Democratic accountability, political order, and change : exploring accountability processes in an era of European transformation

223 Pages·2017·0.98 MB·English

by  Olsen

OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/1/2017,SPi
Democratic Accountability, Political Order, and Change
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/1/2017,SPi
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/1/2017,SPi
Democratic Accountability,
Political Order, and Change
Exploring Accountability Processes in
an Era of European Transformation
Johan P. Olsen
1
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/1/2017,SPi
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©JohanP.Olsen2017
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2017
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016954544
ISBN 978–0–19–880060–6
PrintedinGreatBritainby
ClaysLtd,StIvesplc
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/1/2017,SPi
ForJamesG.March
agreatfriend,teacher,colleague,andco-author
throughouthalfacentury
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/1/2017,SPi
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/1/2017,SPi
Preface and Acknowledgments
Accountabilityregimesarecrucialforthelegitimacyofapolityandthisbook
examines democratic accountability as a mechanism by which citizens are
supposed to influence and control their elected representatives, non-elected
officials,andotherpowerholders.Moreprecisely,Ifocusontheinterrelations
between democratic accountability, political order, and orderly change, that
is,howdemocraticaccountabilityprocessesareaffectedbyandaffectpolitical
association and the social basis of political order, political organization and
theinstitutionalbasisoforder,andpoliticalagencyandthebehavioralbasis
oforder.
Iseethegrowingnumberofaccountabilitydemandsincontemporaryrepre-
sentative democracies as part of a legitimacy crisis, a loss of confidence in
institutionsandleaders,andastruggleoverthetermsofpoliticalorder.Ihold
thataccountabilitytheoryisonlylikelytobeusefulformakingsenseofthose
accountability processes if there is a re-examination and reassessment of the
possibilities and limitations of the key ideas and assumptions of mainstream
rationalchoice,principal–agentapproachestodemocraticaccountability.
Aspiring to make a modest contribution to such a development I offer an
institutional approach that assumes that political orders can be more or less
settled. Accountability processes can be order transforming as well as order
maintaining.Eventsarenotnecessarilyaproductofthedeliberatechoicesof
identifiable actors, it is not always easy to conclude who is responsible and
should be held to account, and rational adaptation based on experiential
learning is not guaranteed. Representative democracies struggle to reconcile
a culture assuming human control and accountable actors with the observa-
tionthatitisnotoriouslydifficulttoidentifyobjectivelywhoisresponsiblefor
specificeventsinapoliticalworldofinterdependency,interaction,andcom-
promises. A possible consequence of this tension is that political talk and
political action are separated and inconsistent, sometimes creating demands
forreducingthegapbetweentalkandactionandsometimesnot.Massmobil-
izationrelatedtothetermsofpoliticalorderisrareandtakesplaceonlyunder
specificconditions,ratherthanbeingcommonplace.
Based upon these assumptions I argue that we can learn two things from
accountability processes, especially in an era of major changes in terms of
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/1/2017,SPi
PrefaceandAcknowledgments
political order. First, our understanding of the interrelationship between
accountability,politicalorder,andorderlychangecanbeimproved.Second,
I claim that accountability processes can teach us something about political
life in general. New insight invites reconsideration of standard understand-
ingsandthevocabularyofdemocraticorganizationandgovernance,includ-
ing what terms such as accountability, democracy, politics, the sovereign
state, and constitutional choice come to mean and imply under different
andshiftingcircumstances.
Thisbook,then,canbereadinrelationtotwodifferentaimsandtimeand
spaceframes.Thefirst,reflectedinthesubtitleofthebook,istoshedlighton
thepoliticsofaccountabilityinaspecificeraofEuropeaninstitutionaltrans-
formation. The second isto explore what studies of accountability processes
cantellusmoregenerallyaboutpoliticalorderandorderlychange,andhow
they bring up enduring and foundational democratic challenges: how and
why humans constitute themselves in political communities; how peaceful
coexistence, cooperation, and conflict resolution can be secured among
people with competing conceptions of good society and good governance;
howsharedpurposes,trust,solidarity,deservedlegitimacy,andallegiancefor
the political order can be built and maintained; how different institutional
arrangementscontributetodemocraticpoliticsasawaytoruledividedsoci-
etieswithoutundueviolenceoreliminationofdiversity,individualfreedom,
andinfluence;andhowaheterogeneousandpluralisticsocietycanbetrans-
formed into a viable political community constituted on principles and
rulesthathavenormativevalidityinthemselves,beyondtheirspecificpolicy
outcomes.
Although this book is centered on Europe, worries about the health of
representative democracy and its key institutions and leadership are not
limited to Europe. For instance, the US Social Science Research Council’s
program “Anxieties of Democracy,” launched in June 2015, is motivated by
aconcernaboutwhetherthecoreinstitutionsofestablisheddemocraciesthat
connect citizens and civil society to the political system—elections, mass
media,politicalparties,interestgroups,socialmovements,andlegislatures—
can capably address large problems in the public interest (<http:/www.ssrc.
org/programs/view/anxieties-of-democracy/>). And, of course, the need to
rethink and reassess the actual organization, working, and change of formal
legalinstitutionalarrangementslabeled“democracy”isevengreaterinother
partsoftheworld.
This is my third book with Oxford University Press in the last decade and
therearebothcontinuitiesandchangesbetweenthebooks.Allofthemstart
out from an organization theory-based institutional perspective on political
organizationandorganizing.TheytrytomakesenseoftheEuropeanUnionas
a grand-scale experiment in political organization, while also aiming to
viii
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,24/1/2017,SPi
PrefaceandAcknowledgments
explore some general theoretical and conceptual issues in an empirically
informedwayonthebasisoflessonsfromtheEuropeanUnionasanunsettled
anddynamicpolity.
Thefirstbook,EuropeinSearchofPoliticalOrder(2007),providedadiscussion
ofhowdemocraticpolitiestrytocopewithavarietyoftensionsthatdonot
haveanyuniversallyacceptedandenduringsolutions,yethavethepotential
to change the political organization of Europe. These include tensions
between unity and diversity, citizens and their helpers, democratic design
andhistoricaldrift,andbetweendifferenttypesofcoexistingpoliticalorders.
Inthesecondbook,GoverningthroughInstitutionBuilding(2010),Iarguedthat
if the future of democracies depends on the quality of their political institu-
tions,improvedunderstandingofhowinstitutionsofgovernmentareorgan-
ized,work,andchangemaybeachievedbystudyinglarge-scaleinstitutional
designsandreforms.Thisthirdbookbuildsonthetwoothers,buthereIgive
prioritytounderstandingtheinteractionbetweendemocraticaccountability,
politicalorder,andorderlychange.
Amajordifferencebetweenthetwofirstbooksandthisoneisrelatedtothe
changingpoliticalclimateintheWesternworld.Thevisionofliberalconsti-
tutionaldemocracyandacapitalistmarketeconomyastheendofhistoryhas
been replaced by disillusion with representative democracy and pessimism
aboutthefuture.Overthelastdecade,publicopinioninEuropehas,duetoa
variety of crises, changed from fairly widespread optimism about the Euro-
pean project to an atmosphere characterized by indifference, or discontent
andprotest.Ashasoftenbeenthecase,therehasbeennolackofbigwordsto
describetheproblemsfacingtheEuropeanUnion.Thereisperceiveddisinte-
gration, a systemic crisis of confidence in political institutions and leaders,
renewednationalism,increasingsocioeconomicinequality,growingpolariza-
tion,andextremism.Thereishatespeech,violence,half-truths,andliesrather
than honest and fair debate. Most recently, the Brexit referendum has been
interpretedasaturningpointinthehistoryofEuropeanintegrationandeven
inthehistoryofWesterndemocracy.
Whilethereisfairlybroadagreementthatsomethinghasgonewronginthe
union, opinions differ as to where the problems are located, what caused
them,andhowtheycanbemended.MostEuropeansreportthattheybelieve
in “democracy,” but they disagree about what the term means and implies
andthereislimitedtrustintheinstitutionsandleadersofpolitiesthataspire
todemocraticlegitimacy.Forexample,forsomeBrexitrepresentsaverdicton
the elites both in Brussels and Westminster. Leaders are divorced from the
everydaylifeofordinarypeopleandinparticularfromthesituationofpeople
struggling with unemployment, poverty, and insecurity. It is dangerous to
continue to ignore or explain away their discontent, anger, distrust, and
protests.Thevisionofanevercloserunionhastobeburied.Forothers,Brexit
ix