Democracy in the EU
- What is democracy and what is a democratic deficit?
- A democracy is a state where the power is held by the people.
- What does this mean in reality?
- How do people exercise this power?
- Representative democracy: Voters delegate their power to their representatives. Directly elected representatives have most power.
- Most constitutions are democratic.
- Direct democracy: Referendums, right of initiative, right of recall.
- Participatory and deliberative democracies work together.
- At some level, the relevant people are involved in debate and decision-making along the line rather than every 5 years - where meaningful consultations are the norm.
- A democratic deficit is the argument that in joining the EU and transferring sovereignty and decision-making to it, member states are less democratic.
- The flaws are more significant than you may find in member states.
- No state has the perfect democracy.
Is the EU less democratic than Member States? Why?
If it is, can that be remedied, or is the deficit structural (inherent in the nature of the beast)?
Can it ever be democratic?
- The decision at the beginning was to have an economic rather than a political union, so it didn't require democracy as it 'didn't affect people'.
- They viewed the social and economic sides of the EU as separate entirely.
- There is a complex argument that the market works for the benefit of the people because the people buy stuff.
- At the start of the EU, because the focus was on the economy, there was no need for democratic institutions.
- As the EU expanded and the attention of the decision-makers shifted to social policy and human rights, there were two possible consequences: either (1) the EU has to become more democratic - there must be a stronger sense of democratic responsibility; or (2) it is impossible that the EU can become more democratic.
- Physical distance: We don't feel a connection to the institution as it is far away and EU institutions are spread out in different places; MEPs move a lot, 'fairness', high expenses. Risk that it has become over-centralised: small institutions (smaller than governmental departments) that make big decisions. Can there be democracy: too big? Chinese and Russian analysts say they was too big.
- Cultural distance: 'The people' is a singular thing: implies that the aim is for everyone. There is no European people: it is about the peoples of Europe. People of a shared history and shared culture: meant to be 'the people', but Europe does not have this. Also, the conflict between Member States in history shows more of a cultural gap.
- Decision-making: The power of the European Parliament - it is becoming more powerful - more democracy? There is a low-level of interest in Parliamentary elections for the EU. Parliament still has limited powers as there is a lot of power-sharing with a non-democratic body. There is a general lack of transparency, and it is very complex.
- EU is not a state: it is new - we need to look at the principles rather than the processes: whether the laws are right and good.
- The counter-argument is that representative and direct democracies mustn't be allowed to overrule fundamental values and liberties.
- Looking at the USA, the Republican tradition (pro-abolition of slavery) was that it didn't matter who made the rules, just that the rules had to be good. This is why the constitution is so strong in America.
- It is not realistic to say we will vote for the European Parliament like we do for Westminster, because they are different things.
- There is an institutional balance between different interests.
- There is a separation of interests which are kept in balance (no clear line between judiciary, executive, legislature).
- Output legitimacy refers to the benefit of the laws produced. Input legitimacy refers to the people making the decisions.
- Do they work for the common good of the people? If so, they are democratically legitimate.
- The difficulty is, how do you ensure output legitimacy without some form of democracy?... How positive a view of human nature do you have? Are people inherently greedy, power-hungry, etc. and likely to simply act in their best interests? Or would they act for the good of the people?
- We don't have a European people, so we cannot have European democracy. Europeans need to look about a bit. We are 'obsessed with nationality and nation states and history.' In the USA, they developed a demos - they created the American People. They used the constitution itself. If you design a government system that works in the interest of the people, people will become loyal to it. There needs to be a level of transparency and that needs to be worked on. The flag, the constitution, the national anthem all create the American People. - J. Weiler
- This argument is it is fixable.
Evaluation of the EU law-making process
- This is an area of huge complication
- Art 294 sets out the legislative procedure
- The procedure is meant to simplify things and improve democracy
- It gives the strongest role to the European Parliament
- European Parliament is directly elected by citizens of member states
- The Council (Government ministers from Member States) used to consult Parliament then make decisions until the 90s
- Following the treaties the Parliament became increasingly important
- Parliament and Council must agree on proposals
- This ensures a proper debate and evaluation of legislation
- It doesn't have an executive so there can be no elective dictatorship
- No political pressure/whipping system
- The Council have more of an allegiance to their state's government
- Negotiating process
- The emphasis is on compromise and cooperation
- Ultimately, both institutions have an effective veto
- Veto isn't used by Parliament to block legislation but rather to modify it
- Seats are allocated
- Each member state is allocated a certain number of seats
- Seats are part of intensive reviews
- Every time a new state joins the EU there needs to be a reevaluation of the number of MEPs
- Improves input legitimacy (representative democracy)
- Do we want to take the next step and reflect national constitutional structures?
- Do we want to get rid of the Council?
- If you want the Parliament to have all of the power, it would imply we wanted a state - an EU superstate - which we are not looking for
- Art 16 TEU: Council is comprised of government ministers of member states
- Arranged by subject matter (e.g. agriculture council - all agriculture ministers attend)
- Different people on each subject of the Council
- Coordination between ministers
- In theory they are meant to represent the interests of the state
- Council: the state > the people
- Parliament: the people > the state
- Voting is the trickier area
- Three possible ways of voting: anonymously, simple majority of the member states, qualified majority (most common method)
- Qualified majority is a weighted voting system
- Representatives from large member states have more weight than those from small member states
- Should the European Parliament have sole legislative power?
- People don't think European Parliament is equivalent to national Parliaments: low turnout
- Do members of the Council of Ministers represent all of their country or just the majority (or strong lobbyists)?
- Is it fair that member states are bound by legislation they didn't vote for?
Reform: Impact of Lisbon and beyond
- The Treaty of Lisbon 2009 replaced the aborted 'Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe', which was lost to a referendum in 2005 (resistance to the notion of 'constitution'; protest against the direction the EU was taking - economic neo-liberalism and immigration; protest votes against national politics)
- Lisbon was intended to reform without constitutionalising