Contestation is defined as a “social practice [that] entails objection to specific issues that matter to people. In international relations contestation by and large involves the range of social practices, which discursively [and/or behaviourally] express disapproval of norms” (Wiener 2014: 1). Norms require regular contestation to work. Accordingly, contestation is a necessary element in processes of reflection, adaptation and renewal. Contestation is constitutive of social change, for it always involves a critical redress of norms. It can help to “establish which norm is appropriate and how to implement it” (Wiener 2014: 19). Accordingly, contestation is a positive dynamic of reflection, and it must be part of any healthy democratic process. It permits the identification of undemocratic practices or out-of-date institutions, encouraging them to change and reform. Through peoples’ contestation, lawmakers/those in power/governments are challenged to re-evaluate their decisions. However, contestation can equally challenge democracy and democracy support as such. In recent years, particular forms of contestation (e.g., populism, alternative facts and fake news) have reached a level of more fundamental litigation of democratic norms, both within the EU and in the neighbourhoods.

Wiener, Antje (2014): A Theory of Contestation. Heidelberg: Springer.

For more information on this comment, see the SHAPEDEM-EU Concepts Manual, p. 10.

Democracy not only necessitates an adequate institutional arrangement, but it also comprises social elements. After all, “political problems can only be addressed at the personal or community level through inclusion and social empowerment. The meaning of democracy [must therefore be] transformed […] to democracy as a mode of being or a mode of life: democracy as adaptive learning in the societal sphere” (Chandler 2014). Accordingly, democracy materializes and manifests itself in and through practices which are based on local systems of democratic knowledge. Any healthy democracy must allow for meaningful participation of all citizens, and it must give room for practices of contestation. Democratic norms require regular contestation to work, and contestation permits the identification of undemocratic) practices and drives lawmakers/those in power/governments to re-evaluate their decisions and policies. While SHAPEDEM-EU avoids a prescriptive notion of democracy, the concept of embedded democracy outlines some basic democratic principles: 1) free and fair elections; 2) political liberties; 3) civil rights; 4) horizontal accountability; 5) effective power to govern (Merkel 2004).

Chandler, David (2014): Democracy Unbound? Non-Linear Politics and the Politicization of Everyday Life. In European Journal of Social Theory 17 (1), pp. 42-59. Merkel, Wolfgang (2004): Embedded and Defective Democracy. In Democratization 11 (5), pp. 33-58.

For more information on this comment, see the SHAPEDEM-EU Concepts Manual, p. 12.

The continual process of mutual learning within a learning loop is guided by the desire to collectively assemble the available knowledge from all stakeholders. This necessitates that all participants are ready to 1) acknowledge that a process of de-learning and un-learning may be necessary; 2) actively listen and take all participants seriously; 3) be aware that knowledges attained may be infused with culturally embedded understandings; 4) be aware that the social context influences practices of learning; 5) invest sufficient time and capacities. The democracy learning loop allows to be responsive to localized and contextualized practices of democracy both within the EU and in the neighbourhoods. All stakeholders must be equal participants in the loop, and a prescriptive notion of democracy must be avoided. Accordingly, stakeholders must understand democracy support as an open-ended journey in which all actors contribute to and benefit from an ongoing learning process – acknowledging that this journey may experience setbacks (Sadiki and Saleh 2021). Thereby, the EU can overcome the hierarchical relationship between “democratisers” (the EU) and “democratisees” (neighbourhood countries).

Sadiki, Larbi; Saleh, Layla (2021): On EU–Arab Democratization: Towards a Democratic ‘Learning Loop’. In Dimitris Bouris, Daniela Huber, Michelle Pace (Eds.): Routledge Handbook of EU-Middle East Relations. New York: Routledge, pp. 253-264.

For more information on this comment, see the SHAPEDEM-EU Concepts Manual, p. 13.

Democracy support can be defined as all those discursive or behavioural practices of interaction which support democratization. They are situated in the larger context of foreign affairs practices which also includes, inter alia, energy, migration, security, and trade. External practices in all these fields can either strengthen the constitution of an overall democratically practiced space, or not. Two principles are particularly important to consider in this respect: 1) social embeddedness: external (democracy support) practices can be pursued at the institutional/macro, the civil society/meso, and the individual/micro level. They can be exclusive (at the state/macro level only) or inclusive and transparent (including all three levels). 2) social empowerment: external (democracy support) practices can promote particular models of democracy in an asymmetric sender-receiver relationship, or they can support local demands and imaginaries of democracy, taking seriously the diverse historical, socio-economic and cultural circumstances in which democracy grows. The latter necessitates adaptive (un)learning in which both sides are open to change their social subjectivity on and through democracy in an authentic dialogue.

For more information on this comment, see the SHAPEDEM-EU Concepts Manual, p. 14.

Practices are “competent performances. More precisely, practices are socially meaningful patterns of action [which] simultaneously embody, act out, and possibly reify background knowledge and discourse in and on the material world” (Adler & Pouliot 2011: 4). They are the “raw material” that comprises and organises the world. Social action is not determined by conscious reflection on choices, but it is shaped by “unspoken know-how” (Pouliot 2008: 270) – tacit unreflexive background knowledge. Practices tend to be stable, but they can equally alter. Thus, they can be a vehicle of reproduction and/or the source of social change. Practices have five main characteristics. First, practices are performative because they are materially mediated through human bodies. Second, practices are patterned because they imply regularity and repetition and are reproduced as structured interaction. Third, practices are based on a shared understanding of their social meaning and can be recognised as such. Fourth, practices rest on background knowledge. Fifth, material and discursive spheres become intertwined through practices, yet we can distinguish discursive practices (e.g., essential narratives) and behavioural practices (e.g., activities in a specific field of practices).

Adler, Emanuel; Pouliot, Vincent (2011): International Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pouliot, Vincent (2008): The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities. In International Organization 62 (2), pp. 257-288.

For more information on this comment, see the SHAPEDEM-EU Concepts Manual, p. 24.