The term is used mainly to describe the genius of the European Union (EU) but is also gaining currency in more general theories of democracy above state level.
Philippe van Parijs used the term "demoi-cracy" negatively in 1998[1] to refer to the existing state of affair in Europe and in contrast to "European demos-cracy".
Later, Nicolaidis refined her definition of demoicracy as "a Union of peoples who govern together but not as one"[4] Nicolaïdis's originally advanced the concept as an alternative to the calls of the philosopher Jürgen Habermas[5] and by the former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer[6] that a common European identity must and should be ‘forged’.
Instead, she argued in favour of a community which recognises its irreducible internal pluralism and is based on mutual recognition of differences rather than shared values as Habermas would have it.
While both sides of the debate premise their argument on some arguable empirical claims (distinct ‘European’ values or celebration of tolerance respectively), neither of these is necessary for the normative plausibility of demoicracy as a theoretical concept.
Thus, Besson suggests a dynamic concept of demoi, which comprises all those affected by any particular decision (and thus subject to arbitrary domination by the group of the decision-makers).
With regard to the EU the concept has been criticized because it does not provide an answer to the 'no demos thesis' but merely disguises the problem of democratic deficit and forgoes the capacity of peoples to collectively control their fate.
To remedy this, Cheneval and Schimmelfenning with a team of researchers at ETH Zurich have embarked on a project intended 'to map and explain the development of demoicratic institutions.
[13] Another example of demoicratically interlinked institutions is the so-called ‘yellow card’ or Early Warning Mechanism introduced by the Lisbon Treaty.