1 Introduction

This paper examines the notion of normalcy within the discourse of the EU, with a focus on its response to transformative dynamics and challenges, especially post-2008. I analyse how the EU, facing diminishing ideological supremacy, has retrenched its institutional power through the framework of normalcy. By emphasizing constitutionalisation and integration through legal means, institutions such as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have expanded their roles, promoting "integration through law" to counter alternative political projects invariably labelled as populist, thereby giving rise to anti-populism as a discursive tool. Drawing on crisis discourse and diagnostic practice, this paper explores how normalcy legitimises and perpetuates existing power structures within EU governance, subtly coercing member states and citizens into accepting its norms and values, thus shaping perceptions of normalcy and also inevitability.

My paper argues that the exclusive focus on legalistic interpretations obscures the underlying structural factors perpetuating power dynamics and economic disparities among member states, constraining adaptive responses. I examine the narrative of "growing up to democracy" and its impact on the European project discourse, particularly in the CEE. I then scrutinise the roles of experts together with what is normally described as “juristocracy” in reinforcing this narrative while simultaneously masking underlying inequalities and power differentials. Furthermore, the paper explores the strategic deployment of language and discourse by EU institutions during crises, highlighting their implications for public understanding, political action, and outcomes. Finally, it investigates the EU's strategic use of crisis discourse and diagnostic practices.

In what follows, a first section explores the complexities of political discourse of the European project, shedding light on the competing forces that shape its trajectory and influence its narratives, by focusing on the interplay between populist movements and anti-populist discourses. It is organized as follows: I investigate the interplay between populist movements and anti-populist discourses, examining their profound influence on the negotiation of societal norms. In additional, I scrutinize the pivotal role of hegemonic narratives in moulding power dynamics within the EU, and focus on how they uphold the status quo and sideline dissenting voices. Finally, the section evaluates the ramifications of populist challenges and anti-populist reactions for the legitimacy and efficacy of EU governance structures and policies.

A second part of my argument explores the influence of the narrative of "growing up to democracy" on the discourse surrounding the European project, particularly in the CEE. It explores how normalization of anti-populism reinforces this narrative and its impact on scholarly debates and public perception. Additionally, it examines the role of experts and the “juristocracy” in perpetuating this narrative while obscuring structural inequalities within the EU. Furthermore, it discusses how framing structural issues as crises to be fixed rather than systemic deficiencies to be addressed reflects and perpetuates a longing for a return to a state of normalcy.

A third part addresses the intricate response to crises, in which the interplay of language and discourse plays a pivotal role. It ventures into the strategic manoeuvres employed by EU institutions to mould public understanding, steer political actions, and determine outcomes in the midst of turmoil. By dissecting the mechanisms underlying the construction and dissemination of crisis narratives, our aim is to unveil how power structures are normalized and cyclical crises perpetuated within the EU framework. This section examines how strategic language usage shapes perceptions and influences political responses, and investigates the role of crisis narratives in legitimising predetermined actions by EU institutions. The focus is on exploring how the pursuit of normalcy by these institutions reinforces existing power dynamics and the broader implications of such interplays for governance across the EU.

The article closes with exploratory conclusions, opening avenues for future research. Within the scope of this issue my paper addresses, in a different form, concerns raised by the contributions of Adam Czarnota and Martin Loughlin. My argument also intersects with that advanced by Peter L. Lindseth and Païvi Leino-Sandberg, as regards undue, stealthy juridification, and with Bogdan Iancu’s paper on the implications of EU-driven but maladapted and insufficiently monitored anticorruption reforms.

My main concern here is with the reflexivity and ossification of mechanisms of power and with the way in which the normalisation discourse, of which rule of law (RoL) narratives are part and parcel, target not only ‘bad populism’ of the Orbán variety but also democracy as such. This drive, as I argue below, leads to tendencies equating populism with democracy. Such tendencies have very problematic, negative impacts on legitimate majoritarian-democratic but also liberal (i.e., liberal-constitutional) claims regarding, first and foremost, social inclusion and in particular redistributive policies.

2 Unpacking the Political Power Play: EU Hegemony, Anti-Populism, and the Dynamics of Discourse

The political power of the EU transcends its institutional structures and enforcement apparatus. While institutional mechanisms exist to ensure compliance, such as the ECJ and the EC, the true strength of the EU lies in the willingness of the states to conform to the established principles of governance voluntarily. The EU's influence extends beyond legislative mandates, exerting its power through the subtle coercion of standardization across the continent, through various policies and initiatives. This process is subtle yet pervasive, operating through numerous channels such as the media, education, a specific language, and cultural practices. This process is facilitated by initiatives like the single market and the Eurozone, as economic interdependence encourages alignment with EU norms as member states seek to maintain access to the benefits of the (single) market. Embracing EU norms is frequently portrayed as a logical decision owing to the evident advantages of fostering integration and collaboration.Footnote 1

At the heart of populist and Eurosceptic critiques lie the EU's inherent incompleteness and contested nature. Despite decades of integration efforts, the EU remains a work in progress, characterised by institutional complexities, policy disagreements, and democratic deficits. The unresolved tensions between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism, as well as the imbalanced allocation of influence among member states, contribute to a sense of ambiguity and ambivalence. Moreover, the responses to crises, such as the Eurozone debt crisis and the migration challenge (Kochenov et al. in this issue), have exposed its vulnerabilities and highlighted the limitations of its governance mechanisms. The populist challenges gave birth to an intense anti-populist campaign both inside and outside of academia, which has treated contemptuously all alternative politics and imaginaries as ‘populist’, portraying them mostly as a democratic ‘malaise’, which spreads irrational and anti-liberal attitudes in society, thus eroding democratic institutions.Footnote 2 Anti-populists, including many within the ranks of Commission experts and the political establishment, often seek to delegitimize populist leaders and their agendas by portraying them as dangerous, irrational, or demagogic. They frame populist rhetoric as divisive, simplistic, and potentially destabilizing to democratic governance. Anti-populism relies on divisive dichotomies, associating positive attributes like democracy and stability with itself, and negative traits like demagoguery and chaos with populism.Footnote 3 Scholars often frame populism in moralistic and monist terms, portraying it as a force that homogenizes society and undermines liberal democratic principles.Footnote 4 Populism is frequently juxtaposed against liberalism, pluralism, and representative democracy, with some scholars even considering populism as inherently anti-democratic.Footnote 5

In essence, anti-populism establishes a hierarchical framework where anti-populist forces claim moral and rational superiority over populism, thereby legitimizing their own political stance while delegitimizing alternatives they label as populism.Footnote 6 Central to the anti-populist narrative is the notion of preserving and defending the status quo, which is depicted as synonymous with stability, expertise, and rationality. This may have hegemonic implications (e.g., Iancu 2020)Footnote 7 They warn against the dangers of allowing populist leaders to undermine established checks and balances, erode democratic norms, and undermine the authority of experts.Footnote 8 Additionally, anti-populists criticize populists' behaviour in the political sphere and advocate a return to consensus politics, where moderate parties dominate, independent institutions are strong, and a broad political consensus prevails.Footnote 9 They view this as a healthy return to "normal" politics, contrasting with the upheaval caused by populism. This is why anti-populism is best understood as a socio-political field, which helps to defend the mainstream discourse, based on these antagonistic identifications.

Laclau and Mouffe offer an insight into the construction and evolution of the social sphere, which forms the space in which anti-populist dynamics take place. Central to their framework is the notion that discourses are not passive cultural frameworks but rather active agents that shape our material, conceptual, and phenomenological realities.Footnote 10 These discourses are defined by specific logics, which unify various elements and establish particular relational structures of meaning, which form the public sphere within which our political deliberations unfold. These logics delineate the "horizon of possibility", setting the parameters within which issues are framed. Laclau and Mouffe emphasize that this horizon is not fixed; rather, it is perpetually contested and negotiated. No single discourse or collection of discourses can fully encapsulate the complexity of the social sphere, which is why exclusion is inherent to the process of establishing hegemony.Footnote 11 Indeed, Laclau and Mouffe argue that exclusion is a necessary feature of hegemony, as discourses define themselves not only by what they include but also by what they exclude. Yet, the debate transcends mere theoretical discourse; it manifests in practical considerations of governance and societal dynamics. The exclusionary aspect the two authors talk about is crucial for understanding the dynamics of power within the EU and its socio-political contexts. Those in positions of dominance seek to maintain their power by marginalizing alternative perspectives and voices, thereby reinforcing their own narrative.Footnote 12

Central to the notion of hegemony is the universalization of interests, which serves as the political pillar of the European project, which is built around the coercive power of its institutional structure. The primary objective of any such endeavour is to assert control over, if not eradicate, social antagonism by constructing a cohesive social totality.Footnote 13 This entails legitimizing certain norms as natural or unquestionable, thereby fortifying the existing social order and marginalizing dissenting perspectives. Mainstream politicians, along with prominent members of the media and academic elite, frequently assert their own epistemic superiority, claiming to possess a monopoly on truth and rationality. They present themselves as neutral arbiters of knowledge and guardians of reason in the face of what they view as the irrationalism and "post-truth" tendencies of their (populist) opponents. By positioning themselves as the arbiters of truth and reason, mainstream figures seek to delegitimise alternative perspectives and silence dissenting voices. Furthermore, the establishment's claim to epistemic superiority is often based on a very specific understanding of rationality that excludes alternative ways of knowing and understanding the world. By privileging certain forms of knowledge over others, the establishment perpetuates systems of oppression and marginalization, further entrenching social inequalities.

In conclusion, the power dynamics within the EU extend far beyond its institutional structures, encompassing a complex interplay of political forces, discursive hegemony, and struggles for legitimacy. While the EU utilizes a variety of institutional mechanisms to enforce compliance, its true influence lies in member states' voluntary adherence to established governance principles. This influence permeates various aspects of the life of society, facilitated by initiatives like the single market and the Eurozone, which foster economic interdependence and alignment with EU norms. However, the EU faces challenges from populist movements and Eurosceptic discourses, which contest its authority and highlight its perceived shortcomings. The response from anti-populist forces, which builds upon a claim to moral and rational superiority, underscores the entrenched nature of political discourse within the EU. The dynamics described reflect broader struggles for hegemony, where dominant narratives seek to marginalize alternative perspectives and maintain control over the political agenda. Ultimately, the EU's ability to navigate these challenges and maintain legitimacy hinges on its capacity to engage with diverse viewpoints and address underlying social inequalities.

3 The Normalization of Power: Discourses, Experts, and the EU's Structural Challenges

The narrative of post-89 enlargement of the EU has deeply shaped the discourse of the European project as we know it today.Footnote 14 This narrative, often framed as a journey towards "growing up to democracy," has not only normalized specific ideologies but has also perpetuated a hierarchical structure within the EU framework itself. The subsequent normalization of anti-populism further reinforces this narrative, influencing both scholarly debates and public understanding. Moreover, the growing influence of experts and the judicialization of politics, already discussed in Sect. 2 above, solidify existing power structures, marginalizing alternative perspectives and thus reinforcing the status quo.

The CEE countries found themselves during accession and post-2004 enmeshed in a narrative that framed their accession as a journey towards "growing up to democracy."Footnote 15 This narrative, rooted in a belief in the West's political and economic superiority, became ingrained in the vocabulary of the transformation process, reinforcing a specific version of the European project as an unquestionable reality. The construction of a European centre and its peripheries, along with the idea of a singular civilization source, became part of the public imagination of the new EU members, perpetuating their sense of inferiority.Footnote 16 Meanwhile, the original member states (the EU-12 of Maastricht or the EU-15 of 1995) assumed the role of the recognition-granting gaze, turning the politics of catching up into a perpetual pursuit of acknowledgment by the centre. One significant consequence of this paradigm was the solidification of a hierarchy, positioning the Western narrative as the pinnacle of modernity, while alternative trajectories, available at that time, were relegated to the sidelines. This not only established a sense of superiority but also perpetuated the notion that the West's political and economic development was already perfected rather than in flux and perfectible. This narrative, shared by counterparts from both East and West, reflects the Fukuyama-esque "end of ideology" and underscores the deeply ingrained convictions of the post-1989 European project. The institutionalization of this ideological framework effectively channelled the multifaceted interactions of the European project into specific passageways, each governed by particular procedures and guided by a distinct logic. At the core of this governance paradigm is the ideology of the RoL (on this, see Loughlin in this issue). The RoL framework has a critical part in defining the boundaries of normality and normalizing the sociopolitical landscape as well as organizing these boundaries. Mathias Albert's assertion that "there is no empire without stratification" underscores the stratification process inherent in the process of constitutionalisation.Footnote 17 At the core of this process lies the propagation of a standardized template aligned with European norms, which delineates the boundaries of normality and fosters a homogenized sociopolitical landscape. Accordingly, these templates not only structure the legal thinking, but also the debate we conduct.Footnote 18

The central theme of this process is the notion of normality and the process of normalization, a process which is often overlooked but is nonetheless profoundly influential. Normalcy, associated with concepts like peace, order, stability, and progress, is perceived as an ideal state. Normalization, on the other hand, is the gradual return to this optimal condition. Adhering to principles and rules is deemed 'normal'. Deviation from this norm leads to labelling other actors as abnormal, justifying various interventions ranging from derogatory labelling to disciplinary measures. Michel Foucault's work famously explains normalization as a sophisticated technique, operating without overt coercion or punishment.Footnote 19 Instead, the arcana of normalization employs a complex technology of power, wherein power relations necessitate the formation of knowledge frameworks, and knowledge simultaneously shapes and reinforces such power structures. All assertions of truth necessarily involve the exercise of power, and conversely, power can only be wielded through the creation of truth. This convergence of power and knowledge occurs primarily through discursive practices. These regimes dictate the parameters of acceptable arguments, determining who can speak, under what conditions, and on what subjects. By authorizing certain voices and excluding others, truth regimes consolidate power by shaping what is considered legitimate knowledge, and ultimately ‘normal’. Normalization is therefore both a discourse and discourse-channelled and -constrained practices.

The normalization of anti-populism is intricately linked to the symbiotic relationship between academic discourse and public perception. The negative conceptualization of populism within academia not only shapes scholarly debates but also permeates into the public sphere through pundit commentary. Moreover, the discourse surrounding populism extends beyond mere academic classification; it also functions as a descriptor that shapes public understanding. Consequently, the portrayal of populism as inherently detrimental to democracy and liberal values becomes entrenched, contributing to the normalization of anti-populism. This interconnectedness underscores the influential role of academic theorisation and punditry in shaping the narrative surrounding populism and its normalization as a negative term by default.

The shift towards resolving political conflicts through legal mechanisms limits the discretion of elected representatives and thus of democratic politics beyond the scope of what classical 20th century liberalism considered necessary. The growing influence of the judiciary often results in depoliticization, as elected officials cede decision-making authority unduly to unelected judges.Footnote 20 Under the governance of this system, the intricate framework of legal entities within the EU assumes responsibility for ensuring the smooth functioning of governance and the enforcement of laws, thereby perpetuating the continuity of normality across the Union. Through their expertise and institutional authority, they wield considerable influence in shaping perceptions, policies, and practices. When legal experts present their opinions, they often do from the position of objectivity and thereby reinforce the notion that their perspectives are grounded in impartial analysis and comprehensive understanding. While specialized knowledge may provide valuable insights, it also creates blind spots and reinforces existing power dynamics. In presenting expert opinions as ‘natural science-like’ objective, legal experts may inadvertently perpetuate inequalities and reinforce dominant narratives. This process is facilitated by transforming political discourses into scientific data, producing hierarchies of knowledge, often measured through compiling statistics, monitoring performance, and using these metrics to make normalizing judgements about states and their forms of governance.Footnote 21 The process inadvertently perpetuates a stratified and unequal system, where some states are ranked higher than others across the board. They possess the power to define what constitutes normalcy and what deviates from it, thereby influencing public perceptions and shaping the contours of political debate. In doing so, they often frame social and political struggles as ideological conflicts rather than as manifestations of deeper structural issues. By framing structural conflicts in this manner, the dominant narrative obscures the structural inequalities and power imbalances which have been manifesting with a growing rigour, presenting them instead as clashes of competing ideologies. In doing so, the framework dictates which voices and perspectives are privileged and which are marginalized. This hierarchical organization reinforces in turn specific modes of discourse, often privileging the opinions and perspectives of expert opinions. The role of experts in defining what is considered normal or abnormal within public discourse is therefore crucial (Curtin 2014).Footnote 22

This is especially noticeable in the case of the structural problems the EU has been experiencing, which the expert discourse labels as crises.Footnote 23 They are perceived and contextualized by the EU institutions and mainstream academia as abnormal occurrences, threats to the established order. Instead of engaging in critical introspection, the focus shifts towards repairing the malfunctioning components of the system to restore a semblance of normalcy. This mechanistic approach mirrors the act of fixing a broken machine, wherein specific flaws responsible for the crisis are identified and rectified without addressing the underlying systemic deficiencies. Central to this approach is the desire to return to a state of stability and predictability where the system operates within predefined parameters. Normalcy, in this specific context, represents the resumption of business as usual, with little room for questioning or challenging existing norms and policies.

In conclusion, the narrative surrounding the post-89 enlargement, coupled with the post-2004 discourse, has entrenched a hierarchical structure within the EU framework, perpetuating notions of superiority and inferiority. This narrative, underpinned by the belief in Western political and economic superiority, has normalized specific ideologies and governance paradigms, notably the RoL framework. The normalization process, intricately linked to power dynamics and discursive practices, extends to the classification and perception of populism, shaping both scholarly debates and public understanding. The growing influence of experts and the judicialization of politics further solidify the existing power structures, marginalizing alternative perspectives and reinforcing the status quo unreflectively and in perpetuity. Consequently, the framing of structural issues within the EU as crises to be fixed rather than as systemic deficiencies to be addressed reflects a desire to return to a state of normalcy, perpetuating a cycle of maintenance of the established order. This hierarchical organization of the discourse ultimately obscures deeper structural inequalities and perpetuates a homogenized sociopolitical landscape within the European project.

4 Shaping the Narrative: The Power Dynamics of Crisis Diagnosis and Normalization in the EU

At the heart of the problem tackled in this section lies the crucial task of assigning meaning to the crisis — here, the storyteller holds immense power in shaping public deliberation and defining the scope of political action, and ultimately its outcomes. Crisis-talk reflects a particular style of discourse known as diagnosis, in our case the EU portrays itself as the diagnostician tasked with identifying and resolving Europe's ailments. The process of diagnosis is not merely the act of identifying what the factual problem is; rather, it represents a strategic deployment of language aimed at differentiating and organizing the discourse in a way that enables intervention and solidifies the dominant power structures. Firstly, it involves the manipulation of language and discourse to cast internal issues in an external light. By characterizing these challenges as external threats, institutions effectively distance themselves from any culpability, framing their responses as defensive measures against forces beyond their purview. This linguistic sleight of hand is a powerful tool in the normalization process. Through careful selection of words and framing, institutions not only obscure the internal origins of the crisis but also establish a narrative that positions them as proactive defenders against external aggressors.Footnote 24 This narrative, once established, becomes ingrained in public discourse, shaping the collective understanding of the situation and framing the institution's actions as justified and necessary, and justifies the adoption of predetermined actions.

One of the primary consequences of this fixation on normalcy is the perpetuation of cyclical crises. Hay contends that the concept of 'crisis' encapsulates two distinct dimensions.Footnote 25 On the one hand, there is the objective contradiction inherent in a system, leading it into a state of instability with unpredictable outcomes. On the other, there are the particular interferences, and they represent this volatility in specific manner. These crises are not mere happenstances but are dynamic outcomes shaped by subjective interventions and interpretations. In this sense, crises are never accessible to us in an “objective” or “neutral” manner, but through performative construction within a given discourse, rather than being solely reactive responses to external events. The notion of anti-populism underscores the establishment of normality amidst crises. Structural inequalities, such as economic disparities among member states and democratic deficits within EU institutions, remain unaddressed, allowing crises to recur with alarming regularity. Furthermore, through its responses to crises, the EU normalizes specific practices and behaviours, embedding them further into the fabric of its institutional framework. In essence, the pursuit of normalcy prioritizes the preservation of the established order over meaningful structural reform. Moreover, the emphasis on technical expertise and bureaucratic efficiency tends to sideline alternative viewpoints that could offer more holistic approaches to addressing systemic challenges. While ostensibly aimed at administrative organization, this categorization serves as a mechanism for imposing specific interests. As a result, smaller or less influential states often find themselves marginalized or coerced into compliance with the dominant norms.Footnote 26 The more influential states, who hold a claim to normality, wield disproportionate influence in shaping the norms and standards that define normality within the Union. These “normal” states are typically those that align closely with the established norms and regulations. They adhere to prescribed policies, exhibit economic stability, and adherence to democratic principles. In contrast, states who deviate often from these norms are labelled as “abnormal”, facing pressure to conform to the dominant paradigm. This pressure extends beyond mere administrative convenience. By labelling certain states as anomalous, the EU justifies interventions aimed at reforming their institutions, policies, and practices to align more closely with the perceived norm.

The RoL is key here, it extends beyond a static legal framework; in practice, it tends to reinforce existing power structures, predominantly centred around the EU's core.Footnote 27 This perpetuates a post-political paradigm where decisions are confined within predetermined and institutionalized boundaries. A notable example is the part financial institutions play in shaping monetary policies. The European Central Bank (ECB) exercises considerable influence over member states' economic policies. Similarly, the ECJ exercises significant influence over member states' legal systems. Its rulings often shape the trajectory of European integration, establishing patterns that further entrench supranational authority.Footnote 28 Furthermore, regulatory agencies play a vital role in shaping EU policies across various sectors, from environmental protection to consumer rights.Footnote 29 These agencies often operate independently of national governments, implementing EU regulations and standards that affect member states' domestic policies.Footnote 30 This has led to the gradual consolidation of decision-making authority and policy formulation in Brussels, which is the bureaucratic heart of the Union. This process, as articulated by Wolfgang Streeck, has significant implications, shaping sovereign nations into what he terms "consolidated states", where member states increasingly relinquish sovereignty to supranational entities,Footnote 31 with decision-making authority progressively centralized in Brussels. Moreover, the imposition of normality through centralized decision-making can result in a homogenization of policies that may not suit the diverse needs of member states. What might be an effective solution for one country may not necessarily be applicable or beneficial for another. This one-size-fits-all approach can lead to a sense of imposition rather than collaboration. In the economic realm for example, the imposition of normality is evident through the influence of international financial institutions and trade agreements.Footnote 32 The conditions attached to loans and aid packages often require countries to adhere to a set of economic policies that prioritize fiscal stability.Footnote 33

One significant aspect of this imposition of normality is the subtle shift from substantive discussions to an emphasis on technical legalities and procedural formalities. This phenomenon is not limited to a specific domain but permeates various channels, including economic policy, legal frameworks, and institutional structures. These mechanisms collectively work to limit the scope of debate, creating a rigid framework within which decision-makers operate. Decision-making becomes detached from its broader societal implications, focusing more on navigating intricate legal frameworks than addressing the underlying issues. The prioritization of legalistic interpretations over substantive justice becomes a prevailing theme, resulting in decisions that may appear sound within the confines of established rules but fail to tackle the root causes of societal challenges. Furthermore, the excessive emphasis on procedural norms and adherence to legal formalities can inadvertently act as a barrier to meaningful reform. The bureaucratic hurdles and legal intricacies often inhibit efforts to address systemic injustices and implement transformative measures. The growing disconnect between decision-makers and the citizens they represent is exacerbated by the distancing of decision-making processes from local contexts.Footnote 34 As decisions are made at higher echelons of governance, the concerns and nuances specific to individual nations may be overlooked. This lack of contextual sensitivity can lead to policies that may not effectively tackle the problems experienced by different regions in the EU. The rise of populism within the EU can be viewed, at least in part, as a response to these underlying tensions.Footnote 35

In conclusion, the power dynamics at play highlight the pivotal role of storytelling and discourse in shaping public perception and political action. Through the strategic manipulation of language, institutions often deflect responsibility for internal issues by framing them as external threats, thus normalizing their responses and justifying predetermined actions. This pursuit of normalcy, however, tends to perpetuate cyclical crises by sidestepping root causes and prioritizing the preservation of existing power structures. Moreover, centralized decision-making processes, dominated by technicalities and legal formalities, can lead to a homogenization of policies that may not suit the diverse needs of member states, fostering resentment and disenchantment among citizens. Ultimately, this imposition of normality risks eroding sovereignty, exacerbating societal inequalities, and fuelling populist sentiments within the EU.

5 Normative Power and Crisis Governance: Unveiling the Dynamics of EU's Legal Discourse and Diagnostic Practices

For Carl Schmitt the concept of normality assumes significance in both descriptive and prescriptive contexts. Schmitt employs the term to characterize the standard arrangement of a given community. In this descriptive sense, normality denotes consistent forms that define the prevailing way of life within a society. Schmitt's notion of a 'normal situation' or a 'homogeneous medium' reflects this understanding of normality as a reflection of the average state of affairs within a social group.Footnote 36 The 'normal' as not only what is commonly encountered in the majority of cases but also as an idealized standard that society deems as how things should be. This dual nature of normality implies a complex interplay between what is observed as typical within a social context and what is prescribed as the standard to which individuals and institutions should adhere. However, Schmitt also extends the concept of normality into a prescriptive realm, where it becomes intertwined with the formulation and enforcement of norms within society. Here, normality serves as the basis for establishing norms and regulations, thereby shaping the legal order and governing social behaviour. Schmitt contends that a stable and predictable normality is essential for the efficacy and legitimacy of legal norms, as deviations from the norm risk destabilizing the social fabric and necessitating exceptional measures. Norms are actively constructed and imposed upon social phenomena, reflecting a deliberate effort to establish order and categorize deviations. In this sense, the imposition of norms represents a decisive moment in the normalization of social life, where the preferences and intentions of those in power shape the prevailing standards of normality. Schmitt emphasizes the contextual relativity of normality and the contingent nature of the establishment of norms. In other words, the normalization of social life is contingent upon historical and cultural contexts.Footnote 37

The emphasis on the cohesive effect of law corresponds with the wider tendency in European studies to perceive the integration process as undeniably advantageous. In the scholarly discourse surrounding the RoL, there exists a pronounced tendency to concentrate on the roles, regulations, and vested interests of formal institutional actors, which are typically perceived as being distinct from politics and relatively stable entities.Footnote 38 As these strategies bolster the judiciary, they simultaneously weaken executive entities, a crucial factor considering the politically sensitive environments of the EU. As a result of this, a carefully constructed narrative emerges, acting as a mechanism to normalize the waning influence of national executive entities. Normalization, in this context, operates as a defence mechanism, shielding the EU power structures from scrutiny by portraying the evolving landscape as a natural and necessary progression. The discourse surrounding the empowerment of the judiciary has become a cornerstone of European studies, portraying it as a natural evolution indicative of a maturing political system.Footnote 39 The heightened emphasis on the judiciary's pivotal role, however, comes at the expense of majoritarian bodies, which subtly find themselves relegated to a significantly secondary position. This erosion of their influence within the political arena is not a mere coincidence but a direct outcome of the particular framing of current political debates. The simplification of politics into technocratic governance signifies this trend, where the focus shifts from addressing root causes to managing their consequences by relegating key issues to the realm of administrative management.Footnote 40

Furthermore, normalization operates through the creation of a sense of urgency and inevitability. Crisis declarations often invoke a sense of impending danger, fostering an atmosphere where immediate and decisive action is deemed essential. By categorizing these elements as needing correction or alignment with purportedly universal standards, diagnosis becomes instrumental in constructing a narrative of normativity and legitimacy, often aligned with the interests of dominant powers within the EU. When crises are consistently framed as external threats requiring decisive and pre-emptive action, the public becomes conditioned to accept such measures as the norm. This heightened urgency serves to normalize measures that might otherwise face scrutiny or opposition. By portraying their actions as responses to imminent threats, institutions create an environment in which dissent is marginalized, as any resistance is painted as a hindrance to the urgent and necessary measures being taken. The repeated use of such tactics can contribute to a normalization of crisis as a mode of governance.Footnote 41 This normalization sets the stage for a perpetual state of crisis, where institutions are empowered to wield exceptional powers under the guise of responding to external threats. By framing alternative ideologies and actors as threats to the established order, institutions reinforce the dominant narratives that uphold their authority. Through the narrative of crisis, the EU portrays itself as the guardian of stability and progress, thereby legitimizing its expanding role. Despite its ostensibly constructive aims, diagnostic practice also operates to negate and constrain political contestation. At its core, diagnostic practice within the EU involves the pathologisation of elements within national governments, politics, and cultures situated on the European periphery. In concrete terms, this means that the existing institutional structures set countless hierarchical relationships with those in a more superior position clustered in particular spaces within these structures, which in turn promote and sustain specific policies and legal regulations.

In conclusion, the discourse surrounding the European Union's utilization of crisis rhetoric and diagnostic practices reveals a deliberate strategy aimed at normalizing its power dynamics. By emphasizing the unifying force of legal norms and bolstering the judiciary while weakening executive entities, the EU constructs a narrative that portrays its evolving governance structure as a natural and necessary progression. This narrative, deeply rooted in Carl Schmitt's concept of normality, operates both descriptively and prescriptively, shaping social behaviour and establishing the basis for legal norms. However, this normalization process operates as a defence mechanism, shielding power structures from scrutiny and marginalizing dissent by framing crises as imminent threats requiring exceptional measures. Through the repetition of crisis rhetoric and diagnostic practices, the EU portrays itself as the guardian of stability and progress, thereby legitimizing its expanding role. Despite its purported constructive aims, this normalization also serves to negate and constrain political contestation, reinforcing hierarchical relationships within institutional structures and promoting specific policies and regulations.

6 Conclusion

My contribution has underscored the narrative of "growing up to democracy" and its implications for the discourse surrounding the European project, particularly in CEE countries. By emphasizing the transition to democracy as a linear process guided by expert-driven reforms, the EU has obscured the complex realities of post-communist societies and reinforced a narrative of Western normativity. In contemporary European political discourse, the pursuit of normalcy is a central theme, responding to the failings of the post-89 EU narrative and its inability to maintain a cultural hegemony, which is one of the key sources of its legitimacy. This change coincides with the rise of alternative political and normative discourses, resulting in the emergence of novel power dynamics in Europe. Efforts to establish a hegemonic narrative face resistance from member states and competing ideologies, with populist movements challenging the EU's legitimacy writ large. The discourse of anti-populism, in the effort to reinforce the EU’s post-89 narrative, frames alternative perspectives as threats. By framing its response to crises within the framework of normalcy, the EU has effectively constructed anti-populism as a discursive tool, positioning itself as the guardian of rational, rule-based governance. However, this emphasis on legalistic interpretations and procedural norms risks overlooking the underlying structural factors that perpetuate power imbalances and economic disparities among member states. The RoL framework, reinforced by experts, not only organizes boundaries in legal, social, and political contexts, but more importantly fortifies the existing power structures, where decisions operate within predetermined boundaries. Through strategic language and discourse, EU institutions have sought to shape public understanding and political action, often at the expense of democratic accountability and popular sovereignty.

In what ways does the emphasis on normalcy as a political approach reflect a response to the waning hegemonic influence of the European Union after 1989, and how does this emphasis contribute to the marginalization of alternative trajectories and the reinforcement of existing hierarchical power structures within the post-1989 European landscape? One primary manifestation of the pursuit of normalcy is the emphasis on the RoL as a foundational EU principle. The discourse on the RoL often revolves around 'good governance' and 'democratic values,' essential components of normalcy. This pursuit aims to restore stability in the face of disruptions, shifting towards legal constitutionalism post-1989. This transition led to counter-majoritarian institutions, juridification across policymaking, and the rise of 'legal constitutionalization.' Legal constitutionalism post-1989 recalibrated political dynamics, establishing a network of legal institutions known as the “juristocracy”. This system emphasizes normalization through harmonized laws across member states for consistency. The link between post-1989 politics and normalization is intricately woven into ‘legal constitutionalisation’, altering governance dynamics and elevating the role of legal norms in shaping the political landscape. The focus on legalistic interpretations neglects underlying structural factors perpetuating inequality. The strategic deployment of the RoL language pathologises elements in national contexts, justifying interventions aligning with dominant powers' interests. Institutions construct narratives around crises, using crisis declarations and technocratic governance to perpetuate existing trajectories and consolidate authority. The process of normalization intertwines with governance and institutional behaviour, creating a framework that formulates EU institutions' policy trajectories.

How does the strategic deployment of crisis discourse and diagnostic practice by the European Union serve to normalize its exercise of power, marginalize dissent, and perpetuate its influence? The pursuit of normalization interacts with inherent disruptions in the European project. Emergencies, whether economic, security-related, or public health crises, serve as catalysts reinforcing existing power structures and institutional norms. The normalization narrative frames emergencies as abnormalities, reinforcing established institutions' authority and perpetuating the sense of inevitability surrounding existing power dynamics. The complex interplay between the pursuit of normalization and inherent disruptions within the EU involves the concept of "emergency." This term often masks structural problems as abrupt events, concealing gradual evolutions and discernible patterns. The EU's management of crises aims to create order and control, extending beyond crisis management to encompass harmonization, integration, and institutional consolidation.