Is the EU in ‘democratic deficit’?

Introduction

“Pivotal parts of the decisions of the EU are subject to neither watch nor control by the citizens of Member States, neither directly nor by their representatives. Furthermore, what control and accountability there is runs counter to received democratic theory”. (Andreas Follesdal)

European Union has come to a common platform after a dynamic evolution of fifty years. European Union is not like any other international organisation. It has its own parliament, court of justice, commission, bank and legal procedures. However we cannot call or consider it as a state as it has no common army, common tax policy and social policy either. Thus we can say that it is not a legitimatised form of state. 

Here comes the relevant question whether the political leadership of European Union requires contestation and they need a general political agenda. The other issue we are going to address in this essay is that of the great difference of democracy and benevolent authoritarianism which are to be considered as the “thinnest theories of democracy”. These great things are missing in the structure of European Union. Even though there is unity among the nations in European Union on many things, however there is no legitimated democratic system. Many experts and authors have questioned its mere existence and consider that “there is democratic deficit in European Union”. 

Democratic Deficit: Definition

Even though it has definite definition for this term, Democratic deficit can be defined as lapses or ignorance of implementing the great principles of parliamentary democracy both in practise and in legal system. Different authors and scholars have their own connotation for this phrase. David Marquand is the one who used is this great phrase of democratic deficit in the year 1979 as he was referring legitimate democracy weaknesses of European Union (Parliament for Europe, London; Jonathan Cape, 1979). He suggested having direct election for Europe Parliament and at last it happened in the year 1979 as the members of European parliament were elected directly. However the questions of giving more power to the European Parliament still continues.

European Union decided to have “Single European Act” after Maastricht treaty which forced to have an economic and monetary union among European Union member countries. They have added two more pillars to this treaty; “Common Foreign and Security Policy and Justice and Home Affairs”. The problem of this treat was that it was not controlled European Parliament and it clearly showed the democratic deficit in the processes. People of reacted against these kind of things differently. It was fully refused by the people of Denmark when it came for referendum. However it was accepted in France with a mild majority. The democratic concerns of European Union became worse when Irish refused the Treaty of Nice in the first referendum itself. 

Democratic Deficit: Standard Version

As we have seen above, there is no single definition for democratic deficit and it differs from person to person and nation to nation as well. Joseph Weiler too has this opinion and he comes up with a standard version in 1990s. According to his opinion, we can define democratic deficit by including five main claims and they are listed below.

1)      As we know, the integration of Europe was intended to increase more power to the Union by decreasing the national parliamentary powers (Andersen, Burns and Raunio 1996, 1999). However European Parliament has only few executive powers especially in legal amendments. Policy matters are dealt by the executive actors of European Union and these actors are either the national ministers or government nominated members. These actors have no control over national parliaments and whenever they take policy decisions in Brussels, it is not accepted by these national parliaments. 

2)      As most scholars advocate, European Parliament is weak. There was a direct trade off among the national parliaments and European Parliament where, as we know, the increase in power of European Union will automatically decrease the legislative powers of national parliaments (Holland, 1980). But this seems to be faded away and many argue to give more power to European Union over councils and commissions of governments (Lodge, 1994). Even though some treaties passed in 1980s increased the powers of European Union, it is still a weak figure. Though it has legislative power in national councils according to co decision procedure, most of its laws are passed as consultation procedures where even the national government can amend the European Union Budget as “Non Compulsory Expenditure”. 

3)      One other fact is that there is no European election and the people in European Union elect their national governments and these governments nominate their representatives in the European Parliament. Thus there is no direct involvement of people in the election of European Parliament as the people elect the personalities and parties at the national level. As we know, the parties fight in the national level on national issues rather European Union issues (Marsh, 1998). So the people of European Union have no direct involvement in the decision making policy of European Union as the issues of European Union are not influential in the national elections. 

4)      Suppose if people are directly involved in the election process of European Union, but European Union is “too distant” from the voters of European Union. It is psychologically and institutionally true. It is too away from their domestic democratic institutions and thus people cannot understand the ideologies of European Union. European commission is not a government or a bureaucratic office. Commission is elected through complex and obscure procedures and the council is the part of their legislative and most of its decisions are done secretly (Magnette, 2001). Another problem is that they cannot make effective debates in the legislative assemblies as it has the member of different languages and it is assembly of multi language as well (Wallace and Smith, 1995).

5)      We can see a great drift in policy due to this integration and European Union cannot adopt a common policy due to the factors mentioned above. Because most the decisions and policies are not supported by the all the people in European Union. Even though the national governments accept and form the policies for European Union, it is not able to convince those in the national levels due to their own legal systems, courts and interest groups. As social democratic scholars point out there is a great policy drift from domestic policy status quos (Scharpf, 1999). 

Democratic Deficit in the views of Scholars

Majority of Economic Society beliefs are based on Giandomenico Majone and Hans Peter. According to Majone, European Union is “regulatory state” or “fourth branch of government”. It acts as a special agency and it is the responsibility of the agency to monitor the implementation process of long term strategies or objectives. Agency has an important role to play in the governance of the state (Majone 1993a). He says that European Commission has much creditability than inter governmental agreement. Thus we have to see it as a regulatory process rather than democratic process and it resembles legal system and central banks which are concerned as “the second or constitutional pillar” of modern democratic set up in the view of Ives Meny. However Majone further argues that European Union is missing political accountability as every important institution must give proper and valid reason for their decisions and policies. Thus they can put the policies and decisions for public debate and judicial reviews. According to European commission is the one and only institution and other members in its are inconsistent, because they are temporary in their positions. Thus it is “not yet institutionally suited to develop a coherent legislative strategy to achieve the objectives laid down in the treaties”. (Craig, 1997).

Thus we can see great difference between the opinions of Majone and the standard version of democratic deficit. He does not believe that the increasing popularity and the powers of European Union will reduce the democratic deficit. On the other hand he believes that it will enhance the concept West Minister Model. He trusts more in European Union commission as it has the capacity to defend the interests of the community which are clearly defined in its treaties. For him credibility is more important than the legitimacy of the democracy. 

Other important thesis on democratic deficit is of Hans-Peter Ipsen. According to him, European Union is “Special purpose association for functional integration”. He believes that European Union is formed to cope up with consequences of economic liberation. “This purpose legitimates the activity of the European Union in a number of functional areas and at the same time limits the extension of European Union competences to what is necessary to cope with economic interdependence” (Follesdal A. and Koslwoski P, 1998). According to him, European Union lacks democratic legitimating as it is no supranational and it consists of different nationalities of democracy.

Scholars like Scharpf, Streeck, Schmitter, Leibfried and Pierson have different perspective on European Union’s democratic deficit. According to them, European Union lacks centre left ideas and thus it becomes “the door wide to a pure laissez faire capitalism” (Scharpf P, 1996). It focuses more on negative integration which is intended to remove economic barriers like trade barriers and national regulations. Thus it ensures the free movement of goods, resources, capitals and so on among the member countries. However it is so weak in positive integration and it has its limitations in legal harmonisation. It causes “competitive deregulation”, because the decision making process in European Union has more than one veto players. It has a solution for this and that is “two level politics”. It is in a way making the European Union to adapt social regulations by looking at the majority in the council and it should allow the national governments to overcome the negative repercussions which are happening in the market due to the integration. 

Pillars of European Union Democratic Legitimacy

There are certain good things in European Union. Some of institutions ensure the participation of the people of all nations. It has three pillars of democratic legitimacy. Now let us look into those pillars of European Union’s democratic legitimacy.

European Parliament

We can consider European Parliament as the only legitimate democratic institution in European Union. It along with other institutions such as council and European Union council tries to solve the political problems of democratic accountability. Now it is an ordinary international assembly for European Union where the nations are nominating their representatives and thus the indirect involvement of people can be seen. But the power of European Union parliament is limited and it works as supervisory, budgetary and legislative body for European Union. Important funding treaties were amended in the European Parliament in 1953 and 1984. However we cannot say that it is the success of European Parliament. European Parliament needs general consent to pass amendments and policy matters. But it often happens as each nation think differently in each policy matters. Another issues European Parliament faces is that there is no direct election to select the representatives and the general issues are not discusses and only national issues are dealt. 

The Council: Other Important Pillar

Wolfgang denotes European Council as “the decision making centre” of the whole Union. Almost all agree the fact that European council and the ministers in it are elected directly by the people of respective countries. They do have the legitimate authority as well. European Council has two competences in the whole system and they are legislative and executive. This council in a way shares its legislative powers with the European Parliament. However this empowerment of European parliament is indirectly strengthens the democratic process of European Union. Council tries to take a decision by consulting with all countries and by voting if it gets the majority. Unanimity in decision is sometimes required to form certain policies and that is why the Article 205(3) on Treaty says that “Abstention should not prevent the adaptation by the Council of acts which require unanimity”. Most of the meetings of Councils are conducted in secret and it will not be in records. Thus the national parliaments and public do not know their positions on certain issues in European Union and it is one of the major problems in European Council.

The Commission

Everybody including the political scientists agree that Commission is the fine example of lack of legitimacy in European Union and it works as the non dependent supranational institution. European Parliament has the authority to control Commission’s decisions on budget and other issues. It is European Parliament that appoints Commission of European Union after the treaty of Maastricht. Scholars like Crum and Hix suggest that Commission should be politicized in order to increase the participation of citizens by enhancing democratic accountability. 

Suggests and Solutions to the problem of Democratic Deficiency

As we know, there is no direct election to elect the European Union Parliament. If there is an election, the turnover will be lower. If there is election, then it would be on national issues that the political parties use to debate on. Thus the real problems in European Union are ignored. There should be a general election to select the European Union Parliament and the Union issues should be debated in the election arena. The election should be publicized and people’s participation should be ensured by the local governments.

There is no direct connection between the European parliament and the council over growing democratic politics and it does not reflect the real views of people as well. The nominated members do not likely to represent the views of the people. It is a major problem. General consent and referendum should be conducted before taking important policy matters. The participation of people is this great process should be ensured by the respective government bodies.

Conclusion

The integrity of European Union was for good and it yielded many positive results as well especially in the economic trade. It reduced the effects of recession and it proved to be a great success as well. However it does not make sure the participation of all sections of people. We can clearly see the democratic deficit in this system as we have discussed above. European Union has to take necessary steps to ensure the participation of people.

References

·         David Ward (2004) The European Union democratic deficit and the public sphere (1st edition) Netherlands IOS Press

·         Michelle Cini (2007) European Union politics (2nd edition) United Kingdom Oxford University Press

·         Andrew Martin and George Ross (2004) Euros and Europeans (1st edition) United Kingdom Cambridge University Press

·         J. H. Weiler (1995) “European Democracy and its critique”

·         W. Wallace and J. Smith (1995) “Democracy or Technocracy? European Integration and the Problem of Popular Consent”

·         Meny Yves (2002) Old Concepts and New Challenges, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 41, No. 1, PP.1-3

·         Jachtenfuchs M, Diez M. and Jung S (1998) “Which Europe? Conflicting Models of a Legitimate European Political order” Vol.4, No.4, PP.409-45

·         Rittberger B (2003) “The Creation and Empowerment of the European Parliament”, Vol.41, No. 2, PP.203-227

·         Scharpf F (1996) “Democratic Policy in Europe- European Law Journal” Vol.2, No.2, PP.136-155

·         Democratic Deficit in European Union (accessed on 02-03-2010) http://www.geopolitis.net/EUROPE%20EN%20FORMATION/Democratic%20Deficit%20in%20the%20European%20Union.pdf

·         European Governance Papers (accessed on 03-03-2010) http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-connex-C-05-02.pdf