David Beetham

Legitimizing the EU: Is there a 'Post-parliamentary Basis' for its Legitimation?

This article argues that its character as a non‐state political system makes little difference to how the EU ought to be legitimated. Minimum requirements for the legitimation of the liberal democratic state (performance, democracy and identity) also hold for the legitimation of Union power, both normatively and sociologically. This constrains the application of innovative legitimation strategies to the Union, requiring that post‐parliamentary solutions be recast as complements, rather than substitutes, for a system of representative politics in the European arena, if the EU is to meet the core standard of democratic rule, which we take to be public control with political equality.

Towards a universal framework for democracy assessment

Assessing the state or quality of a countrys democracy has become an increasingly widespread undertaking over the past ten years, whether to construct league tables of democratic attainment, to explore correlations between democracy and economic condition or performance, or to identify likely recipients and projects for international aid. This article reports on a civil society-based programme and framework for democracy assessment in which the author has been involved, whose purpose is to contribute to public debate about a countrys democracy, to monitor its progress over time, and to identify pressing areas for reform. Distinctive features of the methodology are the derivation of assessment criteria from clearly articulated democratic values, its relevance to new and established democracies alike, and the comprehensiveness of the assessment framework, covering citizen rights and the rule of law, institutions of representative and accountable government, civil society and participation, and international dimensions of democracy. The article explores the intellectual underpinnings of the assessment methodology in the universal validity of democratic norms and a common imperative for democratization in developed as well as developing countries; and argues for the frameworks usefulness in teaching as well as research. It concludes with a brief report on the comparative findings from pilot assessments undertaken with in-country partners in eight countries from across the world.

Freedom as the Foundation

Abstract:The paper begins by exploring the conceptual links between freedom, rights and democracy, and the institutional arrangements necessary to guarantee civil and political rights and fundamental freedoms in a democracy. It then sets out a procedure for assessing the quality of a country’s democracy in four successive steps: defining the appropriate democratic ‘goods’; identifying standards of best practice as a benchmark for the attainment of each of these ‘goods’; analyzing the typical modes of subversion which may prevent their attainment; and exploring possible agencies of protection against these subversions. After applying each of these steps to the subject of civil and political rights, the paper concludes with a reservation about the limits of purely institutional indicators.

The contradictions of democratization by force: the case of Iraq

The article uses the Iraq example to show that the project of imposing democracy from outside by force is inherently contradictory and likely to fail, for reasons that go beyond the particular circumstances of the country or the Middle East. The paper then reviews a number of historical cases that have been supposed to show that democracy can result from armed invasion, and concludes that this was only so because in no case was imposing democracy the prime purpose of an invasion. Finally, it draws attention to the consequences for the quality of democracy at home in the countries most responsible for seeking to export democracy by force of arms.

Democratic Audit in Comparative Perspective

The purpose of this article is to provide a review of the work and development of Democratic Audit, a loosely-knit consortium of scholars, lawyers, journalists and others, organised around the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, and the Centre for Democratisation Studies, Leeds University. Democratic Audit was initially established at Essex in 1992 by the Democracy Panel of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust as the Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom. The idea, which originated with Professor Lord Smith of Clifton, formerly Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ulster, was to provide an annual check upon the state of democracy and political freedom in the UK to meet concerns which were being increasingly expressed during the late 1980s about the erosion of both under Conservative governments. However, the group1 which developed the idea decided that the Audit should become an instrument for providing more rigorous evidence and systematic evaluation of the “the British way of doing things“2 — that is, of its long-standing informal arrangements for democratic government and the protection of political and civil rights. How democratic was “the British way“, actually? Providing an authoritative answer to this question, through a systematic audit of democracy, could serve to demonstrate if, and how far, the concerns of the time were justified, and help identify where reform might most be needed. Such an audit could also provide a benchmark against which any future reforms could be evaluated.