European Union Democracy Research Articles

Everything but liberal – aid and EU democracy promotion in the European neighbourhood

ABSTRACT What types of democracy are impacted by European Union (EU) democracy promotion? Although the EU is a major democracy promoter globally, little is known about which types of democracy it impacts. This article pioneers an examination of the impact of EU aid on V-Dem’s five distinct democracy indices in the European neighbourhood from 2000 to 2020, using both aggregated and disaggregated panel data analysis for a comparative assessment. Based on a novel synthesis of rational choice theory and political legitimacy, the study hypothesizes that electoral democracy will be particularly associated with EU-provided aid. The findings reveal that EU aid is positively associated with electoral, egalitarian, deliberative, and participatory forms of democracy, however show no significant association with liberal democracy. This contribution emphasizes the relevance of disaggregated research to better understand the relationship between aid and democracy and highlights the importance of considering various democracy types when assessing EU democracy promotion.

Disinformation and Incremental Change in European Union Election Observation: A Field Theoretical Perspective

AbstractThis article addresses the puzzle of why there is at best incremental change in European Union (EU) democracy promotion and theorises an instance of such change by examining responses to (online) disinformation in EU electoral observation. It develops a field theoretical approach for the explanation of incremental change, as evident in social media monitoring, in EU election observation. Field theory furthers consideration of the position of actors, social interactions and characteristics of the particular field. On the basis of this theory, conceptualisation of a heterogenous democracy assistance and electoral observation field and an in‐depth study of EU election observation in Tunisia (2019), I argue the EU has responded to disinformation through the imitation of practices and epistemic negotiation. The responses and the incremental changes in EU election observation that evolved reflect the central but contested position of the EU in the field.

Is EU democracy promotion aligned with local media perception in Central Asia? Findings from content analysis

ABSTRACT In the 2019 European Union (EU) renewed Strategy for Central Asia, the promotion of democracy in the post-soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan is singled out as one of the key priorities. This article aims to examine whether there is an alignment between the EU self-perception on democracy promotion and its external perception in local media. The question is addressed through quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the EU key documents for Central Asia and local media outlets from 2019 to 2022, using the Nvivo software. The research findings indicate that both self- and external perceptions align in the context of the EU human rights promotion for Central Asia. Drawing upon these findings, this article argues that the EU democracy promotion endeavours are predominantly grasped in Central Asia within the sphere of human rights, while comprehension of other facets of the EU democracy promotion agenda remains intricate. Consequently, as the EU normative agenda faces ongoing scrutiny within Central Asia, it is advocated that the EU undertake a thorough reassessment of its approach in the region, aiming to foster deeper understanding and alignment with local perceptions.

Reconciling the Interconnectedness and Autonomy of European Union Democracies

Comment les démocraties contemporaines peuvent-elles être « ordonnées au niveau international » de manière à combiner leur interdépendance avec une forme d’autonomie interne où leurs citoyens sont libres, égaux et efficaces dans l’utilisation de leurs démocraties pour s’accorder mutuellement des droits et des obligations, et contrôler leurs propres lois ? J’utilise deux justifications de l’autorité politique pour examiner cette question. L’une, associée à David Hume, suggère une justification instrumentale de l’autorité politique comme moyen de fournir des biens collectifs essentiels. L’autre, associée à Emmanuel Kant, considère que l’autorité politique est justifiée par des droits et des devoirs. J’utilise les deux pour suggérer comment l’Union peut être au service des démocraties membres en conciliant leur interdépendance avec leur autonomie.

Non‐learning Within a Constellation of Communities of Practice: The Case of the EU and Its Democracy Support in the Arab World

AbstractThis article addresses the puzzle of why the European Union (EU) struggles to learn from ineffective attempts to support democratization in the Arab world but instead continuously (re‐)produces democracy support malpractices. To better understand this phenomenon, we draw from practice theory and conceptualize EU democracy support as practices performed by a community of insiders who act within a complex constellation of communities of practice. Due to the way in which communities function, decision‐makers do not critically reflect on the background knowledge on which they base their practices and thus do not learn how to improve them. This constellation model offers a unique take on non‐learning within the EU and in (policy‐making) groups more generally. We illustrate the proposed conceptual framework through an empirical analysis of EU democracy support in Egypt, showing that the EU performs practices similar to those before the 2011 Revolution due to its inability to learn.

Saving Popular Sovereignty From a Slow Death in the European Union

AbstractThe European Union (EU) faces a pressing challenge with democratic backsliding potentially resulting in an authoritarian member state. EU institutions have sought to safeguard member state democracy. Most normative studies submit that the EU can legitimately intervene based on either current treaties or the theory of militant democracy, but they leave unanswered the fundamental question of the EU's normative political authority. I argue that shared popular sovereignty, which entails Europe's peoples directly authorizing the EU, is the most appropriate principle to theorize the EU's political authority for the foreseeable future. This principle results in a duty for the EU to protect its democratic peoples from backsliding governments and an account of who can legitimately decide on whether backsliding is taking place. A comprehensive normative assessment follows on the democratic legitimacy of various democracy protection measures. My argument bolsters the normative case for EU democracy protection.

In What Sense Does Right-Wing Populism Pose a Democratic Challenge for the European Union?

What kind of challenge is right-wing populism for the European Union (EU)? The EU has been frequently criticized by populists and non-populists alike for being a remote technocracy that suffers from serious democratic defects. Democratization relies on popular (and system insider) feedback, to spell out where the shortcomings are, and how these can be rectified. Does populism play this role—is it capable of playing this role—in the EU today? I discuss that under three headings: (1) Is populism a democratizing challenge for the EU? (2) Is populism a democratic challenge for the EU? (3) Is populism an existential threat to the EU? The article finds that populists dismiss the prospects for EU democracy and espouse conceptions of people, community, and values that are out of synch with the EU. Today's populists appear less concerned with abolishing the EU and more bent on altering it to serve their ends.

Who is afraid of emergency politics? Public opinion on European crisis management during Covid-19

After a decade of crisis management, the democratic implications of emergency modes of governance in the European Union (EU) are under the spotlight. The prevailing analysis is critical. Scholars point to an emergent, distinctly European trend of transnational crisis exploitation where elite appeals to exceptional pressures serve asymmetric power and influence, overriding democratic norms and potentially fuelling Eurosceptic backlash. However, the literature does not ask whether citizens consider themselves disempowered by the EU’s emergency politics, with its alleged emphasis on urgency and technocratic problem-solving. The relative symmetry and simultaneity of the Covid-19 crisis across Europe offers an opportunity for an empirical examination of public opinion on traits of emergency politics. We juxtapose the implications of emergency politics for public opinion with the transnational cleavages literature and use survey data from 15 member states on EU- and national-level pandemic responses to examine the competing hypotheses. Our findings indicate perceptions of crisis management are largely determined by prior views on EU integration and democracy. More generally, the results suggest that the transnational cleavage remains overall a key driver and delimiter of Euroscepticism in crisis times. Though there is some variance between emergency politics dimensions, we do not detect a widespread perception of disillusionment motivated by EU emergency rule.

A Radical Democratic Lens to Rejuvenating European Union Democracy Support

This article intervenes in the debates on reforming EU democracy support by offering a “radical reformist” approach. It departs from the observation that literature lacks a sustained theorization of reform which more effectively considers contestation as the very condition of democracy. As such, in contrast to withdrawing democracy from its contested nature, this article presents a theoretical argument, as informed by Chantal Mouffe’s take on radical democracy, through which the EU more democratically can engage with and support the plurality of different contestations of democracy. In particular, a closer engagement with the radical democratic embrace of the political will allow for better reflection on how EU democracy support already is or can become democratic, empowering and receptive to the way democracy is understood locally.

Do European elections enhance satisfaction with European Union democracy?

We provide the first individual-level test of whether holding supranational elections in the European Union fosters satisfaction with European Union democracy. First, we examine whether participation at the European Parliament election fosters satisfaction with democracy and whether, among those who participated, a winner–loser gap materializes at the EU level. Second, we examine under which conditions participating and winning in the election affect satisfaction with European Union democracy, focusing on the moderating role of exclusive national identity. Our approach relies on panel data collected during the 2019 European Parliament elections in eight countries. We demonstrate that while participating and winning increase satisfaction, such positive boost does not materialize among those with exclusive national identity. These findings hold an important message: elections are no cure to deep-seated alienation.

Republicanism, EU democracy and differentiated (dis-)integration

Few debates in political theory are challenged as much by the constant change of their empirical subject as those about democracy in the European Union (EU). With A Republican Europe of States, Richard Bellamy responds to the EU’s post-Lisbon era, which has been characterized by the euro crisis, conflicts over migration, the rise of Euroscepticism and Brexit. Keeping an eye on these contextual conditions and the related legal and political transformations, he has developed a general theory of international democracy aimed at securing non-domination between peoples and between citizens and their representatives at the international level, and elaborated its implications for the EU. The result is a distinctive version of demoi-cracy, whose firm centring on the nation-state as the natural locus of democracy is likely to be controversially discussed. In this article, I raise some critical considerations regarding the design of demoi-cratic institutions, the adequate understanding of EU citizenship and the normative credentials of differentiated (dis-)integration.

Ideas and Interests: European Democracy Aid and the Democracy-Security Dilemma, 1990-2010

Since the end of the Cold War, advanced democracies have enacted explicit strategies of democracy promotion by providing assistance to governments, political parties, and other non-governmental groups and organizations all over the world. This paper examines the factors shaping European Union democracy aid allocation decisions from 1990-2010, weighing the relative impact of ideational concerns (regime type, human rights) and self-interests (political, security, economic). We argue that EU democracy aid reflects a “democracy-security dilemma” as the EU balances ideational reasons for promoting democracy with concerns over political and economic relationships, regional stability, and security. We test our hypotheses with a series of random effects, generalized least squares and Heckman selection models, which provide support for our argument. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for the impact and explanation of EU democracy promotion policies.

Negotiating democracy with authoritarian regimes. EU democracy promotion in North Africa

ABSTRACTIn order to better understand the dynamics of international cooperation on democracy promotion with authoritarian regimes, this article looks into the processes and results of negotiations on democracy (promotion) between the European Union (EU) and two of its North African neighbours (Morocco, Tunisia) in the decade leading up to the Arab uprisings. Asking if, how, and to what effect the EU and its Mediterranean partners have negotiated issues related to democracy promotion, it analyses official documents issued on the occasion of their respective association council meetings in 2000-2010. It shows that partners have indeed addressed these issues since the early 2000s, however, without engaging in substantive exchanges. Most of the time, conflicts have been neither directly addressed nor resolved. Where there are traces of actual negotiations leading to an agreement, these are clearly based on a logic of bargaining rather than arguing. These findings challenge the picture of harmony and cooperation between the EU and Morocco. Furthermore, they point to the low quality of these exchanges which reinforces the dilemma of international democracy promotion in cooperation with authoritarian regimes.

The legitimacy of free trade agreements as tools of EU democracy promotion

This article questions whether the European Union (EU) strategy of using free trade agreements (FTAs) as tools of democracy promotion is, currently, normatively coherent and legitimate. It focuses on FTAs with proximate autocracies and makes four main claims. First, FTAs raise significant legitimacy concerns in that they can ordinarily be expected to generate both economic ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in the target country without democratic processes in place to legitimate these costs. Second, the EU risks empowering autocrats (rather than catalysing democratic transition) in the way it negotiates FTAs. Third, ‘leverage’ strategies of withholding or suspending cooperation as a result of violations of democratic and human rights norms are applied inconsistently by the EU, undermining leverage credibility. Fourth, the best-case impact of regulatory convergence with the EU acquis communautaire on the democratic character of sector-level policymaking is mixed: increased transparency and accountability can improve democratic credentials, while, paradoxically, increased stakeholder participation is normatively suspect in the absence of a democratic framework.

European Union Democracy Promotion and its impact on Civil Society in Central Asia

After a period of relatively small activity in this region, in 2007, the European Union offered a strategy for Central Asia. This strategy addressed many issues, including democratic deficit and human rights violations. The main obstacles to the implementation of the strategy are autocratic tendencies and corruption, the influence of neighbors strongly leaning towards autocracy and the post-Soviet legacy. Additionally, the EU’s activity is overshadowed by the US and has minimal capacity for pursuing its own policy toward Central Asia. Another problem is the fact that after implementing this EU strategy toward Central Asia there are no new initiatives which contribute to more visible European activity in that region.

The EU’s performance in Latin America’s fight against drugs and related organized crime

The European Union (EU) adopted a generous interregional approach towards Latin America over the last decades. In fact, EU foreign policy towards Latin America is almost exclusively focused on purely region-to-region interaction and active support to the various (sub-)regional integration efforts. Latin America is seen as the part of the world where the EU’s interregional agenda should bear the most fruit, since it shares the same values as the EU (democracy, human rights, nuclear non-proliferation and multilateralism) and has a strong will to counter its strong ties with the US. However, even though the EU adopted the same interregional strategy across different policy areas, the level of interregional interaction (and success) vary significantly. This paper argues that in the area of non-traditional security governance, the EU’s Latin American’s interregional approach has been successful in achieving its own-set goals, however, it has not been able to enable a considerable impact on the situation on the ground.

The supranational dimension of voting in national elections across six european democracies: rethinking albert hirschman’s exit, voice and loyalty

This article examines Albert Hirschman’s exit, voice and loyalty hypothesis within a supranational context. It makes use of an original 2012 data set drawn from ‘The Europeanisation of Everyday Life: Cross-border Practices and Transnational Identities among EU and Third Country Citizens’ (EUCROSS) project, which was conducted across six European Union (EU) democracies. The article finds that supranational loyalty to an entity other than one’s own nation state enhances citizen participation in national elections, while greater transnational mobility has no significant impact on national voter turnout. These findings have two important implications. First, supranational loyalties do not always discourage individuals from honouring their national political commitments. Second, member state nationals who are loyal to the EU may not show up at the supranational ballot box if national institutions are perceived to be more powerful to influence decision-making in Brussels.

The European Union's “Comprehensive Approach” in Chad: Securitisation and/or Compartmentalisation?

The European Union (EU) aims for a comprehensive approach to security in developing countries. As a result, attempts have been made to enhance the nexus between the EU's security policy and other policy areas, particularly development, humanitarian assistance, and democratic governance. This article analyses the EU's comprehensive approach in the case of Chad, focusing on two questions. First, has the EU's comprehensive approach been able to supersede the compartmentalisation of the EU's political system? Second, has it led to the securitisation of non-security policy areas? These questions are answered by investigating the nexus between the EU's security, democracy, development and humanitarian aid policies in Chad from 2006 onwards. This analysis confirms the compartmentalisation scenario, especially regarding development and humanitarian aid where the relation with security policies was at times openly conflicting. While the EU's democracy promotion policies are found to be securitised, this is not the case for development and humanitarian aid.

Undermining the transatlantic democracy agenda? The Arab Spring and Saudi Arabia's counteracting democracy strategy

Saudi Arabian foreign policy is often declared to be countering the possible democratic transitions of the Arab Spring. As such, Saudi Arabia has been cast as a “counter-revolutionary” force in the Middle East and North Africa. This article explores the extent to which this has been the case in Egypt and Bahrain, and the extent to which Saudi foreign policy has challenged United States and European Union democracy promotion efforts in those countries. The article highlights how the transatlantic democracy promotion strategy is complicated by a conflict of interests problem, which leads them to promote democracy on an ad hoc and incremental basis. As a result, their efforts and larger strategic thinking are undermined by Saudi Arabia in Egypt. However, in Bahrain, transatlantic democracy promotion is itself muted by the strategic interest in containing Iran. As a result, Saudi Arabia can be seen as a regional countervailing power but this is implicitly in line with transatlantic policy. Tensions with Saudi foreign policy in Bahrain are over how best to manage the uprisings and maintain the status quo, rather than a conflict over political transition.

Not as bad as it seems: EU and US democracy promotion faces China in Africa

The rise of China in Africa is often described as a major challenge to the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) democracy promotion policies. China is accused of providing important volumes of loans, development aid, trade and investments without “political strings” attached, thereby undermining the US and the EU's possibilities to set material incentives for reforms. This article investigates Ethiopia and Angola as two cases where one would expect that the growing presence of China has made it more difficult for the EU and US to support reforms. Empirical findings presented in this article go against this argument. In both countries, the EU and the US face substantial difficulties to make the respective government address governance issues. However, the presence of China has not made it more difficult for the US and the EU to implement their strategies. Instead the empirical analysis suggests that domestic factors in Ethiopia and Angola, notably the level of challenge to regime survival both governments face, influence both governments’ willingness to engage with the EU and US.