ABSTRACT
This collection has brought together scholars interested in very different aspects of European integration. Collectively, however, they demonstrate that the concept of demoi-cracy provides a fruitful analytical lens to interrogate current developments in the European Union (EU). And they point the way to three critical moves in this regard. The first move is from concept to conceptions. The contributors all illustrate the
fact that, as with other abstract and contested concepts, better formulae can be found to encapsulate its essence and many possible conceptions deployed to operationalize it. The second move is from theory to praxis as the contributors engage with the
what and the how of European demoi-cracy and help specify which of its operational features qualify the EU as demoi-cracy in their area of focus. The third move is from comparative statics to an appraisal of demoi-
cratization dynamics i.e., the changing prominence of the EU’s demoi-cratic features over time and the factors that might affect its demoi-cratic transformation. Building on the editors’ and contributors’ insights, I suggest inter-alia three
interim conclusions:
1. Transformative dynamics in a demoi-cracy are about trade-offs and relationships rather than isolated legal-institutional features. The contributions demonstrate that this is not a simple story as epitomized by Borras and Radaelli’s (2014) matrix of demoi-cratic credentials in the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) or the variety of attitudes to the European Parliament (EP) on the part of national parliaments and their constitutive parties discussed by Winzen et al. (2014). Specifically, this collection is premised on the core analytical distinction between two dimensions of integration, one multi-level or vertical and the other multi-centric or horizontal, each of
3. A focus on demoi-cratization ultimately raises boundary questions that are all the more relevant in today’s times of crisis and re-invention. We can identify trends in the EU which both strengthen and weaken its demoi-cratization and may cumulatively change its very nature away from a demoi-cracy in the making. As the editors (Cheneval et al. 2014) aptly stress, whereas the growth of supranational competencies triggers the need for demoi-cracy in the first place, too much growth undermines its foundations: the tension may become too great between the grounding of the EU in its separate demoi and the up-scaling of the institutions and policies they are being asked to share. We need to recognize when this happens.
