Crowd-sourced legislation and politics: the legitimacy of constitutional deliberation in Romania

Constitutional reform is a tedious process that requires long periods of time, a relatively broad consensus among political actors, and, often, popular approval. In spite of these, Romania has changed its constitution once (2003) and witnessed several unsuccessful revisions. The most recent attempt, in 2013, introduced a deliberative dimension in the form of a constitutional forum. This article investigates the legitimacy of this deliberative practice using a tri-dimensional approach: input, throughput, and output legitimacy. Our qualitative study relying on direct observation and secondary data analysis concludes that, although input and throughput legitimacy were achieved to a great extent, the output legitimacy was low

Introduction: democratic deliberation and under-represented groups

The key principles of democratic deliberation are the considered judgement and inclusion. However, research shows that not all categories are involved in this process. In particular, the groups that are under-represented in day-to-day politics are also less likely to make their voice heard in deliberation. So far, we know little about if and how deliberation fosters the involvement of under-represented groups. This symposium aims to address this gap in the literature and seeks to generate new ideas on the topic. It brings two contributions to the debate about the involvement of under-represented groups in deliberation: it identifies the means through which various deliberative practices can involve members of under-represented groups and explains how and why members of under-represented groups participate or refuse/are refused participation in deliberation

Religion, homosexuality, and the EU: grasping the beliefs of Romanian orthodox priests

The European Union and the Church often have contrasting positions toward the rights, freedoms, and status of sexual minorities. Earlier research illustrates that the Church opposes the EU as a promoter of homosexuality and brings a critique based on national identity. In spite of these debates, we know very little about how the priests perceive the relationship between homosexuality and the EU. The priests' beliefs and opinions can provide insights into what is beyond the official Church statements. This article seeks to address that gap in the literature and analyzes the ways in which the Romanian Orthodox priests link the EU and the topic of homosexuality. Our qualitative study uses inductive thematic analysis and draws on 18 semi-structured interviews conducted with priests in December 2020–February 2021. The findings indicate the existence of three main points of criticism against what the respondents perceive as an increasing pressure by the EU to adopt a favorable treatment of homosexuals

Faith in a new party: the involvement of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the 2020 election campaign

The intensity and nature of ties between the Church and political parties was covered by a rich literature. However, we know relatively little about why the Church would support a newly emerged political party formed in a competitive space, in which other parties had in the past enjoyed the Church’s support. This article aims to explain why many members of the Romanian Orthodox Church campaigned for the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) in the 2020 legislative elections. Our analysis relies on 18 semi-structured interviews conducted with Orthodox priests from different parts of the country. The findings illustrate that the traditionalist priests supported the party. These priests felt cornered by the existing anti-clerical attitudes in Romanian society, declared themselves disappointed by the mainstream parties for abandoning the Church, and perceived the EU as a threat to the traditional Romanian values and way of life

AU POUVOIR PAR LE PEUPLE. Le populisme saisi par la théorie du discours

International audienceThe charismatic personalization of power, the use of tele-politics now on the internet, rampant anti-elitism, participatory debates (face-to-face or online), referendum fever, citizen and popular flash mobs, "People-isation" of public space, the exaltation of the virtues of ordinary people - this is too short a list of the developments that have taken place in Russia as well as in the United States, both in Brazil and in Indonesia, both in France than in Romania. With this proliferation of alternative forms of collective expression and public communication, populist (or rather neo-populist) logic is making its way through its flexibility (“catch-all”) and its availability to take individuals and , therefore, the People, such as they are.In this essay, the author offers a framework for analyzing the populist phenomenon and the passage from populism to neo-populism by employing a methodology that falls within the theory of discourse.La personnalisation charismatique du pouvoir, l’emploi de la télé-politique désormais sur internet, l’antiélitisme rampant, les débats participatifs (face-à-face ou en ligne), la fièvre référendaire, les flash-mobs citoyens et populaires, la « people-isation » de l’espace publique, l’exaltation des vertus des gens ordinaires – voilà une liste trop courte des évolutions qui ont eu lieu tant en Russie qu’aux Etats-Unis, tant au Brésil qu’en Indonésie, tant en France qu’en Roumanie. Avec cette prolifération des formes alternatives d’expression collective et de communication publique, la logique populiste (ou plutôt néo-populiste) se fraye un large chemin grâce à sa flexibilité (« fourre-tout ») et à sa disponibilité de prendre les individus et, donc, le Peuple, tel qu’il est. Dans cet essai, l’auteur offre une grille d’analyse du phénomène populiste et du passage du populisme au néo-populisme en employant une méthodologie qui relève de la théorie du discours

‘Never just a local war’: explaining the failure of a mayor’s recall referendum

International audienc

A Rising Populist Star: The Emergence and Development of the PPDD in Romania

International audienc

Poorly designed deliberation: explaining the banlieues' non-involvement in the Great Debate

In 2019, the French Government organized a wide public consultation named the Great Debate. Promoted as a deliberative practice that could bring together various segments of society, it was characterized by feeble involvement of the people living in the banlieues – densely populated, economically marginalized, socially deprived and ethno-culturally different peripheral areas of large cities. This article aims to explain the reasons for which people in the banlieues of Paris did not participate in the Great Debate. Drawing on in-depth interviews and one focus group conducted in the spring of 2019, we distinguish between four main causes of non-participation: the re-legitimation function of the debate, its lack of inclusiveness, mismatch of demands, and format of the deliberative setting

Qu’est-ce que le néo-populisme? Quelques expliquations factuelles pour un éclaircissement théorique

International audienc

Eine Geschichte von Spaltungen und Fusionen. Politische Parteien und Wahlen in Rumänien, 1990 bis 2021

International audienc