The Democratic Legitimacy of European Governance - Dissertation Example

The Democratic Legitimacy of European Governance INTRODUCTION Ever since the concept of an European Union began to take shape in the late 1970’s, there were several voices (Moravcsik, 2004, 345) arguing that the EU or the union of the European Countries under a common umbrella would have a “democratic deficit” arising out of the lack of democracy in the various bodies that make up the EU. The point that was being made at that time is that though the EU is a political system, there are questions as to the way in which the governance of the union was structured thereby leading to a crisis of democracy in the structures of governance and hence the notion of a democratic deficit. This paper attempts to answer the question, “If the EU is a political system, How does that affect its Democratic Deficit?” with the intention of analyzing the factors causing the democratic deficit as well as the role of the member states and their leaders. The analysis presented in this paper focuses on explaining whether the notion that the EU suffers from a democratic deficit is real or whether there the prevalence of the feeling can be explained as arising out of the causal factors that seem to have receded somewhat in the recent past. When talking about the EU and democratic deficit, it is pertinent to note that the recent EU-wide financial crisis exposed the fragility of the Union as was evident from the way the bailout of Greece was handled. Hence, questions as to the viability of the EU became commonplace with many commentators going so far as to predict the demise of the EU as an entity. The discussion regarding the democratic deficit in the EU has to be viewed from this perspective as well. WHAT IS DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT The definition of a democratic deficit is: “A democratic deficit occurs when ostensibly democratic organizations or institutions in fact fall short of fulfilling what are believed to be the principles of democracy." (Europa.eu, 2010) Some instances of institutions having democratic deficit include The United Nations and the European Union (EU). The UN is a good example of an institution that is considered as having a democratic deficit as it lacks a body of directly elected members. However, this is not completely true as far as the EU is concerned as the European Parliament is indeed elected directly. The reasons as to why the democratic deficit arises in relation to the EU can be found in the general apathy of the voters towards the EU, the role of the leaders of the member states, the complex nature of the decision making process in the EU and the clash between the judiciary of the member states and the European Commission of Justice. (Moravcsik, 2004, 340) THE EU AND DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT The preceding sections set the context for the discussion as well as an understanding of what a democratic deficit means. This section takes the discussion forward by linking the notion of democratic deficit with the concept of the EU. Note that this section does not debate the relative merits and demerits of the linkage and presents the scope of the argument without taking sides. To quote from the article by Wimmel, “The democratic deficit is a concept invoked principally in the argument that the European Union and its various bodies suffer from a lack of democracy and seem inaccessible to the ordinary citizen because their method of operating is so complex. The view is that the Community institutional set-up is dominated by an institution combining legislative and government powers (the Council of the European Union) and an institution that lacks democratic legitimacy (the European Commission)." (Wimmel, 2009, 190) The reasons for the calls about the growing democratic deficit in the EU stem from the fact that proponents of the theory of democratic deficit usually begin with demanding greater powers for the European Parliament (EP) and greater transparency from the European Commission (EC) as well as the council of ministers. The main issue here is the lack of accountability of the governing members of the EU. The fact that unlike sovereign states where the elected representatives are accountable to the voters, the governing structures of the EU cannot claim such a position has led to the growing demands for accountability and transparency from the institutions set up to oversees the EU. (Decker, 2002, 260) Adding fuel to the debate were the issues relating to enlarging the EU particularly when it concerned the admission of countries from Eastern Europe. Since there were deep divisions between the existing member states and within the member states themselves, it was felt that a constitutional arrangement must be in place to deal with these issues. The fact that there was a time, when calls for referenda within the member states for each of the contentious issues , raised the stakes for the debate as to whether the EU lacks democracy in its institutional arrangements. (Norris, 1997, 275) When the EU was under the presidency of Santer, there were several issues of impropriety in accounting and accountability that further pushed the idea of a democratic deficit to the fore. Coupled with the perceived need for a constitution would replace the constitutional treaty, itself a product of the intergovernmental conference, the demand for real democracy in the EU grew. Considering that the referenda in member states about the constitutional necessities failed, it is now considered by many that the EU would continue to suffer from a democratic deficit and the problem of democracy in EU would persist for some more years to come. (Katz, 2001, 70) REASONS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT The preceding section looked at the some of the issues that raised the debate over the democratic deficit of the EU. This section looks at some reasons behind the democratic deficit of the EU in detail. Much of the literature on the issue tends to explain away the democratic deficit in the EU as resulting from structural reasons that are do with the nature of the EU as a political system that lacks democracy. In this line of thinking, the causes that are attributed to the issue of democratic deficit usually range from the institutions of governance that are federal in nature without any real power over the “Core”. This is a favorite theory among political scientists which underscores the fact that the governance of the EU is peripheral without real influence on the core. (Crombez, 2003, 110) As pointed out in the preceding section, the various referenda and their failure to ratify the causes for holding them certainly supports the above proposition. The prevalence of this theory is mainly due to the “of questions raised about the legitimacy of the new patterns of governance and confusion over who is responsible or accountable for EU-related policies. The political fallout from such questions can be found in the razor-thin wins, and in the defeats, of Treaty referenda” (Follesdal, 2006, p.540) These directly stem from the way in which the EU operates as a confederation of member states that is a bit supranational in conception but not a state in the sense that it does not have a common army, an independent tax policy or a full-fledged social policy. Hence, the EU is a unique political system that can be described as a patchwork of quilts with each component existing independently and as well as parts of a whole. There has been much discussion about the effect of national policies of individual countries on the way in which the EU functions. The concerns here relate to the member states acting out of their own interests rather than the interests of the EU. This has been a feature of the EU since the time of its inception and certainly feeds the popular imagination about the bickering member states coexisting in an uncomfortable union. The recent sovereign debt crisis in the EU has further underscored this aspect where the member states dithered for a long time before deciding to extend conditional guarantees for fiscally troubled Greece. This would be discussed in detail in the section on the impact of the recent debt crisis on the EU. (Tully, 2007, 80) Suffice to say that the national practices per se have not had a debilitating effect on the way the EU operates. Rather it is the clash between old ideas and new practices that has impacted the EU the most. To quote from Bache, “Such changes in governance practices, however, are not the source of a national democratic deficit per se. After all, European integration, meaning the building of the EU level of governance, has served to promote member states’ democratic purposes in a whole host of ways. It has ensured that member-states have had a better chance to achieve collectively what would have been more difficult to attain individually: regional peace, economic prosperity, and world power. (Bache, 1998, 98) “The range of issues that contribute to the democratic deficit for national democracies cannot be attributed to the EU alone. Forces other than Europeanization have also been at play, including external pressures related to globalization and internal dynamics related to modernization, devolution, corruption, and even ‘postindustrial’ values. However, because the EU has been the focal point for change in member-states, it has become the focus for concern and for the search for remedies. But at the EU level no conceivable remedies can successfully address these problems. Only national leaders and publics through national discourse and deliberation can reevaluate their own national democracies in light of Europeanization. Without it, even the most brilliant of solutions for EU-level democracy may fail.” (Hix, 2008) THE RECENT DEBT CRISIS AND THE ROLE OF THE LEADERS The point that the recent debt crisis in the EU particularly among the so-called PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) has highlighted the need for a more powerful system of governance at the level of the EU has been made by many commentators. The conclusion that was almost unanimous was that if the EU was a political union instead of monetary union alone, then the bailout could have been organized faster and in a better way. This section argues that apart from the failure of the institutional norms of the EU, the handling of the recent debt crisis was also stymied because of the nature of the leadership. When leaders of member states pursue policies that are in the interest of their individual countries rather than the collective interests, the whole notion of a single union becomes that much more difficult to sustain. And this aspect is not something new as can be seen from the fact that since the inception of the EU, these leaders have not chosen to educate their publics about the nature of the policies that they were undertaking. The ironical aspect of this situation is that the public of the member states often hold their leaders to account for the EU wide policies when all the leaders were doing was push their own countries interests. This leads to the situation that we saw with the Greek Debt crisis and the way the other members of the EU acted. SOME POSITIVE POINTS The analysis presented so far has tended to focus on the nature of the debate about the democratic deficit and the negatives of the EU as a political system. This section presents some of the redeeming features of the EU as a political system and highlights some benefits to the member states accruing from being part of the union. To quote from, “After all, European integration, meaning the building of the EU level of governance, has served to promote member states’ democratic purposes in a whole host of ways. It has ensured that member-states have had a better chance to achieve collectively what would have been more difficult to attain individually: regional peace, economic prosperity, and world power.” (Schmidt, 2006, 241) This is particularly true for the “Club-Med” countries that have gained significantly by being part of the EU and as the recent crisis showed; ultimately they were the recipients of the bailouts as well, no matter how conditional that was. The above paragraph clearly underscores the need for the EU to remain in the present shape and as the following quote illustrates, there are benefits individually as well as collectively. “Although national governments have transferred large amounts of power and authority to the EU, their shared authority and participation in the joint actions of the EU have brought policy innovation and economic progress to an ever growing number of areas, ranging from monetary and industrial policy to labor and social policy. Moreover, although organized interests may have lost some measure of national influence as policy formulation has moved up to the EU level and some measure of flexibility as implementation has become more regulatory, they have been gaining an appreciable measure of EU influence while benefiting from greater equality and predictability in the application of the rules. Finally, despite the fact that national partisan politics is submerged by the EU’s politics of interest, citizens’ votes and voices are increasingly finding expression in the EU nevertheless.” (Schmidt, 2006, 140) THE FUTURE OF THE EU: WILL THE EU SURVIVE? The various strands of thought examined in this paper as well as the analysis of the opinions focused on the democratic deficit in the EU and the extent to which this deficit erodes the legitimacy of the EU. As pointed out above, the recent debt crisis has only served to exacerbate the tensions within the EU and served to highlight the contentions of the naysayers about the viability of the EU. The Euroskeptics as they are called are having a field day pondering about the inevitable demise of the EU. However, as noted in the previous section, there are some positive points that can serve as redeeming features and if implemented properly, can secure the future of the EU. As to the question about the future of the EU, it is pertinent to note that the current global economic crisis has raised a host of issues that include the issue of sovereignty and the ability of the governments of the world to “print their way” out of the crisis. The same applies to the EU as well and hence any discussion must include whether the member states and the EU collectively can resort to quantitative easing (QE) to a large extent to solve the crisis. Hence, the future of the EU hinges on the way the member states help each other out and as pointed previously, it also depends on the leadership and their vision. In conclusion, if the EU is to survive as a unit, the issue of the democratic deficit of the institutions needs to be tackled. There is a need for responsible leadership from all the member countries and a frank and honest appraisal of whether they would be better off staying in the EU or leaving it needs to be done. Unless rational and sane calculation of the costs as well as the benefits that accrue to individual member states is carried out, the future of the EU would continue to be as uncertain as it is today. The issue here goes beyond the question of whether the EU is a political system that suffers from democratic deficit and concerns the direction that the EU takes in the future. References 1. Bache, 1. (1998). The Politics of European Union Regional Policy. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press 2. Crombez, C. (2003, March). The democratic deficit in the European union. European Union Politics 4 (1), 101-120. 3. Decker, F. (2002, April). Governance beyond the nation-state. reflections on the democratic deficit of the European union. Journal of European Public Policy, 256-272. 4. Definition of Democratic Deficit. Europa.Eu. Retrieved Jul 20, 2010 from: http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/democratic_deficit_en.htm 5. Follesdal, A. and S. Hix (2006, September). Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies 44 (3), 533-562. 6. Hix, S. (2008, January). What's Wrong with the Europe Union and How to Fix it (1 ed.)? Wiley & Sons. 7. Katz, R. S. (2001, February). Models of democracy: Elite attitudes and the democratic deficit in the European union. European Union Politics 2 (1), 53-79. 8. Moravcsik, A. Is there a democratic deficit in world politics? a framework for analysis. Government and Opposition 2004, 336-363. 9. Norris, P. (1997, December). Representation and the democratic deficit. European Journal of Political Research 32 (2), 273-282. 10. Tully, J. (2007). A new kind of Europe? Democratic integration in the European union. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 10 (1), 71-86. 11. Vivien A. Schmidt, Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006), 274 12. Wimmel, A. (2009). Theorizing the democratic legitimacy of European governance: a labyrinth with no exit? Journal of European Integration 31 (2), 181-199. Read More