Governance within the European Union - Term Paper Example

Are Current Modes of Governance and the Presence of a Democratic Deficit Adversely Affecting the European Union? First and foremost, this Paper seeks to define governance in the European Union and expand on the different modes of governance within the EU to include all pertinent concerns such as the involvement of sectors particularly other governments and ordinary citizens. Likewise, it will review the theory of democratic deficit and determine whether the organization is indeed plagued by a Democratic Deficit or purported lack of democracy and appears inaccessible to the ordinary citizen because of its complex structure. We will also attempt to present the academic debate regarding these two principal issues as well as related subject matter such as the European Union as an institutional system and political entity, the transformation of governance and the three aspects what are mentioned as preconditions for this transformation. Lastly, we endeavor to come up with a very rational assessment and analysis of the topics that we have chosen. Introduction The European Union has always been viewed as a positive development for Europe as well as the rest of the world. It has always been at the forefront in terms of governance, economic growth and progress, foreign relations, social development and the legal system. As a union of twenty-seven independent states comprising the European Communities, it was founded to enhance political, economic and social co-operation. Committed to the promotion of the concept of regional integration, the Union maintains a legal status and works through a cross-system of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. Decision-making is formulated by self-governing, supranational institutions or through the conduct of negotiations between member-nations. Some important institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens. Governance within the European Union The White Paper on Governance formulated and adopted by the European Union through its executive body commonly known as the European Commission was aimed at setting up democratic forms of governance in five different levels, namely: European, Global, National, Regional and Local. This White Paper drafted suggestions that hoped to delineate more openly the position of EU institutions in world governance. Among their main concerns were deeper involvement, parameters in regulation and contributions that the Union can make to world governance. Through this document, the Commission looked forward to implement governance reforms under exiting treaties. In a recent development, leaders of the European Union led by EU President Herman Van Rompuy announced the espousal of milestone reforms that would promote economic governance in the 27-nation bloc with more stringent fiscal discipline and closer policy coordination. EU leaders believe that these reforms will be the most significant change since the Euro was created in 1999 and were devised to preclude a repetition of the Greek-style sovereign crisis which ravaged Europe this year (Yu, 2010). Europeans remain hopeful that as a consequence of this latest development, the EU can finally operate as effective as national governments do. Ordinary citizens look forward to the Union as being pro-active in the quest for economic development and grab the lead in pursuing globalization prospects, environmental endeavors and resolving regional conflicts, criminality and problems of food security. With the White Paper, the EU is optimistic that their policy-making process will become more understood and perceptible. The expected end result is getting more people and organizations involved in influencing the policies of this complex organization since changes can only come if other governments, institutions, regions and citizenry take part in this exercise. The other vital concern is the transformation of governance which should focus on better participation and openness, more flexible regulation and delivery of policies, improved global governance and refocused institutions by fortifying attempts to guarantee policy consistency in the formulation of policies. In this transformation of governance in the European Union, the different aspects of action capacity and responsibility of politics, changes in political structures and processes, and the transformation of statehood are stressed. In view of these occurrences, reactions to the issue of governance have proliferated. In fact, modes of governance have been identified and recommended by various quarters. Wallace cites the so-called traditional community method, regulatory method of the Union; the distributive mode which is generally about money; policy coordination; and trans-governmentalism (2004). As further explained, the community method connotes the transparent entrustment of basic responsibilities within the EU system where the Union is described as the favored collective actor. Meanwhile, regulatory governance involves competition policy regime and single market regime which are both changing. It has been observed that more Europeans have become comfortable with this single market method of regulation which operates through framework legislation at the EU level, mutual recognition by member states, and national implementation. “It has worked pretty well for opening the single market for manufactured products. Most people agree about that. It works much less well for regulating manufacturing processes and it has worked with varied results for utilities and for services. We can see ways in which the policy processes are themselves changing as a consequence (Wallace)”. The third policy concerns distribution and money. It is clear that the ways in which budgets are allocated and spent are always the subject of arguments while the fourth mode is explained as the entire area of policy coordination, leveling and the Lisbon Treaty. One description of the Lisbon Treaty is the finale of more than fifty years of European economic and political integration that has caused the systematic erosion of democracy and political integration. It forced member-nations of the European Nation to give up their independence in many areas to centralized decision-making even as it reduced national veto rights to allow more decisions to be made by the majority instead of unanimous consent (Koern, 2009). The Treaty of Lisbon modernizes the EU institutions. As a result, the EU is more democratic and its core values are better served. It was the result of negotiations between EU member countries in an intergovernmental conference, in which the Commission and Parliament were also involved. The treaty was ratified by each of the EU’s 27 members (Finnan, 2009). The fifth mode of governance is trans-governmentalism which provides for some kind of collaboration among members of the association with minimal contribution from EU institutions. The style is more of trans-governmental such that it does not have a strong Union institutional process associated with it but permits full participation by all institutions or collective policy powers. Democratic Deficit One of the many definitions given to 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). In essence, democratic deficit indicates a lack of legitimacy or legality and inability to maintain accessibility to the common which in turn is reflective of the failure of the Union to sustain a system of accountability. What then is the main reason for the supposed democratic deficit in the EU? According to Follesdal and Hix, there are five main theories supporting the argument that there is a democratic deficit in the European Union. First, European integration has meant an increase in executive power and a decrease in national parliamentary control. At the domestic level in Europe, the central structure of representative government in all EU Member States is that the government is accountable to the voters via the parliament. Second is the argument that the European Parliament is too weak. In the 1980s, there was a direct trade-off between the powers of the European Parliament and the powers of national parliaments, where any increase in the powers of the European Parliament would mean a concomitant decrease in the powers of national parliaments. Fourth, even if the European Parliament’s power were increased and genuine European elections were conducted held, the EU is simply too distant from voters. Fifth, European integration produces policy drift from voters’ ideal policy preferences. Partially as a result of the four previous factors, the EU adopts policies that are not supported by a majority of citizens in many or even most member states (Follesdal & Hix, 2005, pp. 534 – 537). The democratic deficit comes out if and when political powers are handed over to EU Institutions. It becomes the result of the influence of the Union on national democratic developments. Perhaps, one of the more logical things that should be done is that political leaders of member nations should take proper cognizance of the ongoing changes and work to demarcate national democracy instead of clinging to traditional philosophies that are not effective anymore. The question now is – Does democratic deficit exist and if ever, is it hounding the European Union? According to Crombez, “democratic deficit is the problem of lack of information and of delegation. Open Council meetings and a different selection of the Commission could go a long way in rendering the EU institutions more accountable. Institutional reforms are hard to achieve if they upset the EU’s institutional balance and particularly if they reduce the Council’s powers, because the Council decides on treaty changes”. The point here is that policies institutionalized by the Union are not necessarily undemocratic and yet because of the processes involved, democratic deficit may take place. Nonetheless, the EU can still engage in undertaking its policies because as Crombez again says, “While there may be a lack of democratic accountability in the legislative process, the policies are not wholly undemocratic”. One recommendation that we want to make is to support the principle that the European Union functions like a typical democratic parliament. There are various suggestions that the members of the European Commission be appointed by the European Parliament and that it should have to depend on the confidence of the Parliament for its continued existence. It is very useful to take into account the discourse by Micossi wherein he articulates that “the European Union is not a state, so comparisons with state-type models of democratic legitimization may prove misleading. Nor is the discussion about intervening ex novo to introduce democratic accountability within an organization that did not previously know it. The first direct election to the European Parliament took place nearly thirty years ago; since then, the Union’s institutional system has continued to evolve, establishing significant scope for democratic participation and control in the process (2008, pp. 14-15)”. Conclusion If the democratic deficit does exist, one of the reasonable reactions is to increase the powers of Parliament as this could help lessen the EU’s democratic deficit. The individuality of the Union contributes to its complexity and makes it harder to understand at the level of the ordinary public. It manages different nations and diverse languages, cultures and political ideas. By increasing the authority of the European Parliament, which is elected by citizens of the European Union to represent and fight for their interests, to afford them more legislative liberty such as proposing laws for ratification, the greater chances that democratic deficit can be reduced. Likewise, the EP can be granted additional muscle so that it can serve as an effective check and balance as against the executive powers of the European Commission. In short, transforming the Union into a parliamentary democracy will keep in check democratic deficit. With regards to governance in the Union, the major issue now is flexibility on the part of the Union and the EC as well as making sure that any pertinent reforms should be implemented immediately to foster transparency and get the people to understand and appreciate what is going on within the four corners of the European Union and the European Commission. References Crombez, C. (2003). The Democratic Deficit in the European Union: Much Ado About Nothing. Sage Publications. London. Vol. 4, pp. 101-120. Follesdal, A & Hix, S. (2005) Why is there a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik. JCSM, Volume 44, No. 3 pp. 534 – 537. Finnan, D. What is the Lisbon Treaty, and What does it do? Lisbon Treaty 2009. Retrieved in September 28, 2009. http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/117/article_5261.asp Koern, S. (2009). Lisbon Treaty: Europe’s Slow-Moving Coup d ‘Etat. The Brussels Journal. Retrieved in October 10, 2009. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4118 Lord, C. (n.d.) The Democratic Deficit in the EU. Micossi, S. (2008). Democracy in the European Union. Centre for European Policy Studies. pp. 14-15. Mihail, Milev. (2009). A Democratic Deficit in the European Union. The efforts to rectify supposed structural faults in the EU. suite101.com. Yu, J. (Ed.). (2010). EU Leaders Adopt Landmark Reforms on Economic Governance. Xinhua. Retrieved in October 29, 2010..http://english.cri.cn/6826/2741s601778.htm Wallace, H. (2004). New Modes of Governance in the European Union. Keynote Address, European University Institute. Conference of the Hungarian Europe Society at Central University, June 3-4, Budapest. Read More