The legitimacy of experimentalist governance : powered by honest disagreement

! ! !

The!Legitimacy!of!Experimentalist!Governance:!

Powered'by'Honest'Disagreement'

M.Sc. Thesis Political Theory

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Submitted on: June 23rd, 2017

Supervised by: Dr. J.H. Zeitlin

Second Reader: Dr. E. Rossi

max.rozenburg@gmail.com +31 (0) 6 58 88 19 28 Molukkenstraat 561 1095 BJ Amsterdam

Abstract!

!

!

This! thesis! focuses! on! the! internal! legitimacy! of! experimentalist! governance.!Experimentalist!governance!is!rooted!in!Pragmatism,!follows!a! four=stage!recursive!decision=making!model!and!has!been!characterised!as! a! directly! deliberative! polyarchy,! which! implies! a! departure! from! the! norms!of!representative!democracy!and!hence!warrants!an!assessment!of! its! legitimacy.! To! assess! the! internal! legitimacy! of! experimentalist! governance,!this!thesis!will!explore!Habermas’!account!of!the!legitimization! crisis! and! the! role! of! communicative! action! in! legitimization.! The! understanding! of! legitimacy! presented! in! this! paper,! however,! departs! from! Habermas’! understanding! of! discourse! ethics! and! subsequent! theories!of!deliberative!democracy!in!one!fundamental!respect:!!it!assumes! the!impossibility!of!consensus!but!sees!honest!political!disagreement!as!an! asset! of,! rather! than! a! limit! to,! legitimate! decision=making.! This! understanding!of!legitimacy,!then,!doubles!as!an!understanding!of!how!an! experimentalist! regime! could! be! legitimized.! This! thesis! will! conclude! by! formulating!two!fundamental!legitimizing!conditions,!transparency!and!the! non=existence! of! barriers! to! entry,! and! apply! these! to! experimentalist! governance!as!a!decision=making!model.!!

Table!of!Contents!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Introduction!

!

The! European! Commission! is! a! legislative! laboratory.! The! complexity! of! European! society!increasingly!forces!policymakers!to!abandon!hierarchical,!command=and=control! governmental!models.!The!diverging!national,!regional!and!local!interests!of!and!within! member=states,!as!well!as!varying!regulatory!capacities!on!different!governmental!levels! complicate! European! decision=making.! No! one! size! fits! all.! The! political,! social! and! cultural! diversity! of! European! society! demands! flexible! and! context=specific! policy= making.!!

! At! the! heart! of! the! shift! from! command=and=control! governmental! models! towards! looser,! context=specific! policy=making! –! dubbed! the! “governance! turn”! by! Kohler=Koch!and!Rittberger!(2006)!–!lays!the!emergence!of!experimentalist'governance.! Experimentalist! governance! relies! on! “framework! rule=making! and! revision! through! a! recursive! review! of! implementation! experience! in! different! local! contexts”! (Sabel! &! Zeitlin,! 2010)! and! is! a! four=stage! recursive! decision=making! model.! First:! broad! framework! goals! and! metrics! of! success! are! established! in! a! deliberation! between! central! units,! local! units! and! representatives! of! civil! society.! Second:! local! units! autonomously! pursue! these! framework! goals! in! ways! they! deem! appropriate! to! their! local!context.!Third:!these!units!regularly!report!on!their!performance!and!participate!in! peer!review!–!to!learn!from!more!successful!local!units,!or!advise!less!successful!ones.! Fourth:!the!framework!goals!and!metrics!are!periodically!revised!in!light!of!encountered! problems! and! possibilities! –! recursively! feeding! back! into! the! cycle! (Sabel! &! Zeitlin! 2008;!2010).!

This!stylised!conception!of!the!experimentalist!decision=making!process!entails! a!departure!from!the!norms!of!representative!democracy!and!hence!begs!the!question:! is'experimentalist'governance'legitimate?! Hence,! the! goal! of! this! thesis! is! to! assess! the! internal! legitimacy! of! experimentalist! governance.! That! is,! to! assess! whether! experimentalist! governance! reflects! principles! of! legitimacy! in! its! own! functioning.! To! achieve! this,! this! thesis! will! explore! Habermas’! understanding! of! the! legitimization! crisis:!the!notion!that!communicative!action!needs!to!be!reintegrated!into!the!political! ‘system’! to! confer! legitimacy! to! its! decision=making.! I! will! argue! experimentalist! governance! is! an! instance! of! communicative! action,! but! unlike! other! theories! of! communicative! action! discussed! in! this! thesis! –! discourse! ethics! or! deliberative! democratic!theory!–!it!specifically!focuses!on!the!added!value!of!disagreement!–!rather! than!agreement!–!in!the!decision=making!process.!This!distinction!allows!me!to!present! a! conceptualisation! of! legitimacy! that! embraces! the! plurality! of! discourses! in! society,!

and!sees!it!as!an!asset,!rather!than!a!limitation!to,!decision=making.!This!understanding! of!legitimacy!doubles!as!an!understanding!of!how!experimentalist!governance!could!be! legitimized,!and!entails!two!legitimizing!conditions:!transparency!and!a!lack!of!barriers! to!entry.!The!goal!of!this!paper!is!threefold:!to!explore!how!experimentalist!governance! relates! to! other! instances! of! communicative! action;! to! assess! if! experimentalist! governance! can! be! legitimized! in! its! own! right;! and! to! apply! this! understanding! of! legitimacy!to!experimentalist!governance!to!give!direction!to!its!legitimization.!

Chapter!1:!Experimentalist!Governance

!

The! clarity! of! an! answer! is! dependent! on! the! clarity! of! the! question.! The! first! two! chapters!of!this!thesis!aim!to!refine!the!subject,!goal!and!scope!of!this!thesis.!In!this!first! chapter,!I!start!by!assessing!the!respective!governance!and!experimentalist'modifiers!of! experimentalist! governance.! Then,! I! will! explore! the! decision=making! method! of! experimentalist! governance,! which! can! be! conceptualised! as! a! four=stage! recursive! cycle.! In! the! last! part! of! this! chapter,! I! explore! experimentalist! governance’s! characterisation!as!a!directly!deliberative!polyarchy!and!argue!that!this!characterisation! warrants!an!evaluation!of!experimentalist!governance’s!internal!legitimacy.!

!

1.1'European'Governance'

Governance!is!a!notoriously!slippery!concept:!“it!is!frequently!used!among!both!social! scientists! and! practitioners! without! a! definition! all! agree! on”! (Pierre! &! Peters,! 2000,! p.7).!In!its!broadest!sense,!governance!can!be!understood!as!the!methods!and!structures! of! norm=production.! The! vagueness! of! this! conceptualisation,! however,! means! that! in! many! cases! “the! line! is! hard! to! draw”! (Bartolini,! 2011,! p.7).! Governance! is! therefore! often! defined! by! dichotomy:! “’bottom=up’! versus! ‘top=down’;! 'soft'! versus! ‘hard’;! 'self= governing!and!networks'!versus!'hierarchies!and!bureaucracies’;!'deliberations,!reason= giving!and!voluntary!acceptance'!versus!'formal!command!and!control';!'private'!versus! 'public'”! (Olsen! 2009;! see! also:! Bartolini! 2011,! p.! 2=3).! The! dichotomy! generally! employed!in!discussions!about!European'governance!–!the!superset!of!experimentalist! governance!–!is!one!between!‘governance’!versus!‘government’,!where!the!latter!refers! to! the! norm=production! of! hierarchical,! command=and=control! public! institutions! with! access! to! hard,! erga' omnes! legal! instruments.! Then,! a' contrario' sensu,! governance! is! understood! as! the! flexible! co=creation! of! norms! –! ranging! from! binding! decisions! to! recommendations!–!that!involves!actors!from!both!the!private!and!the!public!sphere.!! ! The!European!Union!has!been!characterised!as!a!system!of!‘governance’!due!to! its! “unique! set! of! multi=level,! non=hierarchical! and! regulatory! institutions”! and! due! to! employing! a! “hybrid! mix! of! state! and! non=state! actors”! when! formulating! goals,! recommendations!and!regulations!(Hix,!1998,!p.39).!There!is!an!inevitable!simplification! involved!with!making!such!an!assertion,!as!the!European!Union!also!relies!on!top=down! decision=making,! but! there! seems! to! be! a! gradual! shift! from! ‘government’! to! ‘governance’! in! European! decision=making! (Craig! &! de! Burca,! 2011),! dubbed! the! ‘governance! turn’! by! Kohler=Koch! and! Rittberger! (2006).! That! is,! there! is! a! shift! away! from! hierarchical,! prescriptive,! binding! decision=making! models,! to! more! flexible! and!

context=specific!modes!of!governance.!For!example:!the!European!Commission!and!the! European! Parliament! regularly! consult! private! groups! for! their! general! or! context= specific! expertise! when! formulating! policies,! and! employ! ‘comitology! committees’! to! implement!policies!more!effectively!on!a!national!and!local!level!(Jeorges!&!Vos,!1999).! Governance! has! even! found! its! way! into! European! external! policies:! enlargement= policies! and! the! European! Neighbourhood! Policy! are! increasingly! formulated! in! consultation!with!local!private!actors!(Lavanex!&!Schimmelfennig,!2009).!! ! Précis:' = Governance'is'understood'as'the'flexible'coGcreation'of'norms'that'involves'actors' from'both'the'private'and'the'public'sphere.' ' 1.2'Experimentalism'

Conceptualisations! of! the! sui'generis! nature! of! European! governance! include! ‘network! governance’!(Eising!&!Kohler=Koch,!1999),!‘multi=level!governance’!(Marks!et!al,!1996),! ‘soft!governance’!(Borrás!&!Conzelmann,!2007),!and!‘experimentalist!governance’!(Sabel! &!Zeitlin,!2012).!The!latter,!experimentalist!governance,!is!the!focus!of!this!thesis!and!is! firmly!rooted!in!the!Pragmatic!philosophical!tradition!(Sabel!&!Zeitlin,!2012,!p.170).!The! Pragmatic!maxim,!as!formulated!by!Charles!Peirce,!is!as!follows:!“Consider!what!effects,! which! might! conceivably! have! practical! bearings,! we! conceive! the! object! of! our! conception!to!have.!Then,!our!conception!of!those!effects!is!the!whole!of!our!conception! of! the! object.”! (1878;! see! Hookway,! 2012;! emphasis! added).! The! implication! of! this! maxim! is! two=fold.! First:! since! the! conception! of! the! object! is! the! sum! of! its! practical! effects,! the! nature! of! an! object! only! reveals! itself! through! empirical! and! experimental! inquiry!into!its!practical!effects.!Second:!since!this!empirical!and!experimental!inquiry! might! reveal! new! practical! effects! of! the! object,! Pragmatism! assumes! the! nature! of! an! object!to!be!variable,!as!opposed!to!the!static!conception!of!reality!proposed!by!Realists! and! Idealists.! In! other! words,! all! conceptions! of! an! object! are! to! be! considered! temporary,! as! new! practical! effects! of! an! object! might! be! uncovered.! In! practice,! this! means!experimentalist!governance!takes!an!experimental!and!investigative!approach!to! decision=making,!systematically!provokes!doubt!about!its!own!assumptions!and!treats! all!decision=making!as!provisional,!incomplete!and!correctable.!Further,!experimentalist! governance! produces! a! cyclical! readjustment! of! its! ends! and! means! by! comparing! different!experimental!means!of!achieving!a!singular!end!(Sabel!&!Zeitlin,!2012,!p.!170).!! ! Experimentalist! governance’s! decision=making! architecture! reflects! its! investigative! nature.! It! can! be! conceptualised! as! a! four=stage! recursive! cycle! in! which,!

first,! broad! framework! goals,! as! well! as! measures! for! gauging! their! achievement,! are! established! in! a! deliberation! between! public! and! private! actors.! Second:! ! lower=level! actors!–!such!as!national!ministries,!regulatory!agencies!or!networks!of!self=regulating! private! actors! –! autonomously! pursue! these! framework! goals! in! those! experimental! ways! they! deem! most! suitable! to! their! local! context.! Third:! in! exchange! for! this! autonomy,!lower=level!actors!regularly!report!on!their!performance,!participate!in!peer! review,! learn! from! more! successful! units,! advise! less! successful! ones! and! hold! each! other!accountable.!Finally,!the!framework!goals!and!their!metrics!are!periodically!and! revised! in! a! deliberative! manner! and! adjusted! to! take! into! account! encountered! problems! and! possibilities! (Sabel! &! Zeitlin,! 2008,! p.273=274).! Experimentalist! governance!is!recursive:!the!output!of!one!experimentalist!cycle!becomes!the!input!for! the!next!one.! ! Précis:' = Experimentalist'governance'is'rooted'in'Pragmatism.' = Experimentalist'Governance'is'a'fourGstage,'recursive'decisionGmaking'model.' ! 1.3'Directly'Deliberative'Polyarchy'

Sabel! and! Zeitlin! identify! three! central! characteristics! of! experimentalist! governance.! First:! Decision=making! is! deliberative.! Meaning! that,! ideally! and! epigrammatically,! actors’! preferences! are! transformed! through! “no! force! except! that! of! the! better! argument”! (Habermas,! 1975,! p.! 108).! ! A! more! in=depth! discussion! of! deliberative! decision=making! will! follow! in! the! second! chapter! of! this! thesis.! Second:! one! of! the! scope=conditions!of!experimentalist!governance!–!along!with!‘strategic!uncertainty’!–!is! a!polyarchic!distribution!of!power.!That!is,!authority!is!not!monopolized!by!one!central! authority,! but! is! dispersed! into! multiple! groups! and! individuals.! Concretely:! norm= creation!can!happen!at!multiple!territorial!and!political!levels:!from!the!subnational!and! the! national,! to! the! supranational! (Hooghe! &! Marks,! 2001,! p.4),! and! there! is! high! interdependence!between!actors!on!each!legislative!level.!This!dispersion!of!power!may! not!only!take!on!a!vertical!shape,!but!can!also!take!on!a!horizontal!one.!That!is,!authority! can!also!be!horizontally!segmented!in!a!network!of!private!actors!within!one!policy=field! or! industry! that! co=create! some! of! the! rules! and! norms! that! govern! them! (Eising! &! Kohler=Koch,! 1999).! Polyarchic! regimes! are! not! necessarily! democratic! –! even! though! democratic!regimes!are!necessarily!polyarchic!–!and!polyarchy!can!be!compatible!with! an! inequality! in! formal! political! influence! of! individuals.! A! polyarchic! distribution! of! power,! however,! does! have! instrumental! success! in! achieving! a! perpetual! balance! of!

power,!which!creates!the!necessary!conditions!for!the!protection!of!basic!rights!(Cohen! &!Sabel,!1997;!see!also,!Dahl,!1971).!!

! The!third!and!most!controversial!characteristic!of!experimentalist!governance!is! that!it!entails!a!departure!from!the!norms!of!representative!democracy!(Sabel!&!Zeitlin,! 2008,!p.273).!There!exists!a!widely!held!belief!that!laws!are!legitimate!if!and!only!if!they! “exhibit! a! pedigree! extending! from! a! sovereign! people! assembled! in! the! electorate! through!a!legislative!act!as!eventually!adjusted!by!administrative!elaboration”!(ibid.).!In! the! experimentalist! cycle,! however,! legislative! action! is! not! representative! of! the! avowed! interests! of! an! electorate! as! expressed! through! majority! voting.! Rather,! goals! are! formulated! in! a! deliberation! between! units,! and! pragmatically! pursued! by! lower= level!administrators!that!are!not!directly!accountable!to!the!general!population.!Hence:! the! experimentalist! cycle! has! been! characterised! as! a! directly' deliberative' polyarchy! (ibid,! p.276;! see! also,! Cohen! &! Sabel,! 1997).! It! is! a! decision=making! model! wherein! actors! use! their! direct,! concrete! experiences! to! deliberatively! generate! new! goals,! metrics! of! success! and! possibilities! to! achieve! these! goals,! and! where! power! is! distributed! in! a! polyarchic! manner.! This! characterisation! highlights! the! urgency! of! assessing! the! legitimacy! of! experimentalist! governance,! as! it! is! generally! held! that! democratic! representation! and! accountability! of! governing! intuitions! to! an! electorate! are!necessary!conditions!for!legitimate!norm=creation!and!decision=making.!

! Précis:'

= Experimentalist' governance' has' been' characterised' as' a' directly' deliberative' polyarchy' = Experimentalist'governance'departs'from'the'norms'of'representative'democracy,' warranting'an'assessment'of'its'legitimacy.' ' 1.4'Dynamic'Accountability' Let!us!first!assess!how!concerns!about!the!accountability!of!experimentalist!governance! are!addressed.!“Accountability!in!representative!democracy!follows!the!principal=agent! model”!(Sabel!&!Zeitlin,!2008,!p.303).!That!is,!an!agent!is!allowed!to!make!decisions!on! behalf!its!principal,!but!is!also!held!accountable!if!its!decisions!do!not!coincide!with!the! interest!of!its!principal.!In!representative!democracy,!an!electorate!–!a!principal!–!grants! its!legislature!–!an!agent!–!a!political!mandate.!This!legislature!–!a!principal!–!delegates! the!execution!of!its!political!mandate!to!an!administrator!–!an!agent.!In!these!instances,! the! principal! reviews! the! agent’s! fidelity! to! its! instructions! and! holds! the! agent! accountable! for! its! performance,! either! by,! for! example,! removing! the! agent! from! its!

position! or! by! demanding! justification! for! its! actions! (Grant! &! Keohane,! 2005,! p.! 29).! The! former! has! been! called! sanctionGbased' accountability! and! is! the! application! of! ‘appropriate’,! hard! sanctions! when! monitoring! the! activities! of! an! agent! reveals! misconduct.!The!latter,!dubbed!trustGbased'accountability!relies!on!soft!discipline,!which! remains!as!thin!as!possible!to!not!interfere!with!the!internal!motivations!of!the!agent!to! pursue! the! principal’s! goals! (Mansbridge! 2014,! p.! 8).! Sabel! and! Zeitlin! (2008)! mainly! employ! the! latter! in! what! they! call! dynamic' accountability.' They! argue! that! the! distinction! between! agent! and! principal! fades! in! the! context! of! experimentalist! governance.!Instead,!networks!of!peers!hold!one!another!accountable:!individuals!need! to! explain! and! justify! their! choices! and! actions! –! they! need! to! give! reasons! for! their! actions!–!to!their!direct!peers,!who!are!in!a!prime!position!to!evaluate!them,!both!due!to! their!expert=understanding!of!the!policy=area,!and!due!to!their!insight!into!the!context!in! which! the! decision! is! taken.! ! Dynamic! accountability! in! the! context! of! experimentalist! governance!is!“a!machine!for!learning!from!diversity”!(Sabel!&!Zeitlin,!2008,!p.276),!and! “anticipates!the!transformation!of!rules!in!use”!(ibid.!p.305).!Further,!it!builds!an!esprit' de' corps! among! peers,! reinforces! their! professional! integrity! and! fosters! an! intrinsic! motivation! for! individuals! to! pursue! and! satisfy! their! goals! (Mansbridge! 2014,! p.! 11).! Empirically,! this! peer=review! approach! to! accountability! “routinely! results! either! in! revisions! of! EU! directives,! regulations,! and! administrative! decisions,! or! in! the! elaboration! of! revisable! standards! mandated! by! law! and! the! enunciation! of! new! principles”! (Sabel! &! Zeitlin,! 2008,! p.! 276).! Hence,! it! could! be! argued! that! dynamic! accountability!“creates!and!supports!a!selection=!and!trust=based!accountability![that!is]! more!efficient!than!a!regime!primarily!based!on!sanctions”!(Mansbridge,!2014,!p.!18).!!! ! Dynamic!accountability!is!both!empirically!and!theoretically!a!viable!alternative! to! the! principal=agent! model! of! accountability! underlying! representative! democracy.! However,!the!question!of!experimentalist!governance’s![democratic]!legitimacy!remains! unanswered!even!if!concerns!about!its!accountability!seem!unmerited.!Experimentalist! governance!is!not!intrinsically!democratic.!With!a!certain!sense!for!drama,!it!could!even! be! labelled! as! a! “supranational! or! transgovernmental! conspiracy! against! democracy”! (Sabel! &! Zeitlin,! 2008,! p.277).! The! experimentalist! cycle! does! impinge! upon! the! foremost!principle!of!democracy:!that!all!citizens!are!jointly!and!equally!authors!of!the! laws! that! they! are! equally! subject! to.! It! has! been! argued! that! experimentalist! governance,!while!not!being!intrinsically!democratic,!“destabilises!entrenched!forms!of! authority”! (ibid.! p.313),! which! reinforces! the! democratic! process.! Experimentalist! governance! can! generate! the! information! necessary! for! an! electorate! to! grant! the! legislature! a! well=considered! mandate.! It! explicitly! highlights! feasible! alternatives! to!

existing! legislative! practices,! and! can! hence! destabilize! entrenched! expressions! of! authority.! However,! it! seems! problematic! to! assess! the! legitimacy! of! experimentalist! governance! through! the! lens! of! representative! democracy! for! two! reasons.! First:! experimentalist!governance!is!part!of!an!entirely!different!governance!paradigm:!that!of! deliberative! decision=making! –! or! more! accurately,! that! of! communicative' action.! It! seems! therefore! more! appropriate! to! approach! the! question! of! the! legitimacy! of! experimentalist!governance!from!this!framework.!Secondly,!and!more!importantly,!the! destabilization! argument! does! not! tell! us! anything! about! the! internal! legitimacy! of! experimentalist! governance;! it! does! not! tell! us! whether! experimentalist! governance! reflects! the! principles! of! legitimacy! in! its! own! functioning.! In! my! opinion,! it! seems! unsustainable! to! argue! experimentalist! governance! contributes! to! the! legitimacy! of! a! political!system!if!it!cannot!be!legitimized!in!its!own!right.! ! Précis:'' = Dynamic'accountability'is'both'theoretically'and'empirically'a'feasible'alternative' to'the'principalGagent'model'of'accountability.' = Experimentalist'governance'can'destabilize'entrenched'forms'of'authority,'but'this' seems'insufficient'to'legitimize'experimentalist'governance' ' '

Chapter!2:!Legitimacy!

To!recapitulate,!my!research!question!is:!is'experimentalist'governance'legitimate?'After! defining!experimentalist!governance,!it!is!necessary!to!discuss!the!second!component!of! this! question:! legitimacy.! In! this! second! chapter,! I! will! first! present! a! broad=stroke! is= ought!dichotomy!of!legitimacy!and!show!the!limitations!of!both!sides!of!this!dichotomy! respectively.! Then,! I! will! present! Habermas’! second=order! conception! of! legitimacy,! starting!with!a!discussion!of!his!understanding!of!rationality,!followed!by!a!discussion!of! his! conceptualisation! of! communicative! action,! and! ending! with! his! system=life=world! distinction.! I! will! then! take! Habermas’! discourse! principal! as! a! starting! point! for! a! threefold!distinction!of!types!of!communicative!action:!discourse=based!communicative! action,! deliberative! democracy=based! communicative! action! and! finally,! as! my! own! interpretation,!disagreement=based!communicative!action.!!

!

2.1'IsGOught'Legitimacy'

Legitimacy! is! a! subtle! concept.! It! is! related! to! popular! consent,! justice! and! accountability,! but! is! arguably! distinct! from! all! three.! In! its! broadest! sense,! an! assessment! of! legitimacy! is! an! assessment! of! the! acceptability! of! authority.! In! social! scientific! literature,! legitimacy! is! often! approached! descriptively.! Max! Weber! conceptualised! legitimacy! as! Legitimitätsglaube.'That! is:! a! belief'in! the! acceptability! of! political! authority! (Weber,! 1991! [1918],! p.213).! In! this! descriptive! view! of! legitimacy,! political!authority!is!legitimate!if!the!governed!and!the!governing!believe!expressions!of! authority! are! acceptable.! Weber! sees! three! sources! of! legitimacy:! (1)! traditional! legitimacy:!the!notion!that!political!authority!is!perpetual!and!therefore!legitimate!–!for! example,!a!feudal!regime;!(2)!rational=legal!legitimacy:!legitimacy!that!is!derived!from!a! system! of! norms! and! rules! –! for! example,! a! democratic! regime;! and! (3)! charismatic! legitimacy:! legitimacy! that! is! derived! from! the! personality! of! the! governing! –! for! example,! a! dictatorial! regime! (Weber,! 1991,! p.216).! Weber’s! understanding! of! legitimacy!has!been!highly!influential!in!social!scientific!literature!over!the!past!century.! From!Lipset!(1958),!to!Merelman!(1966)!and!from!Schaar!(1969)!to!Suchman!(1995):! descriptive!accounts!of!legitimacy!typically!assume!political!authority!to!be!legitimate!if' and'only'if!the!governed!believe!regimes!exercise!their!authority!legitimately!–!“that!is!all! there!is!to!it”!(Schaar,!1969,!p.284).!These!descriptive!accounts!of!legitimacy!have!been! criticised!as!being!of!limited!evaluative!use.!As!Beetham!provokingly!put!it:!“taken!to!its! logical!conclusion,![the!Weberian!account!of!legitimacy!implies!that]!the!reason!for!the! collapse! of! the! communist! regimes! in! Eastern! Europe! in! 1989! lays! in! a! deficiency! of!

public!relations”!(1991,!p.9).!Descriptive!accounts!cannot!tell!us!anything!about!the!pro' tanto'moral!duty!of!the!governed!to!accept!the!authority!of!the!governing:!they!do!not! allow!for!a!moral!evaluation!of!a!regime.!Instead,!descriptive!assessments!of!legitimacy! are!generally!ex'post!characterisations!of!a!regime,!where!legitimacy!is!assessed!in!terms! of! its! source! =! for! example,! whether! it! is! traditional,! rational=legal! or! charismatic! –! as! well!as!a!formulation!of!indicators!of!its!acceptability!=!indicators!such!as!voter!turnouts,! civil!unrest!or!the!amount!of!coercive!power!employed!by!a!regime.!

! In!political!philosophy,!an!assessment!of!legitimacy!is!generally!considered!to!be! an!evaluation!of!the!pro'tanto'moral!duty!of!the!governed!to!obey!the!authority!of!the! governing.!In!other!words,!it!adds!a!distinct!moral!quality!to!the!concept!of!legitimacy:!it! is! an! assessment! of! the! moral' acceptability! of! norm=! and! rule=creation! by! a! political! authority.!In!this!view,!de'facto!political!authority!can!exist!without!being!legitimate.!In! contemporary! theories! of! legitimacy,! the! terms! democracy! and! legitimacy! appear! together!so!often!it!may!seem!like!they!have!taken!on!each!other’s!meaning.!In!a!more! accurate! sense,! however,! most! –! although! by! no! means! all! –! normative! theories! of! legitimacy!roughly!equate!legitimacy!to!theories!of!justice!The!question!whether!there!is! a!pro'tanto!moral!obligation!to!obey!a!regime!can,!after!all,!be!rephrased!as:!are!the!rules! imposed! by! a! regime! just?1_{!Allen! Buchanan’s! theory! of! legitimacy! is! an! example! of! an!} influential!account!of!legitimacy!that!is!based!on!a!theory!of!justice,!and!that!explicitly! concludes! that! “only! democratic! governments! can! be! legitimate”! (2002,! p.689).! He! argues! for! formal' equality' of' persons! as! an! independent! normative! standard! and! formulates!a!theory!of!justice!and!legitimacy!accordingly.!Buchanan!argues!for!a!Robust' Natural'Duty'of'Justice!–!namely!equality!of!persons!–,!which!“supplies!a!weighty!moral! reason! why! citizens! should! support! a! wielder! of! political! power! that! satisfies! three! conditions”! (ibid,! p.703).! The! three! conditions! he! formulates! are:! (1)! protection! of! human! rights;! (2)! providing! this! protection! through! processes! and! institutions! that! respect! formal! human! equality;! and! (3)! not! having! usurped! its! political! powers! unlawfully!(ibid,!p.703=705).!In!other!words:!Buchanan!takes!an!independent!normative! standard! [equality' of' persons],! translates! this! to! an! understanding! of! justice! [Robust' Natural' Duty' of' Justice]! and! by! applying! it! to! a! political! regime! builds! a! theory! of! legitimacy.! This! example! of! a! theory! of! legitimacy! is! one! of! many! that! take! political! equality!to!be!the!most!important!normative!value!to!assess!the!legitimacy!of!a!regime,! and! hence! conclude! that! only! democratic! regimes! can! be! legitimate! (Kolodny,! 2014;! Christiano,!2008).!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1_{!The!implication!of!this!statement!is!not!that!morality!and!justice!are!interchangeable!terms.!Justice!is,!in!} my!opinion,!a!distinctly!political!virtue,!whereas!morality!concerns!itself!with!a!much!larger!set!of!human! behavior.!

! The!main!strength!of!these!conceptualisations!of!legitimacy!is!that!they!allow!for! a! moral! evaluation! of! a! regime,! but! they! also! pose! a! problem:! the! independent! normative! standard! employed! to! come! to! a! theory! of! legitimacy! does! injustice! to! the! notion! of! moral,! political! and! historical! pluralism.! For! example:! a! theory! of! legitimacy! based!on!the!independent!normative!standard!of!equality!of!persons!necessarily!implies! that!theocratic,!feudal,!or!technocratic!regimes!are,!by!their!very!definition,!illegitimate.! This!notion!is!further!illustrated!by!the!on=going!debate!concerning!the!legitimacy!of!the! European! Union,! which! often! articulates! –! mostly! critical! –! views! on! the! legitimacy! of! EU=regulation! by! assessing! the! EU’s! adherence! to! democratic! values! such! as! electoral! representation! (Weiler! et! al,! 1995;! Scharpf,! 1999;! Moravcsik,! 2002;! Schmidt,! 2006;! Føllesdahl! &! Hix,! 2006;! Kohler=Koch! &! Rittberger! 2007;! Hix,! 2008).! Hence:! Jürgen! Habermas!posed!himself!the!following!question:!“is!there!an!alternative!to!this!historical! injustice!of!general!theories![of!legitimacy],!on!the!one!hand,!and!the!standardlessness! of!mere!historical!understanding!on!the!other?”!(1984,![1981]!p.205).!A!secondary!aim! of! this! thesis! is! therefore! to! present! an! account! of! legitimacy! –! understood! as! the! acceptability! of! political! authority! –! that! is! of! evaluative! value,! while! being! mindful! of! moral! pluralism.! The! strategy! employed! to! achieve! this! is! to! formulate! a! content=thin,! second=order! theory! of! communicative! action,! based! on! Habermas’! understanding! of! legitimacy.!! ! Précis:' = In'its'broadest'sense,'legitimacy'refers'to'the'acceptability'of'political'authority.' ' 2.2'Communicative'Action'and'Discourse'Theory' To!work!towards!Habermas’!understanding!of!legitimacy,!it!is!necessary!to!explore!his! micro=theory! of! rationality! first,! as! presented! in! the! first! volume! of! The' Theory' of' Communicative' Action.! Habermas! presents! an! account! of! rationality! that! is! intersubjective,!practical,!and!inherently!tied!to!a!capacity!to!learn.!Positivist!knowledge! is!tied!to!rationality:!“the!abstract!concept!of!the!world!is!a!necessary!condition!if![…]! acting! subjects! are! to! reach! understanding! among! themselves”! (1984,! p.13),! but! rationality! is! ultimately! about! the! capacity! to! reach! “the! ultimate! telos”! of! human! communication:! mutual! understanding! (1984,! p.12).! To! reach! mutual! understanding,! actors!must!be!able!to!recognize!intersubjective!truths,!such!as!shared!social,!ethical!and! aesthetical!values!(1984,!p.!24).!Rationality!is!a!practical!virtue:!“Rationality!has!less!to! do! with! the! possession! of! knowledge! than! with! how! speaking! and! acting! subjects! acquire! and! use! knowledge”! (1984,! p.8,! emphasis! added).! Lastly:! rational!

communication! is! inherently! interwoven! with! a! capacity! to! learn:' ”we! call! a! person! rational! who! […]! expresses! reasonable! opinions! […];! but! this! rationality! remains! accidental!if!it!is!not!coupled!with!the!ability!to!learn!from!mistakes,!from!the!refutation! of! hypotheses! and! from! the! failure! of! interventions“! (1984,! p.18).! In! other! words:! rationality! also! entails! a! responsibility! for! a! rational! listener! to! allow! himself! to! learn! from!a!rational!speaker.!!

! When! rational! actors! engage! with! one! another! with! the! purpose! of! reaching! mutual! understanding,! and! cooperate! on! the! basis! of! that! mutual! understanding,! they! engage! in! ‘communicative! action’,! as! opposed! to! ‘strategic! action’.! Strategic! action! is! a! situation!in!which!actors!are!not!so!much!focused!on!reaching!mutual!understanding!as! they! are! on! fulfilling! their! individual! interests.! This! does! not! necessarily! imply! that! actors!will!not!cooperate!on!the!basis!of!strategic!concerns,!but!rather!that!cooperation! through!strategic!action!occurs!if!actors!deem!cooperation!to!be!in!their!individual!best! interests.! By! contrast:! communicative! action! is! based! on! a! mutual! understanding! that! cooperation! is! inherently! valuable! and! that! its! goal! is! the! product! of! rationally! motivated! agreement.! To! that! end,! communicative! action! is! both! rational! and! consensual.!Actors!are!in!strong!agreement!that!the!method!and!purpose!of!cooperation! are! justified! through! intersubjective,! practical! and! learning=based! rationality.! In! pluralistic!societies,!however,!this!kind!of!consensual!agreement!is!not!always!possible.! In! this! case,! the! demands! of! communicative! action! are! either! weakened! or! entirely! discarded,! and! actors! and! their! methods! of! cooperation! retort! back! to! the! sphere! of! strategic! action.! This! micro=level! distinction! between! communicative! and! strategic! action!is!the!basis!for!Habermas’!understanding!of!the!distinction!between!the!‘system’! and!the!‘life=world’,!which!is!in!turn!the!basis!for!his!understanding!of!legitimacy.! ! Précis:'' = Habermas'distinguishes'between'communicative'action'and'strategic'action' ! 2.3'The'System'and'the'LifeGWorld' In!the!second!volume!of!The'Theory'of'Communicative'Action,!Jürgen!Habermas!presents! an! analytic! distinction! between! the! ‘life=world’! and! the! ‘system’.! The! latter! denotes! a! ‘material! reproduction! context’! of! society,! whereas! the! former! denotes! the! ‘symbolic! reproduction! context’! of! society.! That! is:! the! ‘system’! consists! of! those! modes! of! coordination! that! have! a! distinctly! strategic! quality,! and! in! which! communication! is! based! on! non=linguistic! or! quantifiable! media.! In! contrast:! the! ‘life=world’! consists! of! those!modes!of!coordination!that!have!a!distinct!communicative!and!consensual!quality,!

and!in!which!communication!is!based!on!mutual!understanding!and!shared!systems!of! linguistic!and!moral!meaning!(1987,!chap.!6).!The!theoretical!core!of!this!distinction!is! explicitly!based!on!Talcott!Parsons’!AGIL=function!(ibid.!chap.!7.1),!even!though!it!turns! its!purpose!on!its!head.!Parsons!identifies!four!functions!that,!in!his!view,!create!a!stable! social! equilibrium:! 1)! [A]daptation! [which! is! dependent! on! the! medium! of! money];! 2)! [G]oal!attainment![which!is!dependent!on!the!medium!of!political!power];!3)![I]nfluence! [in! a! distinct! non=political! and! non=economic! sense.! That! is:! influence! dependent! on! personal! loyalty];! and! 4)! Va[L]ue=commitments! [in! a! distinct! moral! sense].! The! point! here! is! not! to! further! flesh! out! the! implications! or! internal! workings! of! this! AGIL= function,!but!to!take!them!as!a!clarification!of!the!distinction!between!the!life=world!and! the! system.! Habermas! observes! a! fundamental! difference! between! the! [AG]! media! –! media! of! ‘strategic! action’! or! ‘the! system’! =,! and! the! [IL]! media! –! media! of! ‘communicative! action’! or! ‘the! life=world’.! [AG]! are! quantitative! media! (ibid.).! That! is,! both!economic!and!political!power!can!be!quantified!in!modern!societies!–!in!amount!of! money!or!number!of!votes!–!and!the!influence!on!society!is!directly!proportional!to!the! quantity!of![A]!and/or![G].!By!contrast:![I]!and![L]!are!qualitative!media!that!cannot!be! expressed!in!raw!numbers,!but!can!only!be!understood!on!an!inter=human!basis.!

! The! life=world! and! systems! distinction! postulated! by! Habermas! is! an! essential! building! block! for! his! theory! of! legitimacy.! Habermas! argues! that! contemporary! legitimation=crises! can! be! explained! through! the! lens! of! this! model.! That! is,! the! legitimation!crisis!is!explained!through!his!perception!that!the!system!colonizes!the!life= world:!the!notion!that!the!sphere!of!strategic,!quantitative!action!increasingly!occupies! the!sphere!of!communicative,!qualitative!action!(Habermas,!1975![1973],!p.!9).!The!key! to! understanding! the! legitimization! crisis! is! the! understanding! that! the! legitimacy! of! [AG]!is!entirely!dependent!on!its!resonance!in![IL].!Quantitative!media!are!dependent!on! the!qualitative!understanding!of!the!value!and!consequences!of!its!quantification.!To!put! it! more! simplistically:! money! and! votes! are! entirely! worthless! if! there! is! no! mutual! understanding! about! the! value! and! consequences! of! having! either.! The! legitimization! crisis,!then,!occurs!when!the!system!occupation!the!life=world!in!those!spheres!in!which! there!is!no!mutual!understanding!about!the!value!and!consequences!of!its!manifestation.! An!additional!issue!it!that!the!system!is!distinctly!non=communicative!–!its!only!inherent! purpose! is! multiplication! based! on! strategic! action! –! which! implies! it! has! no! available! mechanisms! to! legitimize! itself! (ibid.! p.! 17).! As! long! as! [AG]! is! not! understood! as! an! expression! of! [IL],! its! legitimacy! is,! according! to! Habermas,! doubtful.! Habermas’! proposed!solution,!then,!is!to!re=integrate!the!life=world!into!the!system.!Since!the!life= world!consists!of!communicative!action,!only!communicative!action!has!the!potential!to!

regenerate!the!legitimacy!of!the!system.!Before!assessing!the!concept!of!communicative! action!in!a!political!context,!let!us!assess!where!experimentalist!governance!finds!itself! in!the!system–life=world!distinction.!At!first!glance,!it!might!seem!that!experimentalist! governance!is!a!further!colonization!of!the!life=world.!After!all,!it!further!quantifies!the! decision=making! process.! It! formulates! quantifiable! metrics! of! success! that! are! employed! by! administrators! to! hold! their! peers! accountable.! However,! upon! closer! inspection! experimentalist! governance! is! a! clear! instance! of! communicative! action.! Metrics!of!success!are!formulated!in!a!deliberation!between!actors,!and!are!justified!in! terms! of! a! mutual! linguistic,! moral! and! pragmatic! understanding! of! what! ‘success’! entails.! In! the! experimentalist! cycle,! actors! cooperate! under! a! mutual! understanding! that! cooperation! is! inherently! valuable,! as! it! allows! actors! to! learn! from! one! another.! Further,!experimentalist,!dynamic!accountability!is!based!on!reason=giving!(see!Chapter! 1.3)! and! it! is! hence! capable! of! regenerating! its! influence! and! value=commitments! [IL]! through!communicative!media.!

! !

Précis:'

= Habermas' argues' legitimization' crises' occur' when' the' system' –' the' realm' of' strategic'action'–'is'no'longer'seen'as'an'expression'of'the'communicative'values'of' the'lifeGworld.'

= Experimentalist'governance'is'an'instance'of'communicative'action.' '

2.4'Discourse'Theory'of'Morality'and'Politics'

Habermas’! theory! of! communicative! action! ultimately! implies! that! legitimacy! is! dependent! on! the! capacity! of! actors! to! recognize! an! intersubjective! foundation! that! justifies! systems! of! social,! economic! and! political! cooperation.! For! Habermas,! the! necessity! to! integrate! communicative! action! into! the! system! entails! a! discursive! approach!to!decision=making.!This!is!not!to!say!that!Habermas!argues!that!all'decision= making!needs!to!be!discursive.!To!ground!his!idealised!understanding!of!communicative! action! in! our! institutional! reality,! Habermas! postulates! a! view! in! which! deliberative! discourse!develops!in!and!next'to!the!sphere!of!political!institutions,!where!it!challenges! or! reaffirms! strategic! decision=making! whence! appropriate.! In! essence,! Habermas’! understanding!of!legitimacy!can!be!traced!back!to!his!discourse'principle'(D):!“just!those! action=norms!are!valid!to!which!all!possibly!affected!persons!could!agree!as!participants! in! rational! discourses”! (1996,! p.! 107).! The! legitimizing! conditions! expressed! in! the! discourse!principle!can!be!interpreted!in!a!variety!of!ways,!but!I!will!take!it!as!given!that! actionGnorms!to!refer!to!all!those!‘rules,!recommendations!and!regulations!by!a!political!

authority’! and! valid! to! mean! ‘being! legitimate’.! What! we! are! left! with! are! the! more! controversial!terms:!all,!and!discourse.!Let!us!first!assess!discourse,!as!this,!to!Habermas,! is! the! basis! for! his! theory! of! legitimate! decision=making.! As! stated! earlier,! Habermas! takes!an!intersubjective!and!practical!approach!to!rationality!that!is!inherently!tied!to!a! capacity!to!learn.!This!conception!of!rationality!reflects!onto!his!conception!of!discourse.! ! Habermas! understanding! of! argumentation! is! a! quintessential! aspect! of! his! understanding! of! discourse.! Discourse! is,! in! essence,! “that! type! of! speech! in! which! participants! thematize! contested! validity! claims! and! attempt! to! vindicate! or! criticize! them!through!arguments.”!(1984,!p.18)!According!to!Habermas,!“It!is!constitutive!of!the! rationality! of! the! utterance! that! the! speaker! raises! a! criticisable! validity! claim! for! a! proposition,!a!claim!that!the!hearer!can!accept!or!reject!for!grounded'[translated!from! begründet]'reasons”!(1984,!p.11).!In!other!words:!speech!acts!necessarily!involve!claims! that! are! in! need! of! justification! –! that! is,! arguments! –,! and! the! quality! of! discourse! is! dependent! on! the! validity! of! its! justifications.! These! justifications,! again,! do! not! necessarily!need!to!be!positivist.!In!line!with!Habermas’!characterization!of!rationality!a! justification!can!also!be!ethical,!aesthetical,!social,!religious!or!personal.!Arguments!even! include! those! instances! in! which! an! actor! “makes! known! a! desire! or! an! intention,! expresses!a!feeling!or!a!mood,!shares!a!secret,!confesses!a!deed!and!is!able!to!reassure! critics! in! regard! to! the! revealed! experience! by! drawing! practical! consequences! from! them”!(1984,!p.15).!There!are!three!basic!validity!claims!at!stake!in!any!discourse:!“the! truth! of! statements,! the! rightness! of! actions! and! norms,! [and]! the! authenticity! of! expressions”! (ibid.! p.29).! The! first! one,! truth,! is! conceptualised! as! the! “truth! of! propositions”,!or!the!“efficacy!of!teleological!actions”!(ibid.!p.!23).!In!other!words,!truth! is!about!a!statement’s!factual!resonance!in!reality.!Rightness'refers!to!the!“rightness!of! norms! of! action”! and! is! distinctly! moral! (ibid.! p.! 24).! That! is,! the! validity! of! a! claim! is! dependent! on! a! mutual! understanding! of! what! is! socially! considered! to! be! morally! ‘right’.!Authenticity!is!the!“sincerity!of!expressions”!(ibid.!p.!27).!In!other!words,!actors! must! be! able! to! assume! that! others! are! not! being! deceitful! –! either! intentionally! or! unintentionally.! In! developing! an! understanding! of! legitimate! decision=making,! Habermas! specifically! distinguishes! between! morality! and! politics! –! or! as! he! calls! it! “moral!discourse!and!legal=political=discourse”.!

! Habermas!is!indebted!to!the!Kantian!tradition,!which!has!implications!for!both! his! understanding! of! legitimacy! in! two! ways.! 1):! Kant! heavily! resonates! in! Habermas’! conceptualisation! of! moral! discourse.! Kantian! ethics! assumes! that,! guided! by! the! categorical! imperatives,! each! rational! individual! would! reach! the! same! conclusions! about! what! moral! duty! entails.! That! is,! Kantian! ethics! assumes! the! existence! of! a!

universal! moral! perspective! –! a! notion! that! can! be! and! has! been! criticized! as! being! untenable!in!modern!pluralist!societies.!Hence,!to!accommodate!moral!pluralism!while! staying! true! to! his! Kantian! views,! Habermas! takes! a! discursive! approach! to! this! conviction,!as!exemplified!by!his!discursive!principle!of!universalization!(U):!“A![moral]! norm! is! valid! just! in! case! the! foreseeable! consequences! and! side=effects! of! its! general! observance! for! the! interests! and! value=orientations! of!each! individual!could! be!jointly!accepted! by!all!concerned! without! coercion”! (1998a,! 42).! This! implies! that! there! are! universal,! unconditional! moral! norms! that! can! be! formulated! and! attained! through! a! discursive! exercise! by! individuals,! even! if! they! subscribe! to! a! plurality! of! moral!views!ex'ante.!This!view!can!be!seen!as!a!hypothetical!idealization!or!as!a!thought! experiment,! and! it! has! been! questioned! whether! the! potential! of! attaining! a! universal! moral! perspective! is! at! all! necessary! for! discourse! ethics! (Benhabib,! 1996).! I! would! argue! it! is.! Without,! the! rightness! validity! claim! has! no! evaluative! basis,! and! hence! becomes!a!void!condition!for!valid!justification.!I!find!this!view!striking,!as!Habermas!is! generally!concerned!with!accommodating!a!plurality!of!political!and!moral!discourses!in! his!theory!of!legitimacy.!A!second!and!more!practical!reason!to!abandon!Habermas!on! his!conception!of!the!potential!to!articulate!universal!moral!norms!is!its!incompatibility! with!experimentalist!governance,!which!is!firmly!rooted!in!the!pragmatic!philosophical! tradition! and! therefore! presupposes! any! conclusion! to! be! provisional! and! open! to! further!inquiry.!

! Habermas! links! morality! with! respect! for! autonomous! agency! –! that! is,! he! adopts!the!Kantian!notion!of!treating!others!as!ends,!rather!than!means,!as!exemplified! by!his!discussion!of!legal!discourse.!He!argues!for!an!equiprimordial!understanding!of! the!relation!between!private!and!public!autonomy!(1987![1981],!p.!312).!In!this!view,! modern!law!aims!to!secure!private!autonomy!of!those!subject!to!it,!but!also!presupposes! it.!That!is,!public!autonomy!can!only!be!exercised!by!individuals!that!believe!they!have! private! autonomy,! which! in! turn! presupposes! a! belief! that! one! can! shape! private! autonomy!through!the!exercise!of!public!autonomy.!He!argues!that,!in!modern!societies,! ensuring!private!autonomy!–!and!hence!public!autonomy!–!is!the!most!crucial!in!a!set!of! minimal,!normative!conditions!for!legitimate!political!authority.!I!intuitively!agree!with! the!spirit!of!this!argument.!I!will,!however,!take!a!detour!to!get!to!this!point.!I!will!argue! that!through!sincere!communication,!respect!for!autonomy!is!internalised.!This!means! that!autonomy!is!indeed!a!minimal!condition!for!legitimate!decision=making,!but!I!will! arrive!to!this!notion!through!a!different!argument!–!a!point!to!which!I!will!return!in!the! third!chapter.!

! In!practice,!consensual!decision=making!is!hard!to!maintain.!Habermas!therefore! argues! that! decision=making! is! legitimate! insofar! it! can! be! presumed! to! be! based! on! rational! discourse.! In! essence,! individuals! are! to! accept! the! legitimacy! of! a! decision! if! they! can! presume! that! the! decision! is! the! outcome! of! rational! discourse! between! administrators!that!are!capable!of!rationally!motivated!mutual!agreement!and!that!the! arguments! employed! in! their! discursive! decision=making! process! satisfy! the! validity! claims!of!sincerity,!rightness!and!truth.!!

! Précis:'

= Habermas' argues' that' a' universal' moral' standard' can' be' exposed' through' a' discursive'exercise'by'rational'individuals.'I'abandon'him'on'this'view.'

= Habermas' argues' that' a' minimal' condition' for' legitimate' decisionGmaking' is' personal' autonomy.' I' agree' with' this' notion,' but' will' rephrase' it' in' the' next' chapter.'

!

2.5'Deliberative'Democracy'

A! more! radical! approach! to! communicative! action! is! found! in! deliberative! democratic! theory.! Whereas! Habermas! mainly! focuses! on! the! legitimizing! power! of! the! discourse! modifier! of! his! discourse! principal! (D)! “just! those! action=norms! are! valid! to! which! all! possibly! affected! persons! could! agree! as! participants! in! rational! discourse”! (1996,! p.! 107),!classic!account!of!deliberative!democracy!focus!on!the!all!modifier.!It!may!seem! unnecessary!or!artificial!to!differentiate!between!Habermas’!discourse'theory'of'morality,' law' and' politics! and! deliberative' democratic' theory,! as! the! latter! is! explicitly! a! continuation!of!the!former.!Indeed,!the!two!are!very!closely!related,!but!the!challenges! either!conceptualisation!faces!are!arguably!distinct.!In!discourse!theory,!the!question!of! how! to! ensure! and! empirically! ‘prove’! that! decision=making! is! the! product! of! rational! discourse! is! a! main! concern,! whereas! deliberative! democratic! theory! is! a! type! of! communicative!action!that!is!mainly!focused!on!the!inclusiveness!of!the!decision=making! process.!

! Typically,! discussions! about! deliberative! democracy! take! the! ‘democracy’! modifier!as!a!guiding!solution!to!the!question!of!legitimacy.!That!is,!they!propose!that! laws!are!legitimate!if!all!citizens!are!jointly!and!equally!authors!of!the!laws!that!they!are! equally! subject! to,! with! the! additional! requirement! that! the! authorship! of! law! must! follow! deliberative! procedural! requirements! such! as! formal! equality,! no! internal! or! external!constraints!on!participants,!mutual!understanding,!reason=giving!and!an!ability! to!be!convinced!by!‘better’!arguments.!Hence,!“accounts!of!deliberative!democracy!are!

also! accounts! of! legitimacy”! (Parkinson,! 2003,! p.180).! Theories! of! deliberative! democracy!typically!reformulate!Habermas!discourse!principal!to!argue!that!norm=!and! rule=creation! is! “legitimate! to! the! extent! [it]! receives! reflective! assent! through! participation!in!authentic!deliberation!by!all!those!subject!to!the!decision!in!question”!(,! Dryzek,! 2001,! p.651,! emphasis! added;! See! also,! Cohen! and! Sabel,! 1997,! p.340=345).! In! other!words:!“legitimacy!in!complex!democratic!societies!must!be!thought!to!result!from! the! free! and! unconstrained! deliberation! of! all! about! matters! of! common! concern”! (Benhabib,!1996,!p.!68).!In!essence:!deliberative!theory!postulates!that!the!legitimacy!of! a! decision! is! based! on! whether! all! affected! individuals,! given! a! chance! to! collectively! reflect! upon! the! decision,! have! accepted! the! moral! and! practical! justifications! for! the! decision.!

! According! to! deliberative! democratic! theory,! norm=creation! is! legitimate! if! it! receives!reflective!assent!in!a!deliberation!by!all!those!subject!to!the!created!norms,!but! “deliberation! of! all! those! subject! to! a! decision! or! regime! is! impossible! (Goodin,! 2000,! p.82).! This! has! been! called! deliberative! democracy’s! ‘scale! problem’:! “deliberative! decisions!appear!to!be!illegitimate!for!those!left!outside!the!forum,!while!bringing!more! than!a!few!people!in!would!quickly!turn!the!event!into!speech=making,!not!deliberation”! (Parkinson,!2003,!p.181).!There!are!a!number!of!strategies!that!have!been!employed!to! solve! the! scale=problem.! It! has! been! argued! that! deliberative! democracy! can! be! an! addition! to! existing! representative! institutions,! which! can! be! employed! during! constitutional! amendments! or! intrusive! and! far=reaching! political! reform! (Ackerman,! 1991;! Rawls! 1996).! It! has! been! argued! that! the! solution! to! the! scale! problem! is! to! organise!deliberation!between!actors!that!represent!the!interest!of!specific!segments!of! the!electorate!and!that!are!chosen!either!through!election!or!through!selection!(Goodin,! 2000;!Parkinson,!2003).!However,!these!solutions!seem!unsatisfactory!to!me.!The!first! one!is!“no!solution!at!all”!(Parkinson,!2003,!p.185)!as!it!does!not!deal!with!the!problem,! but! rather! limits! the! amount! of! times! it! surfaces.! The! elective=representative! solution! seems! problematic! because! it! falls! back! on! the! mechanisms! of! representative! democracy,!and!therefore!defeats!the!intrinsic!purpose!of!deliberative!decision=making.! This!solution!might!work!for!those!“who!see!deliberation!as!an!aspect!of,!rather!than![a]! substitute! for,! conventional! sorts! of! representative! democracy”,! but! not! for! those! that! attempt! to! legitimize! deliberative! decision=making! in! its! own! right! (Dryzek,! 2001,! p.! 653).! Elective! representation! would! have! to! be! determined! through! large=scale! elections,! which! are! intrinsically! non=deliberative.! Elections! are,! after! all,! a! prime! example!of!competitive!decision=making,!which!unavoidable!pits!the!strategic!interests! of! segments! of! the! population! against! each! other.! Further,! it! unavoidably! attaches! a!

certain! quantifiable! weight! to! each! representative’s! position! during! a! deliberation,! which!violates!the!deliberative!requirement!of!formal!equality!during!the!deliberation.! Selective! representation! might! seem! like! a! solution! to! this! problem,! but! then! the! question! remains:! on! what! basis! are! deliberators! selected?! One! such! basis! is! randomness.!Indeed:!“nascent!deliberative!practice!is!heading!in![a]!direction![in!which]! participants! are! chosen! by! stratified! random! selection”! (Parkinson,! 2003,! p.! 188).! The! problem! with! stratified! random! selection,! however,! is! that! there! is! still! a! question! of! what!strata!to!select!from.!There!might!be!some!!‘obvious’!candidates!–!economic!class,! level!of!education,!gender,!ethnicity,!religious!beliefs,!age,!sexuality,!political!orientation! and!physical!ability!–!but!the!possibility!of!stratified!randomness!does!not!end!there.!We! might!differentiate!based!on!categories!such!as,!weight,!occupation,!mental!and!physical! health,! and! adaptability,! or! –! to! stretch! this! notion! into! the! realm! of! ridicule! –! attractiveness,! quality! of! eye=sight,! introvertness! and! pet=preference.! Even! if! this! list! ends!there,!the!amount!of!possible!inter=strata!combinations!rapidly!brings!us!back!in! ‘speech=making’!territory.!Further,!it!seems!questionable!whether!randomness!can!be!a! sustainable!basis!for!authority,!as!the!bonds!of!authorization!between!participants!and! non=participants!do!not!contain!deliberative!mechanisms!that!allow!for!moral,!political,! social! or! practical! agreement! on! the! justification! for! the! expression! of! authority! of! individual! participants! that! are! selected! through! stratified! randomness,! or! indeed! the! value!of!randomness!in!and!of!itself.!

! John! Dryzek! offers! another,! more! inspiring,! solution! –! to! detach! “the! idea! of! legitimacy!from!a!head!count!of!reflectively!consenting!individuals”!(2001,!p.661)!–!and! instead!looks!at!deliberative!democracy!as!a!decentred!conversation!carried!on!“across! time! and! space”,! which! means! it! is! not! necessary! to! exclude! individuals! from! the! deliberative!decision=making!process.!He!suggests!that!“the!public!sphere!is!at!any!time! home!to![diffuse]!constellations!of!discourses”!(ibid.!p.657)!that!may!be!in!opposition!to! one!another,!but!that!create!“discursive!fields”!in!those!aspects!in!which!they!overlap.! His! point! is! that! a! plurality! of! discursive! positions! does! not! mean! that! deliberation! is! impossible,!but!rather!that!the!possibility!for!deliberation!is!retained!“to!the!extent!that! reflective! interchange! is! possible! across! the! boundaries! of! different! discourses”! (ibid.! p.660).!Legitimacy!is,!then,!derived!from!the!level!at!which!decision=making!resonates! within!this!constellation!of!discursive!fields.!It!may!be!“impossible!for!any!decision![to]! fully! meet! the! claims! of! all! competing! discourses”! (ibid.! p.660)! but! he! argues:! “more! resonance! means! more! discursive! legitimacy”! (ibid.! p.661).! Dryzek! proposes! a! framework!of!legitimacy!in!which!a!relative!weight!is!attributed!to!each!discursive!field! and!where!legitimacy!is!assessed!by!a!decision’s!adherence!to!that!or!those!discursive!

field!or!fields!with!the!largest![combined]!relative!weight!(2001,!p.!660!–!662).!When!a! particular!discourse!“lose[s]!out!in!the!contest!for!influence”!(ibid.!p662),!it!will!lose!out! on! its! influence! on! decision=making,! and! hence! decision=making! will! be! corrected! to! better! reflect! its! resonance! in! the! constellation! of! discursive! fields.! It! seems! to! me,! however,!that!Dryzek’s!understanding!of!deliberative!legitimacy!lacks!mechanisms!that! ensure!that!‘victory’!in!‘the!contest!for!influence’!between!deliberative!fields!is!based!on! the! rationality! of! the! discourse! –! that! it! lacks! mechanisms! that! ensure! that! no! force! except!that!of!the!better!argument!is!exercised.!On!the!contrary:!by!attaching!a!relative! weight!to!each!discursive!field!–!by!quantifying!the!amount!of!individuals!that!subscribe! to!a!particular!discursive!field!–!Dryzek!complicates!the!deliberative!search!for!the!‘best! argument’!and!instead!seems!to!assume!that!the!reflective!assent!of!the!largest!number! of!people!is!decisive!in!the!decision=making!process.!Hence,!we!still!encounter!the!same! problems!we!encounter!in!democratic!theory:!the!distinctly!non=deliberative!notion!of! competitive!decision=making.!

! In! conclusion:! deliberative! democratic! theory! generally,! and! in! my! opinion! unsuccessfully,!tries!to!solve!the!‘scale=problem’,!dictated!by!the!deliberative!democratic! requirement!that!all'citizens!deliberatively!take!equal!and!joint!authorship!of!the!action= norms! that! govern! them.! I! will! hence! abandon! the! democratic! requirement! for! legitimate! communicative! action! postulated! by! deliberative! democratic! theory,! as! I! do! not!think!there!is!a!satisfactory!solution!to!its!scale=problem.! ! Précis:' = Deliberative'democratic'theory'focuses'on'the'all'modifier'of'Habermas’'discourse' principle' = Deliberative'democratic'theory'struggles'with'a'scaleGproblem' ! !

Chapter!3:!The!Legitimacy!of!Disagreement!

!

3.1'Taking'a'Step'Back'

Before!diving!into!the!more!creative!part!of!this!thesis,!I!would!like!to!take!the!time!to! take! a! step! back! and! assess! the! current! state! of! the! argument! presented! in! thesis! and! introduce!to!argument!that!follows.!!

! First:! the! relevance! of! the! question! at! hand! is! clear.! The! EU! is! experiencing! a! shift! from! ‘government’! to! ‘governance’,! with! at! its! heart! the! emergence! of! experimentalist! governance.! Experimentalist! governance! is! rooted! in! Pragmatism,! follows! a! four=stage! recursive! decision! model! and! can! be! characterised! as! a! directly! deliberative! polyarchy.! Hence,! it! departs! from! the! norms! of! representative! democracy! and!is!therefore!prima'facie!illegitimate.!The!goal!of!this!thesis!is!to!assess!the!legitimacy! of!experimentalist!governance!in!its!own!right.!That!is,!to!decouple!it!from!any!and!all! external!legitimizing!mechanisms!–!such!as!representative!institutions!–!and!look!at!its! internal! legitimacy.! I! started! the! second! chapter! by! exploring! a! broad! stroke! is=ought! dichotomy! of! theories! of! legitimacy.! This! discussion! about! normative! and! descriptive! legitimacy!may!seem!to!be!disconnected!from!the!rest!of!this!thesis,!but!I!believe!it!is! necessary! to! emphasise! this! dichotomy! to! fully! appreciate! the! difficult! task! Habermas! charged!himself!with:!to!formulate!an!understanding!of!legitimacy!that!is!“an!alternative! to! this! historical! injustice! of! general! theories! [of! legitimacy]! on! the! one! hand! and! the! standardlessness! of! mere! historical! understanding! on! the! other”! (1984,! p.205).! Habermas! produces! an,! in! my! opinion! convincing,! second=order! theory! of! legitimacy! and! I! hence! follow! Habermas! in! his! understanding! of! legitimization! crises! –! as! the! inability!of!the!system!to!be!expressed!as!a!function!of!the!life=world!–!and!agree!with! him! that! reintegration! of! communicative! action! –! intrinsically! motivated! cooperation! based! on! mutual! understanding! –! into! the! system! can! be! the! solution! to! the! legitimization!crises!of!contemporary!political!institutions.!!

! I! want! to! introduce! a! three=fold! categorisation! of! communicative! action:! discourse=based!communicative!action!–!which!is!based!on!the!notion!that!individuals,! through!discourse,!can!achieve!agreement!on!moral!and!political!matters!–,!deliberative! democracy=based! communicative! action! –! which! assumes! that! deliberation! by! all! will! yield!political!results!that!are!agreeable!to!all,!but!struggles!with!a!scale=problem!to!put! this! idea! in! practice! –! and,! finally,! as! my! own! interpretation,! disagreement=based! communicative!action!–!which!assumes!agreement!is!not!always!possible,!but!sees!this! as! an! asset! of,! rather! than! a! limit! to,! legitimate! communicative! action.! In! this! third! chapter! I! will! present! this! interpretation,! which! doubles! as! an! understanding! of! how!

experimentalist!governance!could!be!legitimized.!I!will!start!by!assessing!the!difference! between!understanding'and!agreement,!and!argue!that!the!former!is!a!requirement!for! communicative!action!but!does!not!necessarily!entail!the!latter.!Then,!I!will!explore!the! difference! between! moral'disagreement'and! political'disagreement,! which! gives! rise! to! an!understanding!of!politics!as!a!cooperative!attempt!to!solve!collective!problems.!I!will! then! assess! on! what! basis! the! effectiveness! of! solutions! to! collective! problems! can! be! assessed,!and!argue!that!this!is!arguably!context=specific.!This!gives!rise!to!the!notion!of! secondGorder! discourses! that! apply! the! experimentalist! logic! to! notions! like! cost= effectiveness,!sustainability!and!ethicality.!Then,!I!will!zoom!out!and!paint!a!picture!of! how! experimentalist! politics,! understood! as! a! complex! constellation! of! practical! manifestations! of! political! perspectives,! might! be! legitimized.! I! will! conclude! by! extracting! two! conditions! from! this! discussion! that,! in! my! opinion,! experimentalist! governance!needs!to!fulfil!to!be!considered!legitimate.!

3.2'A'Postmodern'puzzle'

Modern! society! consists! of! a! complex! constellation! of! interrelated! but! competing! political! perspectives,! which! are! grounded! in! a! plurality! of! moral,! social! and! political! reasons,!and!which!give!rise!to!a!plethora!of!political!pathways!that!can!be!pursued.!A! perspective! is! in! this! view! a! directive! for! action,! justified! through! moral! or! practical! reason!giving.!When!two!or!more!perspectives!interact,!they!give!rise!to!a!discourse,!a! communicative! exchange! between! two! perspectives.! In! practice,! the! plurality! of! perspectives! turns! consensual! decision=making! into! an! impossible! ideal.! Some! deliberative!democrats!and!discourse!ethicists!may!disagree!with!this!notion,!and!would! therefore! arguably! prove! my! point.! It! seems! unfeasible! to! defend! the! notion! of! consensus! in! our! complex,! pluralistic! modern! societies:! humans! can! disagree! on! anything,!even!scientific!data.!This!issue!becomes!especially!salient!when!assessing!the! legitimacy!of!political!decision=making.!How!can!we!justify!any!constraint!on!liberty!or! expression! of! authority! if! we! can! disagree! on! the! moral! or! practical! basis! on! which! liberty!is!constrained!or!authority!expressed?!

! Representative! democratic! decision=making! survives! the! complexity! and! plurality!of!political!perspectives,!but!does!not!embrace!it.!To!a!modern!democrat,!the! complexity!of!this!constellation!of!perspectives!is!a!burden!to!political!decision=making,! not!an!asset!of!it.!A!competing!political!perspective!is!a!threat!to!achieving!one’s!own!–! democratic!decision=making!is!hence!intrinsically!competitive.!Through!codes,!formulas! and!protocols:!humans!have!a!tendency!to!simplify!complexity!to!make!it!manageable.! Political! expression! is! no! exception! to! that! rule,! both! in! theory! and! in! practice.! First= order!political!theories!compete!to!become!a!point!on!the!horizon,!but!the!solutions!they!

offer! are! often! more! straightforward! than! the! problems! they! are! dealing! with.! Utilitarianism,!Libertarianism,!Egalitarianism,!or!Communitarianism:!mutually!exclusive! theories! in! a! world! that! bears! “the! tension! of! divergent! approaches! under! one! roof”! (Habermas,! 1988,! p.3).! This! is! equally! apparent! in! political! practice:! professional! politicians!from!both!sides!of!the!political!aisle!cloud!the!nuances!of!reality!with!hostile! rhetoric,!scapegoating!and!stubbornly!idealized!ideations.!Simplifying!what!is!complex! may! be! human,! but! it! turns! politics! into! a! robotic! process.! Votes! are! counted,! tits! are! traded!for!tats,!representatives!raise!their!hands,!bill!becomes!law!–!rinse!and!repeat.!It! seems! to! me! that! this! system! survives! because! we! perceive! it! as! the! only! way! to! incorporate!diverging!political!perspectives!in!one!decision=making!process.!

3.3'Mutual'Understanding''

I! agree! with! Habermas! that! communicative! action! has! the! potential! to! regenerate! the! legitimacy! of! a! decision=making! process.! But! whereas! Habermas! bases! communicative! action!on!the!capacity!of!actors!to!recognize!an!intersubjective!foundation!that!justifies! systems!of!social,!economic!and!political!cooperation,!I!do!not!make!such!a!demanding! claim.! I! would! argue! communicative! action! is! based! on! the! capacity! of! actors! to! understand!the!foundation!for!social,!economic!and!political!action!of!those!actors!with! an!opposing!perspective.!That!is,!communicative!action!needs!to!take!into!account!the! plurality!of!political!perspectives.!If!actors!take!an!investigative!approach!to!the!nature! of!their!disagreement,!they!may!be!able!to!fundamentally!understand'the!essence!of!an! opposing! perspective.! Habermas! sees! this! understanding! as! instrumental! in! reaching! mutual!agreement.!I!would!argue!agreement!is!not!always!possible,!even!if!an!opposing! perspective! is! understood.! The! constellation! of! competing! perspectives! on! right! and! wrong,!virtue!and!vice!–!perspectives!on!the!impossible,!the!irrelevant,!the!obtainable! and!the!necessary,!are!a!manifestation!of!the!liberation!of!–!not!the!limitation!to!–!the! realm!of!political!discourse.!Understanding!does!not!need!to!entail!agreement!to!be!of! political! value.! The! purpose! of! political! discourse! is,! then,! not! to! agree,! convince! or! compromise,!but!to!understand!and!be!understood.!!

! Some!disagreement!runs!deeper!than!skin,!but!disagreement!should!be!the!start! of!an!investigation!that!aims!to!understand!the!nature!of!disagreement,!not!the!end!of!it.! An!understanding!of!a!competing!political!perspective!entails!an!understanding!of!the! sincerity! and! urgency! underlying! its! declaration.! It! entails! an! understanding! of! the! reasons! for! which! a! competing! political! perspective! is! formulated,! and! –! most! importantly! –! it! entails! and! understanding! that! the! implicit! assumptions! and! explicit! premises! underlying! its! expressive! conclusions! are! not! inherently! more! or! less! true,! right! or! valuable! than! those! underlying! ones! own.! One! may! still! disagree! with! a!

competing! perspective! that! one! understands! –! I! would! even! argue! understanding! is! a! necessary!condition!for!meaningful!disagreement!–!but!that!does!not!mean!the!essence! and! humanity! of! its! expression! cannot! be! understood! and! appreciated.! It! is! through! mutual! understanding! that! nuance! is! brought! back! to! the! political! realm,! and! it! is! through! mutual! understanding! that! we! can! embrace! the! complexity! of! our! pluralist! society.! Understanding! is! a! distinctly! communicative! act.! To! uncover! the! essence! of! a! competing! perspective,! absolute! transparency! of! its! position! is! required.! An! understanding! of! a! competing! perspective! based! on! false! information! or! dishonest! interaction! is,! after! all,! an! understanding! of! its! shadow,! not! of! its! essence.! In! this! communicative! act,! the! responsibility! of! achieving! absolute! transparency,! however,! equally!befalls!the!individual!that!attempts!to!understand.!Sincerity!entails!vulnerability.! In!strategic!interaction,!information!is!power,!and!an!honest!human!hence!puts!him!or! herself!at!the!mercy!of!the!other.!To!achieve!transparency,!then,!it!is!necessary!to!adopt! a!position!of!absolute!and!sincere!tolerance!and!to!reciprocate!transparency.!By!asking! the!right!constructive!questions,!but!not!jumping!to!conclusions!and!by!reserving!value= judgements,!an!individual!creates!the!necessary!conditions!for!the!transparency!of!the! position! of! the! other,! and! hence! the! necessary! conditions! for! understanding.! This! equiprimordial!manifestation!of!mutual!transparency!results!in!a!certain!interpersonal! trust,!and!hence!forges!sustainable!interpersonal!relations.!

! Mutual!understanding!serves!two!distinct!purposes.!First:!it!fosters!respect!for! individual!autonomy.!That!is,!by!highlighting!the!personal,!moral!and!political!reasons! for!disagreement,!it!highlights!the!humanity!underlying!disagreement!and!hence!fosters! an! intrinsic! respect! for! the! disagreeing! position! and! the! person! that! disagrees.! Autonomy! can! –! and! arguably! has! been! –! codified! in! modern! society,! but! by! understanding! the! essence! of! a! competing! perspective,! one! can! see! this! competing! perspective! as! an! inherently! valuable! expression! of! personal! autonomy,! even! if! one! disagrees!with!its!declaration.!I!would!argue!a!codified!respect!for!personal!autonomy!is! less!sustainable!than!respect!for!personal!autonomy!based!on!mutual!understanding,!as! codified! respect! for! autonomy! is! not! internalised,! but! subject! to! external! factors! that! may!or!may!not!disappear.!This!internalised!respect!for!personal!autonomy!is!a!minimal! condition! for! legitimate! political! action.! Second:! mutual! understanding! leads! to! a! relativistic!understanding!of!ones!own!convictions.!That!is,!it!leads!to!an!understanding! that!there!is!no!universal!moral!basis!for!any!political!decision.!Instead,!it!highlights!the! plurality! of! positions,! and! hence! rejects! the! possibility! of! dictating! how! others! should! live!their!lives!on!the!basis!of!a!perceived!universal!moral!reality.!