Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
Public engagement wikipedia , lookup
Public choice wikipedia , lookup
Left-libertarianism wikipedia , lookup
Post-politics wikipedia , lookup
Political philosophy wikipedia , lookup
Political spectrum wikipedia , lookup
Political opportunism wikipedia , lookup
Direct democracy wikipedia , lookup
1 Co-decision or delegation? Direct democracy, social interests and the transformation of the political. Dr Alex Koutsogiannis, Scientific Associate, Scientific Council, Hellenic Parliament. Adjunct Lecturer in Political Theory, Department of Political Science, University of Crete. E-mail: [email protected] If in representative democracy the body-politic is commonly demarcated around a broad understanding of nationhood, in direct democracy processes of collective deliberation appear rather more ‘localized’, specific or interest-based. This general trend however, is considerably relativized or differentiated under the pressure of structural conditions, such as political cultures, constitutional traditions, social relations, and as always, material and knowledge resources. The paper argues that a number of fundamental changes in the forms and practices of modern citizenry – conceived either as an electorate or as a direct political agent – is intrinsically concomitant to current directions of political and institutional transformation. One key aspect of the latter is depicted in modern processes of governance in which direct democracy may appear once again relevant, especially in view of an acknowledged deficit in political representation. In the implicit setting of a juxtaposition between representative and direct democracy, the paper aims in contributing to the clarification of the principles that may guide current discussions on constitutional revision. Its central argument is that delegatory governance may involve a co-existence of representative with direct democracy, ‘without prejudice’ to the indispensability of the former and without sacrificing recent developments in direct political engagement. Keywords: democracy; governance; interests; representation; _____________________________________________________ Introduction 2 Among the numerous analytical distinctions between various forms of democracy the opposition between direct and representative democracy has been most indicative of the historical-political embodiment of the concept. In its primogenital appearance democracy exists only as direct. Representation would seem strange to this model since it would involve the alienating side effects of any sort of mediation. The archetype of ancient Athens outlives many alternate versions in two respects. Firstly as a judgment criterion of modern democracies and secondly as a political practice of a rather fractional nature. Nonetheless, the political decisiveness and constitutional gravity of various forms of referenda assessments, betray a different picture as to any surviving modalities of direct democracy. In the institutional front, a tendency of dispersal of powers has followed developments in forms of political associations that grew at a distance from representational politics. The paper situates a discussion of direct democracy in the contemporary framework of a theory of governance (1st section). It particularly designates a number of problematic areas in both modern aspects of the classical distinction (2nd and 3rd section) and attempts at an empirical redirection of the ‘interested parts’ of democratic politics into the actuality of a directly involved body-politic (4th section). Direct democracy is approached from a non-procedural standpoint, as an ongoing political activity that is concerned with the materialization of collective and political decisions, powers, or influences within an infrastructural context of representational democracy. 1. The transformation of the political: governance in state politics Over the last decades, a number of theoretical tools have been recruited by political scientists for both policy and explanation purposes: third way politics, communitarianism, participatory democracy, re-institutionalization, deliberative democracy, etc. It appears, that in comparison to many of these popularized concepts the term governance withstands the course of time. It is also true that a growing complexity in the political organization of modern societies corresponds to the differentiation of areas that do not pertain to, a strictly speaking, political domain: 3 developments in scientific knowledge and communication technologies, changes in social stratification, expansion and differentiation of markets and businesses, new values and rights. An underlying principle of specialization of activities along with the gradual diffusion of pyramidical administration in many informal and professional domains, have resulted in a de-concentration of traditional governing apparatuses. There have been numerous debates as to the democratic consequences of this trend. In this last respect, much of the current debate in the European world relates to what has been termed as the “hollowing out” or the “retreat” of the state 1. Broadly speaking there are three major areas in which such development is experienced 2: in government in the context of supranational trans-governmental relations (for example in issues of dual sovereignty), in the national boundaries of statehood, where many collective agents (from cultural minorities to businesses) act at a distance from centralized governance and of course in the economy itself, where national economies are much less self-sustained than they used to be (from the recent crisis of the public sector to the well established strategies of public/private partnerships and all relating issues of accountability). The arising question for political science concerns the degree in which the diffusion of authority in new political forms results in the demise of the autonomy of political institutions that are traditionally gathered around the trichotomy of the separation of powers. The route of self-sustenance and non-intervention which attributes to a constitutionally safeguarded authority the control of the state, is gradually being redirected to a condition of ‘post-sovereignty’ with more involved international and non-state actors: cross-border environmental coalitions, multinational corporations, political and non-profit institutions, regional economic and political blocs, intergovernmental agencies. 3 In this much debated context of multilevel governance a new array of complications arises the most prominent of which are: demands for citizen participation and calls for more transparency and accountability as tools of legitimation, increased individuation of political interests, opaque forums of public discussion and representation deficits. Scholars agree however, that the normative and juridical foundations of parliamentary democracies 1 See Strange (1996) and Sørensen (2004). See Sørensen (2006) pp. 204-207. 3 Obviously the concept of governance embraces both non-state actors and divisions of political authority (for example in EU and federal governmental and legislative bodies). With a special emphasis to the second sector a useful source can be found in Enderlein et al. (eds.) (2010). 2 4 remain intact, notwithstanding debates on the breach of constitutional provisions. It is true at the same time that governance is an inclusive concept encompassing both spectrums of the political phenomenon: state and non-state actors. In this broader sense, governance denotes simply a method or a practice-pattern of distributing competences, responsibilities and functions. This trend emerges in a number of corelated or inter-dependent dimensions. i. The juridical/political dimension The uncontestable line of defense of the modern state is that of constitutional national independence. This is the legal core of state power, depicted through the delimitation of constitutional powers including of course all fundamental checks and balances. Even if popular sovereignty is still the basis of constitutional independence there are serious indications of its degradation. The so called ‘crisis of the state’ does not unfold in the implementation of provisions on a ‘stage of siege’, but constitutional endurance is measured against the loss of public guarantees, traditionally provided by the state and questioned in the light of new forms of geopolitical and economic power. It is certainly true, that unlike any public institutional arrangements, the private sector, in its business with the state, cannot provide binding assurances as to the application of the criterion of public interest, creating thus a severe legitimacy problem. In the face of new developments in political and economic organization the analytical tools of this domain span from the role of political parties, to the function of Independent State Authorities and the enhancement of processes of parliamentary oversight. The debate is concerned with the directions that should be followed by constitutional and political reform, for example in the instituting of effective mechanisms of accountability, the constitutionalisation of public-finance strategies and the constitutional empowerment of referendums. ii. Civil Society As relatively new actors in public politics, civil society agents are active both at the policy (as service providers) and the political level (as pressure groups). Questions have arisen as to the actual independence of these agencies, their political 5 affiliations and the criteria of distinction between them. Financial dependency for example undermines the impartiality of an organization. At the same time the typical criterion of autonomy is not sufficient for an inclusion of an agent to the strong normative dimension of civil society. This taxonomy would simply neglect all practical aspects such as tools (violent or not) and scope of action. In either case one can distinguish two major forms: A world of organized interests in which business lobbying plays a leading role (2/3 of lobbying in the EU) and a world of social or collective non state associations (such as NGOs) focusing on specific clusters of rights: environmental, cultural, welfare, religious, etc. iii. Inter-governmental Relations/Politics This is the field of globalization proper, setting the question on the reduced capabilities of national economic and social self-determination. Governance may appear as a legitimation concept for various intergovernmental institutional constructions. In the European context, this would involve relations between national governments and the European Commission, or the enhancement of the role of national parliaments in European legislation (following the Lisbon Treaty). For many writers globalization is not a new phenomenon, while there is certainly a strong economic substructure (investments and capital movements) that appertains to its most characteristic aspects. In the political arena issues such as accountability and transparency gain popularity, although there are no convincing envisions of alternative mechanisms of popular control. 4 Finally in policy terms, there is a considerable amount of technical, economic and legal problems that surround the already established processes of decentralization and distribution of duties. iv. The Economy This is the less examined aspect of governance perhaps due to a supposed loose affinity with the legal/political domain proper. Nevertheless private/public partnerships are increasingly expanded as effective governance tools in almost all 4 Mark Bovens makes a useful comparison of traditional and new forms of accountability with special emphasis on processes adopted within multi-level European Governance. (Ex. non-accountability of the Council in direct contrast to the provisioned parliamentary oversight of the Commission). See Bovens, Mark (2007). 6 central areas of public life (in welfare services and infrastructure projects). Given the exigencies that characterize economic and monetary alliances the boundaries between private and public interests do not remain unaffected. One essential issue concerns the extent to which state institutions can operate within well-defined criteria of market competition. In general however, the empowered role of the private sector in the politics of public finance is largely unproblematic, at least in comparison to an opposite and ‘outdated’ route, namely the return of –often– strategic enterprises to public ownership. It has to be made clear that the above dimensions of modern governance do not exist in isolation to each other. This type of distinction has a methodological character insofar as it does not correspond to clear empirical types. There is however a common normative dimension in both political and academic rhetoric: the pluralist intentions of a multi-level system of power result, by definition, in more democracy. This is not necessarily so. The demand for more democracy is not a political inspiration, neither the result of blind popular grievance. It is coterminous with a dysfunction of a working apparatus, what has often been termed as representation deficit. To this we shall now turn. 2. The crisis: some deadlocks of representative democracy The response given to the crisis of Keynesianism and the welfare state did not evolve around a substantive theory of democracy, starting for example from the classical questions of legitimacy, representation, constitutional independence and exercise of power. The response was a rather formal one, focusing mainly on institutional reshuffling and bureaucratic expertise 5 . Today it has been partly substituted by privatization and monetarism. Bureaucratic hierarchy is clearly on retreat, at least with respect to the use of social agencies and the market in the delivery of public services. But this development also entailed a parallel process, towards the employment of new governance tools that involved public networks and partnerships. The latter constitute a political response fused with the inventions of corporate responsibility and employment policies. This non-state politics has strong connotations of immediacy and directness not passing through the medium of 5 For this distinction and a critical juxtaposition of the historical contingency of governance with democratic practice see Bevir, Mark (2010). 7 representation yet not necessarily at odds with parliamentary democracy. Directness does not entail the exercise of legislating powers alone, it acquires its legitimation force from the political fulfillment of social and economic interests. So where are the signs of crisis? One major consequence of governance is that it blurs the borderlines of social and political conflict. If democracy contains an antagonistic element, it must also provide the means for social consensus. Nonetheless, governance has nothing or little to do with juridical arrangements of social antagonisms. What is missing is the political character of social inequalities and conflicts, an attribute that can be measured neither by Jurisprudence nor by the allocation of administrative competences. Political disputes as articulated through indistinct political identities cannot absorb or reflect social disagreements, hence privileging the juridical function and leaving law with the task of settling social conflicts or regulating social relations. 6 The absence of political representation through organic social affiliations corresponds to the growing disenchantment with the inability to provide a political answer to the economic crisis. This has significantly weakened the legitimacy of political systems. Most popular discourses here are those of political apathy, loss of confidence/trust, representation deficit and agency loss. In the representative domain, what parliamentary democracy is facing today (apart from an overpowered executive) is a parallel network of organized interests. The latter may be conceived on the basis of a relation of ‘checks and balances’ among interest groups as in the classical pluralist model in which government action is still one of the major concerns. 7 There is also a more elusive interpretation in the broader perspective of actors in civil society. Political gains are obtained here through self-delegation, which is neither concentrated nor antagonistic, yet its ultimate objectives are not fulfilled outside state institutions. In this respect territorial representation based on the ‘people’ is unable to depict the differentiations at these levels of both public and private interests (from private industrial interests to regional environmental concerns). 8 The parliamentary world in particular faces a considerable competition from other forms of collective deliberation (policy networks, communities, social forums and interests 6 See Mouffe (2000) pp.113-115. See for example Bentley, Arthur (1967). 8 These collective actors emerging from civil society are elements of what Tom R. Burns termed ‘organic governance’. For Burns these informal networks are not only knowledge competent but also enjoy a high level of legitimacy insofar as they realize certain notions of democracy namely the right to form groups in order to advance or protect interests. See Burns, R. Tom (1999) pp.167-194. 7 8 groups), which prefer to deal directly with the issues that concern them and have more targeted goals. Quite often parliaments are at variance with these collective actors particularly when the latter prefer to employ strategies of direct negotiations with central governments, rather than taking part in party politics or influencing Members of Parliament. 9 In either case, it appears that popular - national sovereignty is facing a considerable pressure from two parallel directions. On the one hand governments have to cope with their interaction with lobbyists and pressure groups and eventually with the conflict between private and public interests. 10 At the same time representative assemblies are in need of an adaptation mode with regard to the representation of interests (in some countries in second Chambers) that are not concerned with electoral politics. A change of paradigm would be required under the persistence of certain discourses 11 that demand representation without necessarily being affiliated to a partisan spectrum of political parties or make an aggregate of eligible voters. Failures in representation have often been classified as a problem of agency loss whereby a considerable gap exists between the policies obtained through delegation and the citizens’ desires. One apparent justification for this, is that citizens’ demands at a national level are not only more complex and diverse, but also impossible to meet, when for example the constant demand for public expenditures contradicts a demand for tax reductions. Interests demands on the other hand are more coherent and better researched. They have specific aims and tangible methods of pursuing them. What however interests us here are the basic symptoms of democratic deficit 12: a) conflicting decisions (in legislation) which result in problems of policy co-ordination, b) rent extraction when representatives use their authority to obtain private benefits, c), indifference and lack of effort and finally a deep, general dissatisfaction with politics as such. It would seem that more direct forms of political engagement come at a rescue when representational systems fail. But these new “non-national” forms of direct democracy do not operate in a void. They are susceptible to a substantive kind of 9 This discussion with a particular emphasis on parliamentary governance is developed in Koutsogiannis, Alex (2013). 10 In the European context a basic problem has been the adoption of regulative measures given the intensification of lobbying in the European Parliament (opting for registration measures) and the Commission (which opts for incentive measures). See Chabanet, Didier (2011) pp.1-20. 11 The practical prospects of the inclusion of interest discourse in representative politics (through a concept of ‘discursive representation’) are examined in Dryzek and Niemeyer (2007). 12 For an extended exposition of these particular aspects see Strøm, Kaare et al. (2007) pp. 708-747. 9 critique coming from two directions: from the viewpoint of an inclusive (national) legitimacy and from another on controlled or regulated action. In other words, direct democracy involves a redefinition of the body – politic which brings to attention current discussions and concepts of democracy, for example in citizenship studies and debates on deliberative democracy. Direct democracy agents are specific and oriented towards a limited structure of interests and values. Their ‘clients’ are not voters but specific citizen groups with specific identities (religious, economic or regional, as consumers, professionals, etc.). In this regard they are posed at a quite different standpoint of the political spectrum, than for example the constitutionally safeguarded possibility of holding a referendum on a national level. This lack of legitimacy works as an ultimate dividing line setting a limit from which non-state agents can go no further. In turn this creates a number of accountability issues for both business and civil society governance partners. 3. Interests as mediums of direct democracy Which are the main problems that accompany the political involvement of new dispersed forms of governance 13 ? On the one hand, in comparison to state controlled institutions, which have more profound normative bases in popular sovereignty, modern organizations of self-representation are more flexible and informal. Their non-public or non-state character however increases invisibility. Many function at the fringes of law and are usually concealed from public scrutiny. Governmental control in its attempt to safeguard accountability of actions may restrict the autonomy of civil society agents. The proliferation of social interests in formal politics raises questions as to the depths of governmental intervention in governance processes. At the same time these new over-specialized and narrowly defined forms of governance are unable to fully legitimize themselves under formal democratic arrangements. The advantage of over-specialization may result in an obvious disadvantage for the vast majorities of citizen populations with broad collective, national or international interests. By contrast, parliamentary proceedings enfold a wider debate - a principle that guides the internal organization and function of parliaments themselves - in that MPs 13 For a comprehensive overview of these limitations see Burns, R. Tom (1999) pp.182-184. 10 can express their dissatisfaction or at least reaffirm the power of the largest parliamentary group. Similarly, in elections, voters may either express their disenchantment or simply accede to a pre-structure of political arrangements. But when it comes to the interplay of social agents with respect to political gains and when this competition is situated in a background of distrust to the political system, the vast majority of party-voters stay far behind in negotiations on policy-change. Multinational corporations enjoy a better edge, which in itself implies a high risk of power – abuse. It is therefore obvious that a shift towards direct democracy of this form has very special characteristics, which may potentially contradict its deep normative roots. Even the latter however are built on an assumption of the best possible conditions for political consensus, thus eliminating any empirical basis of social and economic differences. And although a similar problematic is implicated on dysfunctional representation, or on the maximalist state, the latter is better equipped in the legitimacy field. Political institutions provide an agreed upon mechanism, primarily through elections, for setting out priorities, that is making difficult choices with respect to an expected shortage of means and contingent political costs. Those choices are usually made through legislative initiatives in a context of legal mandates. This may beg a question on a self-authorizing executive power but it cannot replace parliaments 14 . In addition, less formalized means of policy implementation demonstrate a proven potential, but it is only through the mobilization of large-scale resources and organization that co-ordination of policies is achieved. This is even more intense in transnational (EU) or federalist contexts. It is true that before employing all necessary means of implementation (through public bureaucracies and ministries), the state resorts to the normativity of public benefit. Both lobbying groups and civil society agents are in comparison ‘individualized’ and fractional providing a necessary backdrop of de-politicization. On the other hand, political institutions were designed under the assumption of conflict. Markets tend to assume away social conflicts (and in the business world simply assume that the most powerful actor will win). In contrast social agents and networks such as NGO’s, non-profit and voluntary associations are generally co- 14 Even Habermas for example, in his justified critique of the European Union could not envision, under certain preconditions, a European transnational democracy (as opposed to executive centralized federalism) without an empowered setting of double mandates in the European Parliament. See Habermas, Jürgen (2012) p.20. 11 operative and non-competitive having no ex ante mechanisms of coping with fundamental disagreements. 15 In short, when it comes in discussing and deciding on the implementation of an appropriate policy strategy there are certain institutional structures that have the capacity to produce more coherent results. These structures are both democratic (hence, non-static) and predominant. For example, in processes of internal control (such as parliamentary oversight and constitutional control) certain criteria of effectiveness are more likely to be compromised with the demand for rational deliberation and criticism. Central aspects of representative democracy, from electoral systems and political parties to the juridical and political role of Members of Parliament, enjoy an unparalleled durability. With regard to the issue of multilevel governance the role of political parties is essential. Parties constitute the direct counterparts of civil society agents to the extent that, apart from their juridical position, themselves constitute primarily (or also) socio-ideological citizen-organizations. Research has shown for example that parliamentary systems with cohesive and competitive parties tend to be more effective and apparently restrict rent extraction. 16 Strong and clearly competitive political parties may promote accountability at whichever direction and possibly contain the above-mentioned negative effects of the external actors of civil society. An atrophy of the political party may be accompanied by an atrophy in the partisan bonds in the civil service and thus deal indirectly with the phenomenon of party clientelism or favoritism. Yet, changing party affiliations or political views all that often, may produce an obscure picture of commitment, leaving voters with simplistic information and confused political ties. Formal systems of direct democracy do not remain unaffected. The erosion of representation in political parties affects different kinds of institutions of direct democracy, such as citizen initiatives, or referendums (binding or consultative). In all these incidents the engagement of citizens does not remain unmediated. Political parties, the media and interest groups provide a platform of information and mobilization, ‘pre-defining’ in essence the choices available to citizens. Although the element of directness is formally protected (usually through the implementation of particular decision and procedural rules), the element of democracy is more elusive, as it depends on the quality of a wider public dialogue and on the ability of the public 15 16 See Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, Jon, (2006) p. 217. See Strøm, Kaare et al. (2007) pp.733-735. 12 sphere of civil society to open all possible spaces of deliberation and critique. 17 But can this dialogue be monopolized by party politics and hindered ideological differences? In either case it is obvious that the alleviating effects of direct democracy necessarily pass through core territories of representative politics, namely parliaments and political parties. 4. Conclusion or defining the body politic It is equally more evident that the bridging of the gaps created by the representation deficit must pass through the entire political system 18 . Arguing for direct democracy in this regard presupposes, more than anything else, a foundational endeavor, in suggesting an alternative definition of a targeted body-politic and of those that from being represented are to become legislators. However, such possibility cannot transcend the prerequisite of a common cultural/political identity. National affiliation is a pre-condition for public policy (in welfare or taxation) and constitutes an integral, cohesive element of a variety of institutional structures of representative democracies. When citizens are defined typically as bearers of duties and rights, citizenship is an integral part of national sovereignty, which amounts for the constitutional manifestation of direct democracy in referendums or citizen initiatives. But when citizens are defined along the lines of common democratic norms and preferences, political transformation and turbulence become more intelligible. The danger implied in disempowered representation mechanisms derives from the persistence on a superficial redistribution of political roles and the search for consent, leaving thus structural relations of power untouched. In other words, the political efficacy of direct democracy, in the perspective examined here, would depend on a dialectical correlation between political/ideological argumentation (institutional or not) and a notion of public interest. The latter is not only the legitimation basis of a shared culture strico sensu (in variants of liberal nationalism) or shared political principles 17 See Chambers (2001) pp. 231-253. Chambers examines constitutional referendums by contrasting the monological requirements of information and majoritarian rule with a deliberative framework of democratic dialogue. 18 It is thus reasonable that a growing distrust to the political system (and not to particular political parties) may explain the emergence of extreme wing politics much better than discourses on anti-globalization or xenophobia. 13 (in versions of Habermas' constitutional patriotism) 19. It must remain also an open question, constantly juxtaposed to the emergence of new antagonistic fields of political encounter. A political theory of direct democracy would involve here a parallel examination of both legitimacy and legitimation problems. References Ariely, Gal (2011), ‘Constitutional patriotism, liberal nationalism and membership in the nation: An empirical assessment’, Acta Politica 46,3: 294-319. Bellamy, Richard (2008), ‘The Democratic Constitution: why Europeans should avoid American style Constitutional Judicial Review’ European Political Science 7: 9-19. Bevir, Mark (2010), Democratic Governance. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Bovens, Mark (2007), ‘New Forms of Accountability and EU Governance’, Comparative European Politics 5: 104-120. Burns, R. Tom (1999) ‘The Evolution of Parliaments and Societies in Europe: Challenges and Prospects’, European Journal of Social Theory 2(2): 167-194. Chabanet, Didier (2011) ‘From Opacity to Transparency? The Place of Organized Interests within the European Institutions’, EUGOV Working Paper No.27: 1-20. (Barcelona: Institut Universitari d'Estudis Europeus). http://www.iuee.eu/pdfpublicacio/191/iOFzMja3gNnxKhRLfvmf.PDF (retrieved August 2013). Chambers, Simone (2001) ‘Constitutional Referendums and Democratic Deliberation’ in Mendelson, Matthew and Parkin, Andrew (eds.) (2001) Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns. (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 19 In Gal Ariely’s study, empirical findings are more supportive for an inclusive conception of constitutional patriotism. Political values are stronger determinants of national membership than cultural ones. See Ariely (2011). 14 Dryzek, John and Niemeyer, Simon (2008), ‘Discursive Representation’ American Political Science Review 102 (4): 481-493. Enderlein, Henrik, Wälti, Sonja and Zürn, Michael (eds.) (2010), Handbook on Multilevel Governance (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing). Habermas, Jürgen (2012), The Crisis of the European Union: A Response (Cambridge: Polity Press). Koutsogiannis, Alex (2013), ‘Shifting Boundaries of Parliamentary Governance: empowering the representative function of parliaments’. Conference: Parliaments in a Changing Europe. Citizens and Representative Institutions in Modern Governance. Conference paper, 10th – 11th September 2013. Belgrade, Serbia. EU Twinning Project: Strengthening Capacities of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia in the EU Integration Process. Mouffe, Chantal (2000), The Democratic Paradox. (London & New York: Verso). Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, Jon, (2006) ‘Governance, Government and the State’ in Colin Hay, Michael Lister & David Marsh (eds.) (2006) The State. Theories and Issues (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Sørensen, Georg (2004) The Transformation of the State. Beyond the Myth of Retreat (London: Palgrave Macmillan). Sørensen, Georg (2006) ‘The Transformation of the State’ in Colin Hay, Michael Lister & David Marsh (eds.) The State. Theories and Issues (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Strange, Susan (1996), The Retreat of the State. The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Strøm, Kaare, Müller, Wolfgang C., Bergman, Torbjörn (2007) ‘Challenges to Parliamentary Democracy’ in Strøm, Kaare, Müller, Wolfgang C., Bergman, Torbjörn (eds.) (2007) Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies, ECPR (Oxford: Oxford University Press).