Pathologies of Deliberation in the EU

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00539.x
• Date: 01 January 2011
• Author: Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski
• Published date: 01 January 2011

eulj_53966..79

Pathologies of Deliberation in the EU

Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski*

Abstract: The article explores the ‘dark side’ of deliberation with regard to the EU. In

contrast to the dominant apologetics of deliberation, it argues that even though delibera-

tion might have benevolent effects on decision making in the EU, the convention method

cannot be viewed as a democratic alternative to the intergovernmental conferences. This

is due to the pathologies of deliberation that can only be corrected by applying additional

mechanisms. The article explores the pathologies of deliberation by referring to recent

experience with the convention method applied within the Convention on the Charter of

Fundamental Rights (1999/2000) and the Convention on the Future of the European

Union (2002/2003). It discusses two types of deliberative pathologies including the false

will-formation and the rational hijacking of deliberation which question the validity of

democratic claims made by deliberation theory.

Introduction

The theory of deliberation is one of the most popular developments in the political

science in recent years. Spawn by debates on communicative rationality in political

theory, it finds increasingly numerous applications in political psychology, democracy

research, international relations and European studies.1

In particular with regard to EU studies, arguments of deliberation theory have

recently experienced a surge in attention. Some representatives of the EU deliberation

research posit even a ‘deliberative turn’ in EU studies, suggesting that deliberation

theory has become a new research paradigm and that deliberation practices are a new

feature of EU governance.2The researchers’ interest in deliberation settings is that they

expect them not only to produce legitimate political decisions, but also to enhance the

democratic quality of the EU. The deliberation theory of democracy expects delibera-

tive settings to promote citizen’s discursive ethics, as they exchange arguments in

the public space according to the requirements of communicative rationality: their

* Associate Professor of Political Science, Willy Brandt Centre for German and European Studies, Univer-

sity of Wroclaw, Poland, PhD in political science, research interests include European citizenship, collec-

tive identity in Europe, nation and nationalism in Europe; constitutionalisation of the EU.

1cf, for instance, T. Sulkin and A. F. Simon, ‘Habermas in the Lab: A Study of Deliberation in an

Experimental Setting’, (2001) 22(4) Political Psychology 809; J. Flynn, ‘Communicative Power in Haber-

mas’s Theory of Democracy’, (2004) 3(4) European Journal of Political Theory 433; T. Risse, ‘Let’s Argue!:

Communicative Action in World Politics’, (2000) 54(1) International Organisation 1; D. Panke, ‘More

Arguing than Bargaining? The Institutional Designs of the European Convention and Intergovernmental

Conferences Compared’, (2006) 28(4) Journal of European Integration 357.

2J. Neyer, ‘The Deliberative Turn in Integration Theory’, (2006) 13(5) Journal of European Public Policy

779.

European Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, January 2011, pp. 66–79.

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA