Challenging Habermas' response to the European Union democratic deficit

Abstract

Jürgen Habermas' response to the European Union democratic deficit calls for a minimal threshold of democratic legislation through an explicit constitutional founding. He defends a model of freedom as autonomous self-determination by proposing to tie basic rights in the EU to a univocal form of European-wide popular sovereignty. Instead of constructing a common European political identity, I appeal to the novel democratic potential of institutions in the EU such as the Open Method of Coordination for mediating overlapping sovereignties in accord with freedom as non-domination. The concluding example of basic rights to effective participation for immigrants and permanent minorities illustrates the strengths of Iris Young's and James Bohman's republican views of non-domination over Habermas' call for a European-wide collective willing.Key words James Bohman · democratic deficit · European Union · freedom · Jürgen Habermas · non-domination · Open Method of Coordination · republicanism · sovereignty · Iris Young Although the number of European Union (EU) policies and laws that affect the citizens of its member states increases each year, citizens remain skeptical concerning their prospects for real deliberative influence over EU level decision-making. Hence, arises what has come to be known as the democratic deficit. In formulating a response, Jürgen Habermas has called for the European-wide integration of the willformation of EU citizens through the founding of an explicit constitution. According to this minimal threshold of democratic legislation, citizens would authorize the laws and policies to which they are held subject through the creation of institutions that foster European-wide PSC

Why cosmoipolitanism in a post-secular age? Taylor and Habermas on European vs American exceptionalism

“…One alternative response to the growing pluralization of religious forms that Taylor considers at length and attributes to the political theory of Habermas, has been to steer social integration via public law and its democratic institutionalization by means of moral constitutional patriotism. 15 While I will generally agree with Taylor's critique of Habermas' position, Taylor does not fully articulate the implications of his critique of Habermas for answering the original question he raised, specifically as the analysis bears on the role of religion in a globalized domain. As an amendment to his proposals, I will provide an epistemic scorecard for what seems to work best in the competing accounts as we consider where secularization theory must go beyond the EU and US comparisons and into the more diverse global context offered by cosmoipolitanism.…”