In jaren '90 besloten de leden van het Europees Parlement (EP) de financiële en immateriële arbeidsvoorwaarden, die voorheen afhankelijk waren van de lidstaat van herkomst, te uniformeren. Tijdens...Show moreIn jaren '90 besloten de leden van het Europees Parlement (EP) de financiële en immateriële arbeidsvoorwaarden, die voorheen afhankelijk waren van de lidstaat van herkomst, te uniformeren. Tijdens een langdurig proces debatteerde het EP zeven keer over het Statuut van de Leden dat dit moest regelen. Dit onderzoek brengt in kaart wat er in de de bijdragen aan deze debatten gesteld werd over de noodzaak van een Statuut voor de status van het EP en de beeldvorming onder de bevolking en welke concrete regelingen en bezoldiging hierin opgenomen zouden moeten worden. Uit de rechtvaardigingen die de Europarlementariërs aanvoeren voor de voorgestelde regelingen, valt af te leiden wat de Europarlementariërs in deze periode vinden dat het EP is of zou moeten zijn en wie het bijvoorbeeld vertegenwoordigt. Op deze manier wordt getracht dit politieke debat te verbinden met academische debatten over democratie in de EU en het vermeende gebrek daaraan.Show less
The French Senate is nowadays often presented by its critics as an institution that is conflicting with the principles of democracy. This raises questions about how this area of tension between...Show moreThe French Senate is nowadays often presented by its critics as an institution that is conflicting with the principles of democracy. This raises questions about how this area of tension between democracy and the second chamber has emerged and evolved throughout the history of the French political system. Bicameralism seems contradictory to the French political culture because the republican doctrine strongly believed in a single assembly. This research focuses on the first half of the French Third Republic (1870-1914) and investigates to what extend the Senate was considered to be compatible with democracy. How was it possible that a Senate -an institution that seemed to have lost its place in the French political landscape and was associated with aristocracy and conservative liberalism- obtained a place in the institutional framework of this republic which was so democratic for its time? In general, historians have shown little interest in upper houses. However, this thesis argues that in order to get a complete picture of the reasons behind the evolution of democratic institutions it is not enough to merely study political theory or constitutional law; one should also look at the reality of political practice. In order to understand how important historical events and national context in France were in shaping the debate about the relation between the Senate and democracy, the French case is put in an international comparative perspective with the discussions that took place around the same period in Belgium and The Netherlands. This research demonstrates that the French Senate of the Third Republic was not constructed against democracy, or simply as the representation of conservative forces. It rather was a very inventive chamber that served the interest of the Republican Party, promoted democracy and played an important role in the political education of the French countryside and its integration into the French nation. Secondly, it is argued that discussions about the legitimacy of the French upper house were to a very large extend determined by historical circumstances -such as the Boulanger crisis and the Dreyfus affair-, political opportunism, pragmatism, and specificities in the national political culture.Show less
In this thesis the development of one specific deliberative form of citizen participation (the G1000 Groningen) in the Netherlands is put in to its historic-political context. The main question is...Show moreIn this thesis the development of one specific deliberative form of citizen participation (the G1000 Groningen) in the Netherlands is put in to its historic-political context. The main question is as follows: to what extent can a 'mini-public’ like the G1000 Groningen improve local democracy by proposing a change in the relationship between citizens and local government? It is explained that the G1000 organization tried to foster the bond between the Stadjers of Groningen by organizing the event without too much focus on its (political) results. The author characterizes the type of citizen participation found in the G1000 Groningen as one in which self-reliance is very important, in contrast to forms of citizenship found in the G1000 Amersfoort and G1000 Belgium in which the political character of of citizenship was emphasized. By doing so, the G1000 Groningen showed that there is more to democracy than having direct political influence as sometimes is argued for in the media. It showed that genuine participation in the process in which decisions are made is just as important. Only in such circumstances, it is possible to really relate yourself to your fellow citizens and be really part of a democratic community.Show less
