A Democratic Deficit in the EU
The question over the legitimacy of the EU has been a nearly
continuous debate and many commentators appear to agree that the EU
suffers from a severe ‘democratic deficit’. There are many reasons why
this perception is so widespread. As a multinational body it lacks the
grounding in common history and culture upon which most individual
polities can draw. However, this should not necessarily disqualify
the EU from being treated as a democratically legitimate body. Andrew
Moravcsik believes concern about the EU’s ‘democratic deficit’ to be
misplaced. Judged against existing democracies, rather than ideal
parliamentary democracy, the EU is legitimate. Most critics overlook
the relatively optimistic conclusion because they analyse the EU in
ideal and isolated terms, drawing comparisons between the EU and a
utopian democracy. This use of idealistic standards is leads many
analysts to overlook the extent to which delegation and insulation are
widespread trends in modern democracies.
When analysts criticise the lack of democratic legitimacy in the EU
they generally point to the mode of political representation and the
nature of policy outputs. Only one branch of the EU is directly
elected is the European Parliament. Though stronger than it once was,
the EP remains is actually only one of four major actors in the EU
policy-making process. The EP is a body without power or
accountability, and easily dismissed just as a ‘talking shop’ (Colin
Pilkington.) Only 75% of its amendments are accepted by the Commission
and the Council of Ministers. For its part, the Commission enjoys a
powerful role but is widel...
... middle of paper ...
...s no
elected head of state to give democratically controlled direction to
the EU and concerns gain plausibility from the open role played by
non-elected officials in Brussels, and the geographical and cultural
distance between those regulators and the average European ‘person in
the street’. The recent enlargement has at least altered the
democratic legitimacy in a positive way. Each country has only one
commissioner now and it is further on its way towards a constitution
and a fairer weighted vote. The EU employs direct accountability via
the EP and indirect accountability via elected national officials.
When judged by the practices of existing nation-states and in the
context of a multi-level system, the EU does not suffer from a
fundamental democratic deficit to anymore of an extent that any
national government.
The European Union has a common “government” called the Parliament. In the background essay it stated, “The role of the parliament is to debate and pass laws, make sure all EU institutions work democratically, and debate, and adopt the EU budget”. This means that the parliament has control over the laws, and controls the European Union budget. In Document B it mentions, “Whatever institution governs the trade of a nation or group of nations whether monarchy, dictator or parliament essentially rules that nation”. This means that the parliament has control over the European Union.
This argument is supported by the illegitimacy of the house of Lords, the low turnout and participation in UK politics, and the failings of the first-past-the-post voting system. However, it is more likely that there is not a deficit of democracy in the UK, due to free speech and media, freedom of choice in elections and referendums, and elements of devolution. Firstly, the illegitimacy of the House of Lords can be used to argue that the UK suffers from a democracy deficit. The Lords has many problems, and can be seen as an outdated, dysfunctional body that has no place in a
For this reason, the Commission is referred as the “guardian of the Treaties” or “watchdog” of the EU. Moreover, the decisions made by the Parliament and the Council must be made on the basis of the proposals given by the Commission.
The Canadian constitution is bereft of democratic legitimacy; an alluring term for political democratic deficit. Over the past years, the unsuccessful attempts to reform its laws have made passing new bills and regulations almost an unreachable goal for every newly elected prime minister. This inflexibility in adapting new laws made the fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution knew only few reforms. The lack of democratic accountability in the Canadian parliamentary democracy is demonstrated not only in its electoral system, but also in its national parliament and at the federal level of its politics. Many reforms must be addressed in order to make the Canadian democracy healthier.
The most significant and challenge to the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty was Britain’s membership of the European Community in 1972. The European Communities Act 1972 brought with it the requirement that European Law be given priority over domestic courts over conflicting issues of national law. This notion was a direct affront to parliamentary sovereignty, which required that if a later statute, contradicted and earlier statute, which sought to incorporate European Law into English Law, then the later statute should impliedly repeal the earlier statute. Therefore the European Communities act imposed a substantive limit on the legislative ability of subsequent Parliaments.
Kyi Suu San Aung. "The Quest of Democracy." Reading The World: Ideas That Matter, edited
Portugal’s journey to democracy started in 1910 by first attempt of the Portuguese people to establish the country as a democracy. Before 5 October 1910, Portugal was ruled by the principles of constitutional monarchy. However, a putsch lead by the Portuguese Republican Party established the First Republic by abolishing the constitutional monarchy regime. The constitution that was adopted inaugurated parliamentary regime with a president as a head of state. Unfortunately, the republican regime lasted for only 16 years which were exceptionally unstable and disordered; 45 different cabinets were in power, of which four were dismissed by military coups.
The European Union (EU) is fundamentally democratic and is evident through its institutions, however, the current democratic electoral structure is of great concern. The EU is a new type of political system, often referred to as a sui generis, implying its uniqueness as there exists and a non comparable political body. The EU can neither regarded as a ‘state’ nor as an ‘international institution’ as it combines supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics (Hix, 1999, p7). In this regard it has developed its own understandings of what democracy is. It is evident that the development of and spread of democracy is a central concept and foundation to all politics within the EU, and remains focuses on makings its governing institutions “more transparent and democracy”. The recent Eurozone crisis, it’s associated anti-crisis measures and the recent enlargement of EU have however re-invigorated debate about the EUs democratic legitimacy. At the heart of the debate are discussions not about whether the EU is an all-encompassing democratic institution but rather what are ‘democratic deficits’ or the democratic shortcomings that exist within this powerful economic and political union. Underpinning these divisions as Schmitter argues, are different understandings of what democracy is in the modern context and more specifically in the unique context of the EU. This essay will argue that the EU presents a unique type of political system that is fundamentally democratic, however, there are democratic shortcomings within its procedural and institutional structure.
The EU is a union of sovereign European states who share sovereignty based on treaty. The union also possesses competences in policy sectors with exclusive jurisdiction in the area of Economic and Monetary Union while others are shared with Member States (MS), the other powers belong to MS as derived from the conferral of powers art 5(2) TEU, 2(1) TFEU art.3 & 4 TFEU additionally other powers have been offered by the decisions of the European Court for direct effect on citizens
I will firstly look at each one individually and how it is organised then analyse its powers and responsibilities before comparing them and drawing up my conclusions. However I would like to note that there are many different interpretations and parameters of ‘powerful’ which make it difficult to answer the question. The EU was established in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty. It comprises what are known as three ‘pillars’.
One of the most controversial debates in the history of European Union (EU) is if there is a democratic deficit in the EU. On the one hand, many scholars argued that the democratic deficit exists in the EU. On the other hand, there are other scholars who claimed that there is not a democratic deficit in the EU. In this essay, the writer will support the argument that the democratic deficit in the EU exists and will propose how this deficit can be reduced. In the first part of this paper the arguments, which support the existence of the democratic deficit, will be discussed. After that, this essay will present the claims that there is no democratic deficit in the EU. Finally, as the argument of this essay is that there is a democratic deficit in the EU, is to present some ways, which can reduce the democratic deficit in the EU.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
The doctrine of Supremacy of the EU Law has been adopted from the European Court of Justice, in which the doctrine covers all aspects of law in member states. The supremacy is evidently implied in the Treaty on European Union Article 4(3) and Treaty of the functioning of the European Union Article 18 , which emphasises the prohibitions against discrimination. This is then supported by Article 288 TFEU whereby the regulations are binding upon each member state. Furthermore, Article 344 TFEU ensures resolution between member states. This assignment will discuss to what extent the acceptance of the supremacy of the EU law has been problematic in regards to parliamentary sovereignty.
Senior, Nello Susan. "Chapters:4,15." The European Union: Economics, Policies and History. London: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
Rousseau describes democracy as a form of government that “has never existed and never will”. Yet twenty-six countries in the world are considered to be full democracies. How can this be possible? Rousseau’s concept of democracy supports the most fundamental and basic premise of democracy – one in which all citizens directly participate. While his idea of democracy cannot be considered an effective indictment of what passes for democracy today, it is not Rousseau’s account which is flawed, but that in modern society it would be practically impossible to achieve this idea of democracy.