Democratic backsliding and the poverty of the European Commission’s conception of democracy

The European Commission has had a central role in debates over democratic backsliding in EU member states. But what type of democracy does the Commission uphold? Drawing on an analysis of speeches by European Commissioners, Alvaro Oleart and Tom Theuns write the Commission tends to articulate a technocratic and legalistic conception of democracy. They argue that if the Commission were to adopt a more pluralistic approach, it would be better equipped to tackle democratic backsliding.VI.Veni.201R.061Institutions, Decisions and Collective Behaviou

‘Democracy without politics’ in the European Commission's response to democratic bvcksliding: from technocratic legalism to democratic pluralism

The debate on EU responses to democratic backsliding in EU member states has mostly been anchored on technocratic appeals to the rule of law and judicial independence, and on Poland and Hungary. In this article, we ask: What understandings of democracy have shaped the European Commission's response to democratic backsliding in recent years? After developing an understanding of pluralist democracy, we uncover the way in which the European Commission conceives of democracy through a discourse analysis of European Commissioners' speeches (2018–21) and a normative-theoretical analysis. We identify the Commission's conception as a form of ‘democracy without politics’, and argue that it matches the EU's policy choices in regard to democratic backsliding. We argue that a fuller, healthier and normatively more attractive conception of democracy encompasses more attention to political pluralism, agonistic contestation and the vibrancy of civil society.NWOVI.Veni.201R.061Institutions, Decisions and Collective Behaviou

What von der Leyen's 'State of Union' didn't mention

NWOVI.Veni.201R.061Institutions, Decisions and Collective Behaviou

European Actors and Disinformation: the dispute between fact-checking, alternative agendas and geopolitics

El referéndum del Brexit es un buen ejemplo de la especial vulnerabilidad del proyecto europeo ante la desinformación. Por ello las instituciones han desarrollado una serie de iniciativas durante 2018 para definir una estrategia europea contra la desinformación que enfatiza la responsabilidad de las redes sociales en la denuncia de los contenidos falsos. Además, ante la debilidad de la esfera pública europea, las instituciones europeas apoyan la creación de redes europeas de fact checkers. Esta estrategia implica la denuncia de las mentiras en lugar de una de creación de marcos alternativos, lo que autores como Lakoff (2004) consideran un error desde la perspectiva del framing. Empíricamente demostramos mediante un análisis de las principales redes de actores en este asunto (académicos, fundaciones, think tanks, medios, plataformas de redes sociales y fact checkers) que existe una disputa para definir la mejor forma de combatir la desinformación a escala europeaThe Brexit referendum is a good example of the particular vulnerability of the European project when fighting disinformation. Therefore, EU institutions have developed a series of initiatives throughout 2018 to define a European strategy to counter disinformation that emphasizes the responsibility of social networks in reporting false content. In addition, given the weakness of the European public sphere, the European institutions support the creation of European networks of fact checkers. This strategy implies the denunciation of lies, rather than the promotion of alternative interpretive frames, which authors like Lakoff (2004) consider an error from a framing point of view. Empirically, we demonstrate through an analysis of the main networks of actors on this matter (academics, foundations, think tanks, media, social network platforms and fact checkers) that there is a dispute to define the best way to combat disinformation at the European leve

Framing EU trade policy online: the case of @NoAlTTIP on Twitter

Since the argumentative turn in EU studies, research has shown that civil society activists can challenge frames promoted by EU institutions and incumbent groups, and influence public opinion in the EU. However, most studies of civil society mobilisation on EU issues have focused on the vertical framing of issues from Brussels to national capitals, rarely analysing mobilisation beyond Brussels. This article builds upon ongoing research on Spanish civil society activism on the TTIP (Bouza & Oleart, 2018) and framing EU issues on Twitter (Bouza & Tuñón, 2018), contributing to the study of the role of national activists in the horizontal translation of EU-wide mobilisation to national publics. We argue that national actors play an influential role in the discursive struggle to define ‘Europe’ and the EU in the (national) public spheres (Díez Medrano, 2003). Building on our previous analysis of national activism on TTIP in Spain, we analyse whether activists have engaged in a process of frame bridging (Snow et al., 1986), in order to expand the mobilisation against TTIP towards new issues and constituencies relating to the broader trade strategy of the EU. The present research addresses the role of the Spanish anti- TTIP social movement in the emergence, circulation and bridging of critical frames on the TTIP negotiations in the Spanish Twitter sphere. The article combines quantitative and qualitative methods –network analysis and framing analysis– in order to analyse the role of the @NoAlTTIP network in the building and diffusion of frames challenging the EU institutions discourse on trade in the Spanish context

El punto ciego en democracia de la Comisión de Von der Leyen

NWOVI.Veni.201R.061Institutions, Decisions and Collective Behaviou

What von der Leyen's 'State of Union' didn't mention

NWOVI.Veni.201R.061Institutions, Decisions and Collective Behaviou

El punto ciego en democracia de la Comisión de Von der Leyen

NWOVI.Veni.201R.061Institutions, Decisions and Collective Behaviou

Democratic backsliding and the poverty of the European Commission’s conception of democracy

The European Commission has had a central role in debates over democratic backsliding in EU member states. But what type of democracy does the Commission uphold? Drawing on an analysis of speeches by European Commissioners, Alvaro Oleart and Tom Theuns write the Commission tends to articulate a technocratic and legalistic conception of democracy. They argue that if the Commission were to adopt a more pluralistic approach, it would be better equipped to tackle democratic backsliding.</p