Reinforcing Institutional Power: The Discourse of Normalcy in European Union Governance

Abstract

Abstract    This paper examines the notion of normalcy within the discourse of the European Union (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 reinforced its institutional power through the framework of normalcy. By emphasizing constitutionalisation and integration through legal means, bodies 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. At the core of this framework lies the rule of law (RoL), which establishes legal boundaries in the first place, but in the same move shapes political contexts.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 Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. I then scrutinise the roles of experts and the “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, focusing particularly on the ascendancy of the judiciary, but also highlighting how this trajectory may also have negative influence of legislative and executive bodies as their role diminishes in the process.