Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Participatory Democracy in the European Union : a Civil Perspective
Authors: Busschaert, Gautier
Supervisors: Cygan, Adam
Award date: 1-Feb-2014
Presented at: University of Leicester
Abstract: Because representative democracy may be reaching its limits, the EU has turned to participatory democracy. The participatory turn is torn between a moderate and a radical version. The moderate version revitalises the Community Method (CM) by formalising the dialogue of European institutions with organised civil society, while the radical version celebrates its demise as a chance for national governments to coordinate their policies in partnership with civil society through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). In order to assess the participatory turn, this thesis takes the view that civil society is a pluralist sphere of participation between state and market wherein deliberative democracy realises its full potential. Democratisation proceeds whenever civil society manages to assert influence over state and market without falling prey to their colonising tendencies. This emancipatory process has so far taken place within the context of national welfare states. The fundamental question raised by the turn to civil society is whether multilevel social Europe will be able to continue this trend. Therefrom arise three research questions which this thesis explores in detail. Firstly, does European economic law colonise civil society? Secondly, is social Europe democratic in the sense that it opens European governance to the democratic influence of civil society? And finally, is social Europe effective, that is, able to protect civil society from European economic integration? The first question is essential, for a civil society colonised by markets would be in no position to legitimise social Europe at a time where it more than ever needs its protection. The last two questions require that radical OMC be compared with moderate CM, so as to critically assess whether the former performs better than the latter.
Type: Thesis
Level: Doctoral
Qualification: PhD
Rights: Copyright © the author. All rights reserved.
Appears in Collections:Leicester Theses
Theses, School of Law

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2014BUSSCHAERTGPhD.pdf2.59 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.