Laurence Whitehead in a recently published article, links the complex and\u00a0blurred issue of Eastern enlargement of the EU to what he calls \u201edemocracy\u00a0promotion\u201d.*<\/p>\n
As is usually in the case of European enlargement, reality moves ahead of theory and the\u00a0social sciences: one can agree with Whitehead that the Helsinki Summit of Dec. 1999, which\u00a0concluded to start accession negotiations with ten East Central European countries for both\u00a0the EU enlargement and to the processes of democratization in East Central Europe embraces\u00a0a high-risk component. His main argument vis a vis conventional wisdom of integration and\u00a0democracy theories is that \u201cthe EU\u2019s strategy of democracy promotion through enlargement\u00a0puts external processes in command; brings into question the authority of such key national\u00a0institutions as the parliament and raises the risk of conflict between those willing to conform\u00a0to external conditionalities, and those who can \u2013 or will \u2013 not.\u201d**<\/p>\n
Is Eastern enlargement to be seen as an honest effort from Brussels of\u00a0democracy promotion or has more profound causes such economic interests, political and security constraints etc? This question is a controversial.\u00a0Nothing can be more true, however, than the assertion that the historic\u00a0experiment of Eastern enlargement is a complex, uncertain process, most likely surrounded by unintended results which \u201ccould easily carry high costs\u00a0to the EU as a whole\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n
The problem with democracy in the present globalizing, postnational epoch of Europe is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify an exclusive unit of analysis; in other words, a physically and geographically defined \u201cdemos\u201d or constituency. Analysts and theoreticians, after recognizing that the nation state has lost its exclusive status as the frame of society and democracy and consequently seem to be an exclusive unit of analysis, often fall back to the nation state paradigm. They are unable to identify any other unit of certainty and are discouraged by the chaotic complexities of the trans- and sub-national world. Even trans-nationally collected statistical data are based on national surveys and are reflections of a cognitive map of the passing period of the nation-state.<\/p>\n