Towards the end of Croatia âs accession process to the European Union (EU), a coalition of over 70 civil society organisations (CSOs) was forcefully campaigning to resolve outstanding shortcomings in the rule of law . Its members engaged with decision-makers both domestically and at the EU level, and advocated their views on the streets and at public events. The coalition decisively shaped the EUâs assessments of Croatia âs reform progress during the final months of the membership negotiations, paving the way for a number of legal refinements in the run-up to EU membership. Once the accession treaty had been finalised, the coalition expanded its activities inside the country and gained greater visibility in the media and among citizens . Following Croatia âs EU entry however, the coalitionâs leading members have been grappling with severe financial difficulties that have driven them to downsize their staff and reduce their activities. More importantly still, local human rights organisations are struggling to face up to the post-accession conservative backlash in Croatian society that runs counter to some of their core positions on minority rights and gender equality.
This striking rise and subsequent decline in the level of empowerment achieved by Croatian civil society actors is symptomatic of the broader dynamics during the EU accession process. On the one hand, this context offers a unique opportunity for reform-minded domestic actors to mobilize around the need for deeper societal changes. The EU level provides a new venue for organised interests to present their demands, while EU conditionality offers a powerful reference point for interactions with reluctant players at the domestic level. On the other hand, the lasting ability of domestic reform forces to influence discourses and practices depends on their capacity to emancipate themselves from the superstructure of the EU membership negotiations. Where mobilisation strategies rely exclusively upon the EU as an ally and civil society actors fail to forge solid alliances at the domestic level, their empowerment is almost inevitably limited and short-lived. Starting from the ambiguous Croatian experience, this book analyses how CSOs in different candidate countries from the Western Balkans have sought to use the EU enlargement process as a tool for domestic empowerment.
The book compares the strategies and outcomes of civil society mobilisation related to the rule of law in Croatia , Montenegro , and Serbia . Given its key role in shaping the structural and political environment in which reforms take place, the EU has placed the rule of law at the heart of the accession process (Kochenov 2008; KmeziÄ 2016). Where institutions are weak and corruption thrives, accession talks risk turning into a mere box-ticking exercise that brings few concrete benefits to the local populations. A strong legal and institutional framework, in contrast, is more likely to facilitate comprehensive adjustments in a range of policy fields and to act as a bulwark against the rollback of reforms once EU membership has been achieved. At the same time, rule of law reforms represent a costly undertaking for candidate country elites, who risk losing some of their privileges and are therefore likely to be reluctant to agree to substantive changes. The salience of the rule of law for the broader accession negotiations is therefore particularly high, making it a promising area to study the involvement and influence of civil society groups.
In the EU accession context, civil society actors have been framed as domestic change agents able to flank the EUâs efforts to introduce democratic and market-oriented reforms, and to ensure a consistent implementation of adopted measures. They serve as alternative sources of information for the EU and act as local watchdogs monitoring reform adoption and implementation . In addition, they are supposed to function as a link between the political actors negotiating accession and the broader population by communicating the benefits and conditions of EU membership to citizens . These high expectations have translated into a gradual increase in the political and material support that EU institutions provide to civil society actors in candidate countries. Much of this support is channelled directly to local CSOs , which are used interchangeably with the broader term âcivil society actorsâ throughout this book.
Building on earlier approaches in social movement research (Kitschelt 1986), I conceptualise empowerment as a dual outcome that may take either the form of a formal strengthening of CSO positions via their participation in policy-making processes or the integration of their concerns into the political agenda. Such achievements are qualified as procedural empowerment. Alternatively, CSOs may influence the content of policy decisions, which I label substantive empowerment. The two forms of empowerment may appear simultaneously, but are not necessarily connected and can occur independently from one another (see Betsill and Corell 2001).
Research on the Europeanisation of interest groups and CSOs has examined how the emergence of the EU as an additional actor level has shaped the strategies of organised groups and their ability to influence policy outcomes (Beyers et al. 2009; DĂŒr and Matteo 2016; Beyers and Kerremans 2012; Sanchez Salgado 2014). The bulk of this literature has focused on mobilisation and changes at the European level (DĂŒr and Matteo 2012; KlĂŒver 2011, 2012a). This book adopts a different angle in that it concentrates on changes in the domestic power balance in candidate countries. It understands the Europeanisation process as a major shift in the political opportunity structure that opens up new venues and resources to domestic actors (see Princen and Kerremans 2008; Marks and McAdam 1996). From this perspective, it analyses the triangular interactions between EU, state-level, and civil society actors. The theoretical interest lies in unpacking the process of differential empowerment that is thought to strengthen domestic actors whose interests overlap with those pursued by the EU (see Cowles et al. 2001; Börzel and Risse 2003).
Building bridges between the Europeanisation literature and scholarship on social movements and interest groups , the book proposes a novel perspective on the dynamics of domestic change that offers insights well beyond the framework of the EU enlargement process. It divides the process of differential empowerment into three distinct stages. First, it analyses changes in the opportunity structure both within the broader EU accession framework and in terms of specific domestic provisions for CSO involvement in policy-making. Second, it examines evolving CSO choices regarding their preferred venue and type of engagement during the membership negotiations. Finally, it assesses the outcomes of mobilisation in terms of the immediate and long-term strengthening of civil society actors. The analytical approach is actor-centred, with the overarching research question asking: To what extent have CSOs been able to use the EU accession process to empower themselves at the domestic level?
Based on a comparative analysis of civil society actorsâ mobilisation strategies and their impact over time and across three case studies, this book makes the following claims:
- Differential empowerment depends upon civil society actorsâ awareness of new opportunities opened by the EU accession process and their deliberate use of such openings. Overall, procedural gains regarding formal participation in the policy-making process and agenda setting are stronger than the substantive influence that CSOs are able to wield over policy outcomes.
- Mobilisation choices regarding venue selection and repertoire reflect differing domestic conditions under which CSOs operate. Moreover, horizontal exchanges between civil society actors from different enlargement rounds inform the development of specific mobilisation formats.
- The indirect coercion of national executives through the uploading of civil society demands into EU conditionality represents the most effective strategy for empowerment in the short term, but is restricted to the context and duration of the membership negotiations.
- The long-term prospect of civil society empowerment hinges upon CSOsâ ability to translate achievements under the accession framework into the institutionalisation of inclusive policy-making in the broader domestic setting. An overreliance upon EU leverage precludes a successful transition towards domestic engagement in the post-accession phase.
Europeanisation and Domestic Actors
Europeanisation research investigates the domestic impact of the EU on the polities, policies, and politics of its member states and, by extension, third countries with which it becomes involved. Two competing conceptualisations of Europeanisation are typically advanced: on the one hand, Europeanisation has been understood as an outcome in the sense of a specific country, policy, or institution having become Europeanised. On the other hand, the term has been used to describe a process of adaptation that acts as a framework for domestic ...