The EU is an organisation built on the concept of democracy. However, recent developments within certain member-states clearly contradict this claim. A paradox has hence occurred, which is referred to as the “Copenhagen-Dilemma”; only fully democratic states can become members of the union - but once a membership exists, the EU has proven inadequate to deal with democratic backsliding-tendencies. This essay argues that the political debate regarding this dilemma constitutes of at least two main categories of articles and within each of these, three positions can be found: Those focusing on causes to the problem and further how it can be understood are the ‘problem-oriented’ articles. Those arguing for solutions to the Copenhagen-dilemma are the ‘solution-oriented’ articles. Voices within this second category have been examined further in the analysis. They all accept the democratic deficit to be a problem for the EU – but the three positions offer different perceptions on how it can be countered most effectively: 1) The Conservatives; argues that the EU should use the tools already available and instead change their praxis 2) The Reformists; argues that the EU should further develop and reform the available tools 3) The Radicals; argues that the problem has caused a need for new institutions and tools to be created within the EU
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-374757 |
| Date | January 2018 |
| Creators | Ylva, Gustafsson |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds