The European Union (EU), since the initial foundation in 1952 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and throughout periods of development, has been considered one of the most advanced forms of regional integration. It, based on numerous treaties and resolutions, has strived to promote values such as peace, cooperation or democracy, and in 2012 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” (Nobel Media AB, 2012). Despite its struggle for promoting democracy, the EU itself has long experienced scholarly criticisms that it suffers the democratic deficit, from which its democratic legitimacy is undermined by observable problems in political accountability and participation. As the importance of legitimacy in a democratically representative institution is hardly debatable, the criticism of whether and why the EU lacks democracy has been given a considerable gravity in academia.
This essay addresses the criticism firstly by clarifying the concept of democratic legitimacy and democratic deficit. It also introduces pertinent theories with a focus on the constructive and ideological complexity of the EU. Then it explains the contextual and normative relation between the EU and democracy from its history and some of the major treaties. The essay continues to the debates between advocates and critics of the EU’s democratic legitimacy, yet with a focus on the latter, further dealing with two main dimensions of institutional flaws affecting the legislative process and the insignificance of European citizens to the EU regime. After remarking conventional and possible measures to alleviate the deficiency, it draws a conclusion that the de...
... middle of paper ...
...larship Series, Paper 4628. [Online]
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/
[Accessed 3 May 2014]
Thomassen, J. 2009. The Legitimacy of the European Union after Enlargement. In: Thomassen, J. Eds. The Legitimacy of the European Union after Enlargement. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 67-86.
Thomassen, J. & Schmitt, H. 2004. Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union. Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning, 45 (2), pp. 377-410.
Ungreanu, G. I. 2006. Is There a Democratic Deficit in the European Union? Pro and Contra Arguments. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai - Studia Europaea, Vol 1, pp. 171-184.
Vesnic-Alujevic & Nacarino, 2012. The EU and its democratic deficit: problems and (possible) solutions. European View, Vol. 11, pp. 63–70. [Online]
Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12290-012-0213-7
[Accessed 5 May 2014]
Evaluate the extent to which there is a democratic deficit in the UK (30) The UK political system is one that has lasted for many hundreds of years. Though it has remained reasonably stable throughout this time, there have been many problems with UK politics. A democratic deficit is defined as any situation in which there is believed to be a lack of democratic accountability and control over the decision-making process. Many would argue that the UK suffers from a democratic deficit.
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.
Schmidt, V. A. 2013. Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61 (1), pp. 2--22.
Before discussing the notion that the European Union (EU) possesses a federal character, one has to define federalism (federal system).
...2013, March). Arguments for and against EU enlargement. Retrieved November 3, 2013, from Debating Europe: http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/infobox-arguments-for-and-against-eu-enlargement/#.UoLA9_mkoQ0
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
As a conclusion on Majone and Moravcsik arguments, it is important to discuss if they are right in theirs claims about the democratic deficit in the EU or not.
Referendums are always be implemented in order to reach a decision on a constitutional matter when the government can’t do it themselves. It helps the government decide on a specific issue based on the votes of the citizens, for example the referendum in 2011 on whether the voting system should change from First Past the Post to Alternative Vote. They are exceedingly important at a crucial stage of a constitutional issue, even if it is expensive and a waste of time to hold a referendum. However, many argue that referendums aren’t effective and are somewhat useless. There are many arguments on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of referendums, and in this essay I will evaluate both sides.
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 European Union stands on the threshold of unparalleled change over the coming years. The next waves of enlargement will be unprecedented in nature and continental in scale. This process has gained so much political momentum that it is now irreversible.
Senior, Nello Susan. "Chapters:4,15." The European Union: Economics, Policies and History. London: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
Europe has a history of war and conflict that predates living memory and the idea of a united Europe is something that appears repeatedly in that history. Hitler, Napoleon, and the many Roman Emperors all sought a united Europe. Their quests although in many ways motivated by a horrifying desire for power sparked the minds of philosophers and other political thinkers to imagine Europe united in harmony and peace despite national differences. Today we have the European Union which is quite unique. After the horrors, bloodshed, and economic disaster of the twentieth century, in a desire for peace and harmony and economic and political prosperity twenty-seven states have limited their national sovereignty.2 With national interests and ambition still in mind these countries see the European Union and supranational governance and the benefits of peace and prosperity therein as something worthwhile. However, in the history of European integration there has been much conflict and Euroskepticism. Some see unity in diversity and diversity in unity as impossible, and the existence of differentiation in the EU as highly problematic. However, differentiation in the European Union’s integration process is not the hindrance it is often defined as, rather it creates further cooperation in Europe bringing the European Union closer to its objectives of peace, and economic and political growth, resulting in a more effective and efficient bureaucracy. Differentiation in the EU’s integration process has created more successful integration as it allows the nations who wish t...
Mulle, E.D., Wedekind, G., Depoorter, I., Sattich, T., & Maltby, T. 2013. ‘EU Enlargement: Lessons from, and prospects for’. IES Working Paper 3. Pp 8-39.
In terms of democratic governance, it is commonly acknowledged as the exclusive, valid system of government in this modern-day period. Hence, it is habitually correlated with entirely everything that is wholesome (Gilley, 2009). Nevertheless, while the introduction of democracy in its present form, there have been countless reproaches intended at either cultivating or eradicating democratic governance (Gilley, 2009). Although censure of democratic governance is warranted, it maybe incumbent upon us to disapprovingly scrutinize the forms of criticisms in order to enhanced our understanding of the validity of the criticisms, or the absence of the things that were mention. Undeniably, the criticisms of democracy frequently proceed in two distinctive classifications; “the first inquiry about democracy’s viability, while the following inquiry its appeal” (Gilley, 2009, p. 114).
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.