Is Democracy Timed Out? the Temporal Qualities of Responsive and Responsible Government

The crisis politics since 2008 have thrown into sharp relief fundamental tensions in the temporal constitution of European politics. These tensions revolve around three interlinked dimensions: scarcity of time; synchronization; and time horizons. The necessarily time-consuming nature of collective democratic deliberation conflicts with the need for decision-making under sometimes extreme time pressure; respect for differentiated political timescapes at national, EU and international levels conflicts with the need to act in a synchronized manner within multi-level systems; and short-term political firefighting conflicts with long-term sustainability and “time consistency”. Democratic political time – characterized by a careful balance between time-giving and swiftness, between respect of institutional Eigenzeiten and effective synchronization, and between short-term expediency and long-term sustainability has come under intense pressure. Is democracy “timed out”? In tackling this question, the paper first sets out key features of the temporal constitution of European democracies and the European multi-level system (I). It then discusses major challenges to this temporal constitution, including “high-speed society” and progressive European integration, both of which are commonly associated with growing scarcity of time, synchronization through hierarchical time-setting, and a shortening of time horizons (II). Next, the paper discusses empirical trends in the European political timescape. In so doing it draws attention to the distinction between changes in the institutionalization of political time, on the one hand, and situationalist adaptations in the use of time, on the other (III). In conclusion, the paper raises the prospect that European political time may become both increasingly “irresponsive”, as the electoral cycle progressively loses its structuring influence, and irresponsible, as the distinct temporal rationalities of majoritarian as well as non-majoritarian institutions are called into question (IV).