Cosmopolitan Democracy and the EU: The Case of Gender
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00684.x |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Author | Robert Frith |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Cosmopolitan Democracy and the EU:
The Case of Gender
Robert Frith
University of Southampton
Cosmopolitan democracy is one of the most debated models of transnational democracy.As a result of his
prominence in this field,David Held has attracted much of the criticism and approval of this position.The
critique and comment aimed at cosmopolitanism in general, and Held’s work in particular,has provoked
cosmopolitan advocates to respond,restate and develop their arguments.However,despite its considerable
merit, this debate remains largely theoretical,and little has been done in terms of studying the realisation
of cosmopolitanism in real-world settings. This article contributes towards the debate concerning the
possibility of its actual application by mapping the principles of cosmopolitan democracy in relation to
the EU polity and the issue of gender equality.It argues that the EU ar ticulates certain cosmopolitan-
comparable principles, and by studying areaswhere they are clearly exhibited, such as the issue of gender,
that this helps us to critically evaluate their practicability and enables a response to criticisms levelled at
cosmopolitan democracy. This article addresses two specific criticisms.Fir stly,in view of the justiciable
qualities of EU law, and its ability to giver ise to formal individual rights,it is argued that claims regarding
the inherently fictitious nature of cosmopolitan rights are unfounded.Secondly,while acknowledging that
civic engagement takes a principally legal mode in relation to the issue of gender,this ar ticle rejects the
claim that cosmopolitan democracy neglects the political aspects of citizenship. However, cosmopolitan
scholars must extend their understanding of the relation between rights and the wider aspects of
citizenship engagement, if theyhope to realise the vision of an active citizenry that remains central to the
cosmopolitan project.
In recent years the possibility and desirability of extending the principles and
mechanisms of democracy beyond the boundaries of the territor ial state has been
the subject of increasing theoretical consideration and contest. The principal
arguments underpinning the case for transnational democracy attach themselves
to the challenges posed by globalisation – and, in the European context,
Europeanisation – to the efficacy of territorially delimited democracy. Viewed as
a complex of distinct but interrelated material and ideational processes, which
reconfigure the authority and power of the territorial state across a range of
domains of activity (including the economic, political, military, cultural and
environmental), it is claimed that modes of interaction within the state are
increasingly coordinated through transnational – global and European – networks
of power. Simply put,the argument is that where social space and power relations
transcend the boundaries and, hence,the author ity of the territor ial state, so must
democratic practices, if we are to retain a commitment to democracy. This does
not require that we subscribe to hyperglobalisers’ arguments about a borderless
world, but simply that we accept that social space is increasingly denationalised
(Zürn, 2000, p. 187) and de-terr itorialised (Scholte, 2000, p. 46).
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00684.x
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2008 VOL 56, 215–236
© 2007The Author.Jour nal compilation © 2007 Political StudiesAssociation
In response to the ‘internationalisation imperative’ ( Warleigh, 2003, p. 24) cos-
mopolitan democracy seeks to reconstruct the democratic formula in such a way
that it reconnects mechanisms of representation and accountability with social
practices and power relations that operate within, across and beyond territorial
borders. Inspired by the work of Immanuel Kant,it has received its most sustained
analysis in the scholarship of David Held (1992; 1995; 1996; 1999; 2000; 2002;
2004). Indeed, as Molly Cochran comments, ‘his work is often taken as being
definitive of cosmopolitan democracy and its project’ (Cochran, 2002, p. 518).
Nevertheless, cosmopolitan democracy has not been without its cr itics.1
While certainly advancing the cosmopolitan debate – prompting cosmopolitan
scholars to respond to specific criticisms (Archibugi, 2005) and encouraging them
to restate the cosmopolitan position more broadly (Archibugi,2004; Held, 2004)
– a feature of the scholarly critique and response is its largely theoretical tenor
with little having been done in the way of specifying cosmopolitanism in relation
to really existing sites of global governance. Insightful in this regard are William
D. Coleman and Tony Porter’s comments regarding the under-specification of
Held’s model of cosmopolitan democracy in relation to contemporary gover-
nance arrangements:
the seven institutional sites identified by Held have little actual relevance in an
organisational sense at the international level. There are quite identifiable institu-
tionalised issue areas in world politics. These include,for example the trade regime,
the environmental regime, the decision-making effectiveness of the European
Union, or peacekeeping.Each of these has an identifiable history,actual institutions
that sustain it, and a set of distinctive democratic challenges. By contrast,several of
Held’s categories, such as the body, culture, and even the economy, have no
corresponding general institutional presence in the form of organisations or
regimes at the global level (Coleman and Porter,2000, p. 384).
Although Coleman and Porter misread Held’s intended analytical purpose under-
pinning the idea of multiple‘sites of power’, in that Held does not intend for these
sites of power to be equated with institutions of global governance,they are surely
right to press the importance of establishing the applicability of cosmopolitan
democracy in relation to existing organisations and regimes at the global level.
Accordingly, the challenges facing cosmopolitan democracy concern both its
theoretical content and the chances of these principles being realised in contem-
porary governance arrangements. This article attempts to respond to both of
these imperatives by specifying the cosmopolitan-comparable principles of con-
temporary EU governance arrangements, and,on the basis of this analysis, provide
a response to sceptical concerns in relation to the thin content and weakness of
cosmopolitan rights. Thus, while attempting to evaluate the practicability of
cosmopolitan claims it is not dismissive of the important theoretical criticisms
that have been levelled at cosmopolitan democracy. Indeed, the search for
cosmopolitan-comparable principles and practices within existing governance
arrangements offers the possibility for further reflection upon these theoretical
216 ROBERT FRITH
© 2007The Author.Jour nal compilation © 2007 Political StudiesAssociation
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2008, 56(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial