Democratic Functioning of the European Union Institutions - Coursework Example

European Union Law Introduction Over the past few decades, several academic bodies have tried to explore the democracy of the decision-making processes and procedures by the European Union. For a long time now, there has been a raging debate about what many refer to as “democratic deficit” over that time. The main concern for the majority of these people rotates around the issue of a perceived lack of democracy in the European Union’s decision-making process. There have also been persistent calls for a review of the body’s institutional architecture, with the majority citing lack of accountability. Today, most European citizens do not have trust in the body with most of them increasingly questioning its legitimacy. This was especially made evident when the Constitutional Treaty was rejected a few years ago. Various academics have attributed this to a loss of credibility by the public1 while other groups such as political analysts opine that the general public no longer trusts the Union2. However, looking at the legal and political particularity of the European Union, one will realize it is not all about democracy or lack of it. The union has evolved over time, and it currently comprises of agencies, supranational institutions and the legal system. Additionally, blame on the absence of competence on fields such as defence, education or education lies with individual states and not the EU3. By considering the various sides of available arguments, the paper will discuss the democratic functioning of the European Union institutions. The discussion will also try to have a closer look at the areas of concerns pertaining the institutions, and why there exists the common outcry about existence of a ‘democratic deficit’. The paper will finalise by outlining ways through which the institution can gain more credibility amongst the citizenry of European Union. Literature review Arguments for “European Union is accountable and democratic.” Democracy is a derived from the Greek word “democratia” which means the rule of the people4. Today, the common type of democracy globally is seen as the parliamentary democracy5. This is a popular mode where citizens of a certain region participate in an election to elect a representative who in turn represents them in a parliament6. Modern democracy, according to Follesdal7, involves several principles: it is an institution, it involves regulated competition for political control and authority, it is a deliberate action, eligible adult citizens are allowed to elect their leaders, the outcomes of the elections depend on the majority choice, and the resultant government is responsible to serve all the people. The principle of democratic legitimacy has, however, been a challenging issue when the new and unique case of supra-national governing comes into consideration. This is largely because, present democracy and most other theories, all base their principles on political sovereignty8. In this context, therefore, debate has been about where the rightful place for the functioning of EU lies. This has enhanced development of the term “democratic deficit” which is commonly used by critics to the describe European Union. According to Hix (2006), “Democratic deficit” is described using five most prevalent claims: The European Parliament is quite weak despite various reforms that include the Lisbon Treaty, which increased the powers. They still consider it weak as compared to European Commission or the Governments in the Council. The European Union minimizes the control of National Parliament while increasing the executive power9. There are no elections to form the European Parliament despite its ever-increasing powers. Most critics claim that this prevents competition on European level. The European Union adopts policies and regulations that are not approved or supported by the majority citizens. EU has a complex method of legislating that majority of the citizens do not bother to understand largely due to its being ‘far’ from them. Discussion against ‘Democratic Deficit’ In their books, both Moravscsik and Majone10, disagree with all the claims about ‘Democratic Deficit’ only describing them as myths. Both disagree with the idea that the European Union lacks democratic credibility and accountability although each has varying reasons. The European Union as an intergovernmental organisation In his argument against the concept of ‘Democratic Deficit’, Moravcsik debates that the functioning of the European Union institutions differ widely in regard to democratic requirements. He challenges the critics of the EU to use a more realistic and reasonable criteria to judge the institution11. He explains his judgment of the EU in several ways: The European body of executives is beyond the control of the Parliament. The executive members are, therefore, accountable to their national citizens for the way they act on European level as for their actions on the national level12. However, the national parliaments can now rightfully comment on draft resolutions by the EU and to check that the Union does not overstep its mandate. The national parliaments can, therefore, object if EU tries to involve itself in matters that would best be dealt at national or local level. Moravcsik does not agree to claims that the European Parliament has a weaker political role as compared to European Commission and others. Instead, he claims that the parliament has seen an increase in power since its elections started to be conducted by universal suffrage in 1979. This is especially true since the parliament, through the Lisbon Treaty, gained the status of co-legislator in various policy areas13. Moravcsik also thinks that the European Union handles some of the most important issues which do not necessarily require public participation or voting. Moravcsik also believes that an International organization of a continental-scale such as the European Union seems distant from all its citizens and so there is no need to view it in a perspective that it is too distant14. Moravcsik also disagrees with the idea that the European Union makes decisions which may not necessarily be popular with its citizens. He supports his stand by stating that the Union has a very elaborate system of checks and balances that ensure all policies are passed by a qualified majority. All the systems are reviewed by the European Court of Justice. Moravcsik concludes by stating his stand about rejecting the general idea about lack of credibility by the EU. The European Union as a regulatory body Majone15 also does not agree with the idea that the EU lacks accountability. He views EU as a regulatory body comparable to other domestic regulatory agencies such as central banks, national courts and telecom agencies among others16. He, therefore, points out that the European Union should not be referred as ‘democratic’ in the standard meaning. Majone opines that such regulatory organisations are needed to ensure that long-term projects are implemented. However, despite the arguments presented by both Moravcsik and Majone, there are areas in their arguments which do not conform to what the reality is exactly. For instance, the European parliament is still considered weak despite various reforms towards giving it more powers. It has no right to initiate legislature and, therefore, has to rely on the board of technocrats for all legislative proposals. It, however, can make suggestions to the Commission to legislate in a particular field17. According to Hix, the clearly missing part in the European Union’s political arena is competition. Majority of the citizens do not understand the composition of both the European Commission and that of the Council of Parliament. For this reason, most have very little interest in the EU’s political programs. If the EU can allow participation and competition in its composition, the public would appreciate the Union’s presence and functioning (Hix 2006) The future of the European Union- Closing the ‘Democratic Deficit’ gap It is common knowledge among politicians about the popular ‘democratic deficit’’ within the European Union and most of them acknowledge its existence. Majority of them are also aware that EU has some weaknesses in its institutional framework and thus require to be reviewed for more democracy and accountability to its citizens. However, the Lisbon Treaty, for the first time, gave the European Parliament more powers to ‘elect’ rather than the ‘approve’ the proposed candidate by the Council18. In addition, the treaty calls for consideration of the results of the latest European elections before proposing a candidate19. The Lisbon Treaty, also provides an initiative where one million people from various member states can call for a petition urging the European Commission to formulate certain policy proposals. It is referred to as the Citizen Initiative20. However, it may not have much impact since the Commission is not obligated to act by the petition21. There is also need for transparency during decisions making processes in the Council of Ministers or the European Council. Finally, despite the European Parliament being the most democratic among all other European institutions, it too faces issues of legitimacy especially in its elections. Since the Lisbon Treaty, the parliament has become stronger and with more influence in its decision-making capacity22. However, there is a need for the parliamentary elections to focus more on a transnational contest in future elections to enhance a more European-conscious parliament23. By providing more room for transnational political election at a European level, citizens will be more concerned about the transnational issues as well. The same should take place at the European Union, providing room for political contest for positions within the Union24. Conclusion The European Union has had so many changes in its operations and structures since its inception. It is considered unique as regarding its institutional culture and functioning25. However, the institution is currently facing numerous challenges due to financial and economic deteriorations across Europe. This has led to questioning of the legitimacy of the political capacity of the Union to handle the rising challenges. This has, therefore, seen widespread debates with the opposing sides harbouring varying ideologies and political theories to support their stands. Some of them believe that EU is neither accountable nor transparent while others would want the Union to be referred to as a regulatory body serving various countries. However, by evaluating several arguments from various literatures, the discussion has found that EU is more than a regulatory body and thus should observe democracy in its composition and functioning. The literature analysis has confirmed that indeed, ‘democratic deficit’ is a reality that require a review in the institution. The debate seems like it will not be ending soon since the European Union is continually emerging as a new form of political system. Bibliography Books Ashiagbor, Diamond, The European Union after the Treaty of Lisbon (CUP 2012) 43 Behrouzi, Majid, Democracy as the Political Empowerment of the People: The Betrayal of an Ideal (Lexington Books 2006) 118 Bulmer, Simon, The Member States of the European Union. (OUP 2012) 164 Craig, Paul and Búrca de Grainne, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (OUP 2011) 31 Cygan, Adam, Accountability, parliamentarism and transparency in the EU: the role ofnational parliaments (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2013) 47 Follesdal, Andreas, ‘Democracy, Legitimacy and Majority rule in the EU’. In Weale, A. and Nentwich, M (eds), Political Theory and the European Union: Legitimacy, Constitutional Choice and Citizenship (Routledge 1998) 53 Great Britain. The Treaty of Lisbon: An Impact Assessment: Report of Session 2007-08 (TSO 2008) 37 Lijphart, Arend, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty Six Countries (Yale University Press 1999) 67 Nogueras, Linan and Martín, Araceli (trs), Institutions of Law of the European Union (6th edn, OUP 2010) 46 Maravall, Jose Maria, Democracy and the rule of law (CUP 2006) 78 Majone, Giandomenico, The European Community: “An Independent Fourth Branch of Government?” (European University Institute 1993) 38 Majone, Giandomenico, Regulating Europe (Routledge 1996) 46 accessed 20 November 2014 Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘In Defense of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing the Legitimacy of The European Union’ [2002] Vol. 40, No. 4. Pp603-24 Journal of Common Market Studies Read More