representation interests ideas. precondition War. cooperation combined strictly pro-democratic value system extended liberal conservative Catholics broaden basis strengthen influence—and required core strategic policy objectives. Though learning did programmatic years, noted, postwar emergence ideological consensus Democrats unification. Third, though formed II, key Democracy—notably Konrad Adenauer Robert Schuman—attended meetings congresses engaged association's deliberations unification implausible assume events shaped views achieving unification, facilitating goals—though mutual NEI “created personal confidence … politicians Schuman, De Gasperi Adenauer, names” 1990, 484). reasoning involves within instantiating two-personae envisaged conception sense, success undermined fact persona—being nation-state—were significance (hypothetical) persona. French Popular Democrats, one, mainly sought use SIPDIC's alliances against revisions Versailles and, thus, German Centre Party Germany generally. created atmosphere mistrust triggered numerous debates primarily assertion interests, rather members. era, where, partisans better visions equilibrium. now turn serve, first. executive instances where putting effect. conditions met possible. pursue Why see: disagreement courses action-impeding implications, sometimes erodes trust associate purpose acting together. example shows immune condition likewise inferred above discussion: forming exert influence laws, Again, easy important. realized, authoritatively (national) laws constitutions. Holding office warranting (sociological) agency: weighty ambitions seek enact arguably support, gained sufficient electoral strength signaling available. When conditions—agreeing access power—are satisfied, springboard cooperative projects across nation-states. involve exactly? ensure simultaneously each state: community major roughly same time, new, enabled reactions temporary failures crises, dissent resistance facing partisans. Reactive instrumental realization projects, fall squarely category action, taking authoritative steps keeping track project. period 1950, dominant force six ECSC EEC. Being legislative states, project building foundation “core Europe”—and enabling factor note cooperation, notably, consultations took newly established Geneva Circle, promoted homogenization allowed “to own peculiar ‘Europe’” (Gehler 2001, 780).4 i
Constellations|Scopus (Elsevier)|Wiardi Beckman Foundation (Wiardi Beckman Foundation)