Democracy in the EU
The EU and Representative Democracy
The European Union as we know it today was significantly shaped by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, marking a transition from a primarily economic community to a political union. This shift has raised the pressing question: How can the EU become more democratic?
Article 10 TEU states that the "functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy," underscoring the EU's commitment to democratic principles.
The Nature of the EU and the Democratic Deficit Debate
Giandomenico Majone's Perspective
Majone originally argued that the EU should be undemocratic because it functions as a regulatory state. According to him, regulation focuses on addressing market failures and producing policy outcomes that are Pareto efficient, rather than redistributive. This means policies should benefit some without making others worse off.
Key Points from Majone:
• Delegation to the EU Level: National governments have deliberately delegated regulatory policies to the EU, including the single market, harmonisation of product standards, and monetary policy. This isolation from domestic majoritarian politics was intentional.
• Political Integration Misconception: He believed that the expectation for economic integration to lead to political integration was incorrect. Parliamentary democracy standards shouldn't be applied to the EU since there isn't broad support for a European Federation.
• Depoliticisation: To preserve national sovereignty, some degree of depoliticisation is necessary, making the democratic deficit "democratically justified.”
• Credibility Crisis: Rather than a democratic deficit, Majone pointed to a credibility crisis that could be mitigated by increased transparency in decision-making.
However, Majone later revised his stance, acknowledging that the EU had evolved to address political questions, necessitating a reassessment of its democratic credentials.
Andrew Moravcsik's Defence
Moravcsik argued that the perceived democratic deficit is not a significant issue. He maintained that the EU’s system of checks and balances, along with indirect democratic control through national parliaments and the increasing powers of the European Parliament (EP), ensures sufficient transparency and accountability.
Key Points from Moravcsik:
• Constitutional Checks and Balances: The EU’s structure includes multiple layers of checks and balances that provide transparency.
• Indirect Democratic Control: National parliaments exercise control through mechanisms like the European Affairs Committees.
• Empowerment of the EP: Reforms have increased the EP's powers, including veto power over the Commission.
Follesdal and Hix's Critique
Follesdal and Hix argue that the EU indeed suffers from a democratic deficit, focusing on the input aspects of democracy. They highlight a disjunction between power and electoral accountability within the EU framework.
Key Points from Follesdal and Hix:
1. Increased Executive Power: European integration has led to more executive power at the expense of national parliamentary control.
2. Weak EP: Despite the co-decision procedure, the EP’s power is limited compared to the Council.
3. Absence of 'European' Elections: Elections focus on national issues rather than European parties or policies.
4. Distance from Voters: The EU's institutional setup is perceived as distant from ordinary voters, making it hard for them to understand or influence.
Why Democracy is Preferable
Follesdal and Hix argue that democratic structures are essential because they allow for opposition to current leadership and clearer accountability. Without visible opposition, it is challenging for citizens to understand policy alternatives or hold leaders accountable.
Menon and Weatherhill’s Output Legitimacy Argument
Menon and Weatherhill counter Follesdal and Hix by emphasising output legitimacy. They argue that using state paradigms to measure EU legitimacy is flawed since the EU is not aiming to become a state. The effectiveness of the EU depends on strong autonomous institutions like the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Conclusion
The debate on the EU’s democratic deficit is multifaceted. While some scholars emphasise the need for more direct democratic input, others highlight the unique nature of the EU’s structure and the importance of effective governance. The challenge remains in balancing these perspectives to enhance both the legitimacy and functionality of the Union.