Work package 6

Transparency, accountability and responsibility in an enlarged Europe

MAKING Security: Citizenship, Public Sphere and
the Condition o Sy!bolic Annihilation
Dr. Katharine Sarikakis
November 2006-12-01
University of Leeds, UK
Jean onnet !"ro#ean $entre of !%&e''en&e
(nstit"te of $omm"ni&ations St"dies
MAKING Security: Citizenship, Public Sphere and
the Condition o Sy!bolic Annihilation
Dr Katharine Sarikakis
Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between new forms of European governance, as
expressed through securityfocused policies, and the European citi!en" #t seeks to unravel
the contextual framework within which the notion of civil liberties, citi!ens$ participation
in the democratisation of supranational and international politics, and the supranational
governance are redefined" The paper argues that the processes of %securitisation$ have an
impact for the democratic functioning of citi!enship by a& restricting the spaces and
processes of action and communication among citi!ens b& restricting citi!ens$ access to
policymaking, in particular in highly sensitive areas, for their effect on civil liberties' and
c& prioritising the executive branches of the European polity at the expense of
representative politics and the (udiciary" This combination of policy trends contributes to
the %symbolic annihilation$ of E) citi!ens"
Katharine Sarikakis is Director of the *entre for #nternational *ommunications +esearch
at the #nstitute of *ommunications Studies, the )niversity of ,eeds and a member of the
-ean .onnet European *entre of Excellence" This work was carried out in the context of
*/A,,E01Eprogramme 2Changing Landscape of European Liberty and Security&, a
research pro(ect funded by the Sixth 3ramework 4rogramme of the European
*ommission$s D1 for +esearch 2www"libertysecurity"org&"
)nless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the author in a personal capacity
and not to any institution with which she is associated"
*opyright 5667, Katharine Sarikakis
5
Making Security:
Citizenship, Public Sphere and the Condition of Symbolic
Annihilation
Katharine Sarikakis
Introduction
#t has been widely claimed, both in the mass media and by politicians that terrorism has
changed the way we %look at the world$ for ever' that the western world has %lost its
innocence$ and that these are indeed times of crisis" #n the post89:: era, European
nations have found themselves under pressure to prove an ally in the %war against
terrorism$ and demonstrate a state of %readiness$ to combat the threat at an international
level" Some E) member States more readily than others have entered the rhetoric of
%threat$ and %defense$ by participating in armed conflict outside their own boundaries and
by intensifying the use of surveillance and policing technologies and policies within their
borders" ;thers more reluctantly have entered the debate and policy arena of %making$
security for their own citi!ens, by participating in E) wide and international policy
measures" At an E) level, national policies have sought to influence E) policy and vice
versa, transforming and actively shaping the character of E) governance" Through a
series of policies framed as counterterrorism measures, the E) is gradually introducing
new definitional sets about good governance and security, and makes new claims for
legitimacy of decisions that are highly contested" #n this process, notions of citi!enship
and democratic participation are redefined to fit in the framework of securitisation"
This paper discusses the ways in which the gradual bypassing of active citi!enship, as
understood through the process of communication, information and participation in
policymaking, is creating the conditions for the %symbolic annihilation$ of citi!ens, as an
essential definitional and normative category in the political process" The impact of such
processes can be detrimental for the legitimacy of the European pro(ect, as well as the
moral and normative superiority of human rights vis a vis the symbolic and physical
violence against human beings, their political and creative expression and their societies"
.oreover, such processes undermine the very core of European values, stated in the
<
programmatic documents in connection to E) citi!enship, such as the European *harter
of /uman +ights and 3undamental 3reedoms"
Securitisation, transparency and accountability
The securitisation of issues, that is the abrupt break from the norm of definitional politics,
which is expressed through political deliberation that takes place in a widely accessible
public sphere, bears a set of =uestions and contestations about the legitimacy and
accountability of a governing authority" There is nothing inherently %natural$ about the
definition of issues as matter of %security$, as issues previously regarded as part of
established laws and procedures, suddenly obtain an additional attribute that situates them
in the realm of exceptionality" 3or example, the hegemonic discourses around global
terrorism point to phenomena little different from longstanding expressions of political
violence, familiar to many nation states since the post world war 5 era 2Didier 5667&"
.oreover, the exceptionality applied by states to the treatment of political violence is
also nothing new" There is a historical record of exceptional measures taken by nation
states in their attempt to deal with the %threats$, as they saw and defined them in different
historical periods, up to our days" /owever, the degree, extent and processes through
which this exceptionality is expanded and applied as an international policy regime raises
=uestions about the role and indeed survival of democratic citi!enship, as bound to
democratic governance"
As Taureck 25667& points out, one of the core characteristics of securitisation is the fact
that policy =uestions are moved outside the sphere of normal politics" This means that the
standard procedures which are known, and applied to the process of agenda setting,
debate and decision making
:
are bypassed and often replaced by shorter and non
transparent procedures" Discussion around the 2defined as& securitised issue becomes a
privilege of selected elites on the one hand, while the application of normal law is also
selective, on the other" The process by which securitisation takes place is observed to
:
;f course this is an oversimplified description of the policymaking process, but for the purpose of this
part of the paper, the emphasis is placed on the %normality$ of standard and widely accepted systems within
the democratic polity"
>
consist of three phases? first the identification of an external threat that renders the issue
at hand as one of security' second, the proposed and applied state of emergency,
accompanied by corresponding action, whereby the government in principle, at the
national level, or the executive branch of the polity, at the supranational level, self
extends its powers above and beyond the normatively ascribed ones' and third, as a
conse=uence the %interunit$ relations of the political system are affected through the
operationalisation of power outside the socially contracted rules between the State 2or
statelike formation such as the E)& and the citi!en 2@u!an et al" :88A? 7 in Taureck
5667&"
The conse=uences of this process become soon obvious? on a first and immediate level,
the principle of transparency is violated through the application of the definition of
%exceptionality on issues that then are dealt with outside the realm of normal politics and
therefore away from public scrutiny" As ,odge 2566B& explains ?
Transparency means everything and nothing. There is a lack of clarity as to the real
purpose of advocating transparency in the EU. For heuristic reasons transparency
will be portrayed as a multi-dimensional adventure in European integration where
transparency presents challenges to: 1. the EUs structures !authority
reconfiguration"# $. accountability and values !rectification of the democratic deficit"#
%. accessibility !procedural gates to information"# &. vigilance and attentiveness !a
listening EU"' and emergent forms of e-governance.
Second, the principle of accountability, as a prere=uisite for the democratic exercise of
power is being undermined and in some cases rendered irrelevant, as again the State and
its Executive branch assume more powers than assigned to it, according to the principle
of balance and checking of powers through the interaction of the other two estates, the
,egislative and the -udiciary" 3inally, there is a knockon effect upon the functioning of
the 3ourth Estate, the mass media, through denial of access to information, labelled
%sensitive$"
The problems of transparency and accountability are exacerbated in the case of a
supranational structure, such as the E)" The reason lies in the polity$s relatively brief
history, when compared to nation states, whereby the time necessary for the cultivation of
a European identity, and indeed even traits, such as loyalty to and familiarity with the
B
polity is simply inade=uate if we accept that internal social cohesion is one of the
prere=uisites for the normative (ustification of a governing authority" 0ormative
(ustification or the raison d$ Ctre is one of the three components of legitimacy for any
authority, and decision making privileges exercised by powerful actors" The second
component is the existence of widely known and accepted procedures for decision
making, and the final component is that of legality" Therefore, transparency, expressed
through the first two elements and accountability, a combination of all three are the
overarching goals for any public authority with the power to affect citi!ens$ lives"
Accountability also bears a moral dimension, that of the moral responsibility of the state,
in our case the E) polity, towards its citi!ens that it will withhold the principles and obey
the rules of the social contract between citi!ens and power, as it has been trusted in the
polity"
The main difference between the classic notion of the 2nation or federal& State and the E)
lies in the very construction of the E)" The polity only very recently and in particularly
in the past decade has succeeded in actively addressing the =uestion of legitimacy, which
was concentrated mainly around the lack of an understanding of who makes decisions
that are far reaching and ultimately transferred to national contexts" @ut additionally, it is
the ob(ective cause, that is not simply the %feelings$ of citi!ens, but the lack of democratic
structures and commitment that bring the citi!en at the core of the polity" These
problematic aspects of the E) construction have been addressed successfully to a great,
but incomplete, extent through the meaningful involvement of the European 4arliament
in the decisionmaking process, in a legally more substantial role than it has en(oyed
before" This development, making the E4 a colegislator together with the *ouncil of
.inisters
5
only begins to pro(ect the image of a democratic E) D and substantially
address its democratic deficit" Again this effort is seriously undermined through the
exception of E4$s involvement from any securityrelated issues
<
, such as regulation
5
The most important role is that in the codecision process, which was provided for by the Amsterdam
Treaty and signaled the day of a more democratic representational politics in the E)"
<
According to the /ague protocol the following areas are of particular priority in the E)
completing the second phase of the common asylum policy by 56:6'
initiating a debate on the possible creation of a European corps of border guards'
setting up the Schengen #nformation System 2or S#S ##, due to be up and running by 566E& and the Fisa
#nformation System 2F#S&'
7
dealing with data protection and transfer, the establishment of an E) wide 4olice
controlled database9s affecting citi!ens$s levels of privacy and independence, as well as
changes in criminal 2common& law" The democratic vacuum is further exacerbated by the
fact that national parliaments, too, find themselves excluded from national procedures of
amending 2or driving& such policies, which in their ma(ority are drafted as matters of
security, and therefore as matters of emergency and exceptionality" The E4$s
dissatisfaction with the level of involvement of representational politics in such sensitive
decisionmaking areas is echoed is the following statement?
)ar'iament notes that the estab'ishment of s"&h an area *freedom,
se&"rity and +"sti&e, is today one of the main #riorities of !"ro#ean
inte-ration. (t be'ieves that it is vita' to ens"re a ba'an&e bet.een
the aims of freedom, se&"rity and +"sti&e, takin- a&&o"nt of
f"ndamenta' ri-hts and &iti/ens0 freedoms. 1o.ever, it &onsiders that
as a re#resentative of the #eo#'es of the !U, and .itho"t #re+"di&e
to its forma' &om#eten&es, it sho"'d be invo'ved in the ado#tion of a''
meas"res, in&'"din- those ado#ted .ithin the frame.ork of the third
#i''ar. (t hi-h'i-hts the ne-ative &onse2"en&es that the division
bet.een the first and third #i''ar entai's for the a&hievement of an
area of freedom, se&"rity and +"sti&e, in&'"din- a serio"s 'a&k of
#ar'iamentary &ontro'. $oo#eration .ith the $o"n&i' is &onsidered to
be ins"ffi&ient. 3he !) ho#es that the #ost-Ni&e #ro&ess .i'' see the
&ode&ision #ro&ed"re bein- e%tended to a'' areas .ithin +"sti&e and
home affairs. 3he !"ro#ean )ar'iament stron-'y s"##orts the
deve'o#ments .hi&h the $onstit"tion, #arti&"'ar'y 4rti&'e (((-566
thereof, .o"'d brin- in the fie'd of freedom, se&"rity and +"sti&e as it
.o"'d -ive the !) &ode&ision #o.ers on a'most a'' 47SJ matters. (n
addition, most $o"n&i' de&isions .o"'d be taken by 2"a'ified ma+ority
votin- 89:;, .hi&h .o"'d s#eed "# the deve'o#ment of the 47SJ
<
.
Public Sphere and the chan"in" ra!e#or$ o %& "o'ernance
#t is clear that securitisation is %based on power and capability$ 2Taureck 5667& and is by
definition contrary to the principle of openness and accountability" The ways in which
0ation states in the E), but also abroad and in particular in the )SA, have attempted to
provide a normative (ustification for the new state of emergency and therefore the
establishing the #nternal Security *ommittee as set out in the *onstitution'
introducing the European evidence warrant by 566B'
setting up a European police record information system"
>
E4 fact sheets" >"::":" An area of freedom, security and (ustice? general aspects
E
effective cancellation of openness and transparency have been reflected through a
discourse of binary oppositions such as %threat vs" defense$ and %us vs" them$ in the public
sphere" Gith these, the gradual establishment of a mode of %governmentality of fear and
unease$ 2Tsoukala 5667, @igo 566>, /uysmans 566>& takes place, that comes to replace
not only the practice of governance in the E) and within 0ation States, but also the
criteria for good governance, and therefore the measuring, and moral, standards of the
practice and normative shaping of democracy" The technologisation of policing of
everyday life through surveillance, retention of data and files on citi!ens$ activities, the
exchange and unauthorised access to personal information by the executive and private
companies without the legal seal of courts, general invasion of privacy, interceptions of
electronic communications and processing of thought and expression provide %a good
definition of a police state$ 2*aspar @owden, 3oundation for #nformation 4olicy
+esearch, in The Guardian, 566: in Tsoukala 5667? 7:7&" The systemic effects of this
trend are far reaching, as they form the future of E) governance and its relationship with
citi!ens, with reactions that are unlikely to go unnoticed and with the likelihood of
leaning heavier towards an intentional apathy and political disregard towards the polity"
There is evidence form research in environmental policy, as well as risk regulation that
citi!ens %assent to rules only if they have the impression that their own concerns have
been treated fairly in the rule making process$ 2Thompson and +ayner in 0an! and
Steffek 566>? <56&" The disassociation of citi!ens from the workings of the polity will
effectively constitute a permanent fracture in the delicate relationship between civil
society and E) institutions"
Even more worryingly however, we witness an unprecedented assault on the rationale
and legal framework of human rights, in particular in nation states, such as the )K, where
the constitutional recognition of such rights has been resisted by political elites, as they
interfere with policies and practices of the @ritish polityD that however have also been
=uestioned by civil society and media professionals alike
B
" As research into the public
B
The wide range of application of human rights has brought to the light a number of problematic and
arguably un(ust policies, such as the ineligibility to legal aid when accused of libel, which was overturned
by the European *ourt of /uman +ights in 5667 in the famous .c,ibel case, whereby two activists were
sued by the corporation of .cDonald$s for disseminating information about the effects of the corporation
on the environment, human health, treatment of animals and unioni!ation" According to )K libel law, the
weight falls on the defendant to prove the basis of such information, while at the same time legal aid is
A
discourses has indicated 2Tsoukala 5667' Gelch 566<&, references and a discursive
framework on insecurity aims to discredit and render irrelevant 2indeed often also present
as dangerous& the legal and normative framework of human rights, by providing
exceptions to these rights and therefore indirectly to the very definition of %human$"
3or some analysts, the climate of fear, arguably intimidation of public debate and even
national representative politics, as well as actions of violence raise the =uestion as to the
terrorising effects of the state authority and mode of governance itself" Stohl 25667&
proposes a definition of terrorism, which focuses on the act itself, away from the alleged
perpetrator, including %not simply acts of violence but threats 2implying credible threats&
of violence as well, so that all acts of instrumental violence which intend to influence an
audience 2through fear of further violence if they do not comply with whatever demands
are being made& would be included$ 2p" 7&" According to this definition, it is possible to
consider the indirect ways of fearinducing governance as an act of threat and violence" #f
the selective use of legality and attention to human rights is suggested as a measure
against the minority of the Dinternal or external %enemy$, with the aim to protect the
%many$, then two problematic and arbitrary assumptions are made? first that the %many$
are supposedly %happy$ to exchange their civil liberties for security' second, that is
morally acceptable to condition an alleged civil, political, practical and philosophical
%choice$ of giving up the principles and foundations of civil liberties %either$ to the enemy
%or$ to one$s own political unit, in our case the European State and the European )nion
polity" #ndeed, there is evidence that the degree of authoritarian behaviour is a good
indicator as to whether people under threat are predisposed to accept abuse of human
rights and civil liberties and support policies of surveillance" Those with high scores of
such behaviour, as found by *ohrs, Kielmann, .aes, and .oschner 2566B&, will tend to
denied in libel cases" According to media professionals and activists this is (ust one but a significant
example of the beneficiary effects of the /uman +ights Act, whereby it has been possible for ordinary
people to find protection in their right to express their opinion and criti=ue against powerful transnational
corporations" ,ibel laws in the )K have been often used to silence the media, due to costly and uncertain
outcome in which a court case usually results" Due to the comprehensive character of /uman +ights
legislation, the benefits for the protection of the citi!en against systemic and other abuses, including
provisions such as fair trial, privacy etc, present surveillance policy supporters with many difficulties" The
recent attempts by the )K government to persuade the European 4arliament to deprioritise /uman +ights
in the face of %global terrorism$, during the )K E) presidency is a telling example of the systematic efforts
to undermine the progressive framework of /uman +ights"
8
accept such measures, while those with low such scores will tend to react to them"
1eorge 1erbner has also reported similar findings in his longitudinal study of audience
effects through the longterm consumption of television violence" According to 1erbner
the heavier viewers were more likely to adopt authoritarian measures, than light viewers"
The common link between these studies is the perception and exposure to fear, that
triggers antidemocratic sentiments" The effects of authoritarian behaviour however
expand well beyond those of accepting surveillance measures or restriction of civil
liberties" They have far reaching implications for a nation$s and Europe$s internal social
cohesion, as authoritarian citi!ens express xenophobia, nationalistic, racist and sexist
beliefs and tend to consider diversity a problem 2*ohrs, Kielmann, .aes, and .oschner
566B&" #n the multicultural, diverse and multiethnic fabric of Europe, it is obvious that
such attitudes are not helpful for the construction of cultural and structural solidarity, that
is urgently needed in the geopolitical space of the E), especially given the increased
material, and symbolic, polarisations of it populations"
Conditionin" the sy!bolic annihilation o citizens
Huestions of social cohesion become prominent in 5:
st
century Europe and attain
particular significance, not only due to the E) internal expansion but especially in
relation to the implications deriving from the climate of securitisation" The role of the
state in citi!ens$ lives, the %small places$ of lived experience, and in particular in the
communicative action and process is the nexus of global economic integration and local
sociocultural and political affirmation" Such %small places$ are located in the construction
of identity 2national or European&, where the media as well as general cultural policies
play an important role, the =uality of communicative action within national boundaries,
such as freedom of expression or press freedom, but also across boundaries in the form of
communication and information 2or content& flow, human mobility as in the case of
tourism or internet traffic" The fields of communicative expression, whether through data
exchange or mass media consumption, or whether in the form of political protest or
media use are paramount in the state agenda of sovereignty and role transformation" #n
the current climate of broadening the E) and exercising policing control as a post 89::
:6
effect, communicative processes become more urgent as they obtain two characteristics,
according to which they are classified" 3irst as an added value through commodification
and their position in existing or potential markets and second, for their political value
that, may or may not be a source for profit, clash unswervingly with the agenda of
securiti!ation and militari!ation" Technology once again lies in the core of both new
profitsources in the field of the leisure industry 2including culture as a commodity and
the media& and of the militarygovernment nexus, through the increased interest in
biometrics, the privati!ation of the correction system, contracts with the private sector
active in defense and military research or the collation and monitoring of personal data"
The technological possibilities that run through the %small places$ of everyday life,
whether through ordinary internet or television consumption or in forms that raise the
antennas of civil rights organi!ations such as the case of identity cards in the )K, are
there, bringing with them an active and sophisticated populace that asserts its own
strategies to deal with them" #t is well documented and much researched, that the civil
society at large, not only organi!ed in 01;s, but also in loose, ephemeral and issue
driven groups are expressing concerns and disagreement to the ways in which
securitisation is creeping up in everyday life, expanding the field of exceptionality across
most areas of human interaction" At a panEuropean but also global level, we see the
formations of transborder alliances with the aim to resist the marginalisation of citi!ens in
policymaking and world governance"
The phenomenon of conditioning the marginalisation of the citi!en in E) politics
provides grounds for concern about an allencompassing assault on earned rights and
liberties, as well as an assault on the very institutions of liberal democracy" Drawing on
1aye Tuchman$s (1978) concept of symbolic annihilation, the preceding discussion points
to uncomfortable and unanswered =uestions about the role of the citi!en in the modern
polity" Symbolic annihilation has been most productively used by feminist scholarship to
describe the processes of exclusion, trivialisation and marginalisation of women in media
representations" #f the media are contemporary story tellers, then the exclusion of women,
and any marginali!ed group, from them legitimises their exclusion from the public
sphere, while it also denies them the recognition of their social presence as e=ual citi!ens"
::
The triviali!sation of women$s political and cultural claims and stereotyping of women,
when present in the media, contribute to their une=ual treatment in the cultural and
political domain, effectively marginalising them further in society" The media of course
provide one version of the public sphere, where public debate on issues of common
concern takes place" /owever, extending this conceptualis!ation to include the fora and
platforms of inclusion in the processes of decisionmaking and public policy presents an
expanded form of public sphere and recognises the communicative process as an integral
part of democratic politics" #ndeed, the same way securitisation is largely a matter of
communicating actions, policies and their legitimisation, so is the public sphere the
connotation for the communicative, decisionmaking process" The symbolic annihilation
of citi!ens, as feminist research and theory has shown very vividly, takes place through a
multilevel and multicentred mode of governance that consists of a combination of
systemic and symbolic fields of action" #n the case of the E), these are located a& in the
very institutional organisation of the E) polity b& the function D or dysfunction of the
assigned Estates c& the processes of decisionmaking and their level of inclusivity of
citi!ens d& the manipulation and discursive denial and dismissing of citi!ens$ voiced
concerns e& the imbalanced representation of citi!ens and polity or other authority in
mediated public spheres f& the very actions that annihilate civil liberties and free agency,
through the construction and induction of fear and threat and g& through the destruction of
social solidarity through the classification of citi!ens according to ethnic origin,
migration status, or religious background"
3irst, the institutional organisation of the E) contributes to the bypassing of citi!ens$
concerns, in as far the European 4arliament is not involved in the measures associated
with the securitisation of Europe" Although, as research has shown the E4 is the most
democratic of the European #nstitutions, providing multiple points of access for the
representation of public interests and in creating communicative spaces for these interests
2Sarikakis 566>, 566B&, the work of a political )nion, especially when the decisions made
surrounding security are by definition and in substance political, is incomplete, so long
the E4 is not authori!ed to oversee and codecide on matters of civil liberties"
:5
Second, the dysfunction of the ,egislative, -udiciary and Executive powers of the E)
has a detrimental effect for the protection of citi!ens$ interests vis a vis the polity itself, as
well as the private interests that benefit from the adoption of surveillance and monitoring
technologies that they are paid for by largely public funds" As 3reeman 25667& explains,
it is not necessarily simply the extent to which emergency provision are applied, but
%whether measures themselves undermined the institutional constraints that protected
civil libertiesI exceptions are thought to not be as significant, as the measures in place
to not allow the same happening in the future$" The situation underway in the E) does
not offer any guarantees nor does it make good use of the (udiciary and legislative
branches to impose conditions upon the exercise of surveillance and securitisation" The
legitimacy of the E) is at stake, perhaps not at a first glance, as decisions of the third
pillar reside with intergovernmental procedures, and by extension with the executive arm
of the polity" ,egitimacy of this sort is fragile and =uestionable" *outu and 1iroux,
discussing the state of emergency in *anada and its effects on immigration policy alert us
to the distinctive value of normative legitimacy, that is the role of the (udiciary to
guarantee constitutional protection of civil liberties and laws, versus decisional
legitimacy, the executive$s role in making decisions, (ust because they can 2*outu and
1iroux 5667&" #n the latter case, %the centre of gravity of State$s legitimation shifts from
the -udiciary to the Executive and Administrative branches of the State 2the
parliamentary State, here, being only peripheral&$ 2*outu and 1iroux 5667?<<6&" As the
(udiciary and legislative arms of the polity are developed to provide citi!ens with
protection and political representation, their marginalisation or reduction to formal
functions constitutes an assault on citi!ens$ rights"
Third, deriving from that, there is a need for the involvement of the public in the
decisionmaking process of the E), especially when such sensitive areas such as privacy,
liberty and transparency of the political system are concerned" .ost importantly, the need
for public$s involvement in definition of %emergency$ and exceptionality, definition of
%security$ and process of securitisation has not been fulfilled or ade=uately addressed" #n
fact, most such decisions have been and are being taken in secrecy, away form public
debate and without due consultation" Scrutinising the power holders is an integral part of
:<
a healthy functioning of democratic governance and this can be done through a
functioning press, through citi!ens$ councils and the support of the (udiciary and
parliament"
/owever, alone %enhancing transparency or generating public debate on global
governance is only a necessary but not a sufficient precondition for its democrati!ation$"
20an! and Steffek 566>? <5<&" 4articipation in policy making should be part and parcel of
a set of criteria that aim to empower marginali!ed groups, as well as providing formal
and substantive access to meaningful participation in public policy"
3ourth, the respect for citi!ens$ concerns and attentive listening to their experience as
well as claims is paramount for good governance and again relies on the level of citi!ens$
involvement" At the same time, for the polity to make effective claims of legitimacy, it
has to adhere to the specific moral values (Samhat and Payne) governed by human rights
but most importantly also to adhere to the values declared by the polity itself, as they are
expressed in the *harter for +ights and 3undamental 3reedoms" Especially, for the E),
an international hegemonic power next to the )SA, any policies and state of affairs
within its own territory reflects its cultural image to the world" Even more so, countries
outside Europe look to the E) for two reasons? as a counterset of human and social
values towards the )S, governed by a commitment to welfare state, human rights, as well
as respect for )0 system of world governance"
3ifth, alongside the legislature and (udiciary, the press has a very important role to play?
their incapacitation leaves the door open to the abuse of civil liberties" /owever, the
political economy of the press 2electronic and print& as well as a set of news values that
are detrimental in the inclusion of explanatory parts next to the facts, eventsdriven
soundbite news disallows in depth investigation of complex issues, such as the process
of securitisation" .oreover, the hostility of some national presses towards the idea of the
E) contributes to more biased coverage of such =uestions that are not helpful for the
empowerment of the citi!en" ;ften, the citi!en takes the backseat" As Kellner asserts
%once the corporate media have surrendered their responsibilities to serve the public and
provide a forum for democratic debate and addressing significant issues of common
:>
concern, they have largely promoted the growth of corporate and state power and
undermined democracy" 2566>? <5&
Concluding remarks
This paper has explored the changing conditions of E) governance and has discussed the
implications for its relationship with European citi!ens in the era of securitisation" #t has
argued that we are facing a set of paradoxical conditions that marginalise the role of the
citi!en, while at the same time the polity has attempted to bring the citi!en at the
forefront of political action" The marginalisation of the citi!en is taking place through a
set of policies that police and process citi!ens$ thoughts, invade their privacy and
disallow their meaningful participation in policymaking, assembly and debate" The need
for a functioning public sphere that extends beyond the mediated public sphere, offered
by the mass media, is closely related to the legitimacy of the polity" 0evertheless, the
culture of secrecy and exceptionality that accompanies claims for a %state of emergency$
as is currently the case in the E) and European nations is prohibitive towards the
functioning of such public domain" This combination of these policy trends contributes to
the %symbolic annihilation$ of E) citi!en, by rendering this newly established legal entity
effectively secondary to a militarising and policing discourse machine"
(iblio"raphy
@redt Stephan 5667 The European Social *ontract and the European 4ublic Sphere
European Law Journal, :5, :? 7:DEE.
*ohrs, -" *hristopher, Sven Kielmann, -urgen .aes, @arbara .oschner 566B Effects of
+ightGing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on +estriction of *ivil ,iberties
Analyses of Social ssues and !ublic !olicy, B, :? 57<5E7
*outu .ichael and .arie/elene 1iroux 5667 The Aftermath of :: September 566:?
,iberty vs" Security before the Supreme *ourt of *anada nternational "ournal of
#efugee Law <:<<<5
Didier, @igo 5667 At the li$its of the liberal state% The answers to the terrorist threat,
http?99www"libertysecurity"org9article::78"html
:B
3reeman .ichael 5667 Terrorism and *ivil ,iberties in the )nited States? /ow to /ave
@oth 3reedom and Security &e$ocracy and Security, 5?5<:D57:
/ayes @en 566B The right to know or the right to try and find outJ The need for an E)
freedom of information law, Statewatch, http?99www"statewatch"org9news9566B9nov9eu
3;#"pdf
-oyner, *hristopher 566> The )nited 0ations and Terrorism? +ethinking ,egal Tensions
@etween 0ational Security, /uman +ights, and *ivil ,iberties nternational Studies
!erspectives B, 5>6D5BE"
Kellner Douglas 566> The .edia and the *risis of Democracy in the Age of @ush5
Co$$unication and Critical'Cultural Studies :, :? 58DBA
,evi, .ichael ad David Gall 566> Technologies, Security and 4rivacy in the post 89::
European #nformation Society Journal of Law and Society <:,5? :<>556
,odge, -uliet 566> E) /omeland Security? *iti!ens or SuspectsJ European
Integration, 6,3:253279
,odge, -uliet 566B *ommunicating Europe? transparency and democratic E) governance
http?99www"leeds"ac"uk9(mce9pcommun"htm
,odge, -uliet 5667 *ommunicating 2#n&Security? A 3ailure in 4ublic DiplomacyJ
+esearch 4aper < 4rogramme? Challenge% The Changing Landscape of European Liberty
and Security www"ceps"be
0an! 4atri!ia and -ens Steffek, 566>, 1lobal 1overnance, 4articipation and the 4ublic
Sphere Govern$ent and (pposition <:><<B
Samhat 0ayef /" and +odger A" 4ayne American 3oreign 4olicy ,egitimacy and the
1lobal 4ublic Sphere !eace #eview% A Journal of Social Justice, :A?5B:D5B8
Sarikakis, Katharine 566> !owers in )edia !olicy. The Challenge of the European
!arlia$ent (*ford, @ern? 4eter ,ang
Sarikakis, Katharine 566B Defending *ommunicative Spaces? the +emits and ,imits of
the European 4arliament" 1a!ette Fol" 7E 25&?:BB:E5
Stohl, .ichael 5667 The State as Terrorist? #nsights and #mplications &e$ocracy and
Security, 5 ?:D5B Terrorist
Taureck +ita 5667 Securiti!ation theory and securiti!ation studies -ournal of
nternational #elations and &evelop$ent 8, B<D7:"
:7
Tsoukala, Anastassia 5667 Democracy in the ,ight of Security? @ritish and 3rench
4olitical Discourses on Domestic *ounterTerrorism 4olicies !olitical Studies% B>, 76ED
75E
Gelch, .ichael 566< Trampling /uman +ights in the Gar on Terror? #mplications to the
Sociology of Denial Critical Cri$inology :5? :D56
:E