Three Perspectives on Democracy in the EU
Understanding democracy in the European Union involves examining various conceptual frameworks. Each offers a different lens through which to view the EU’s democratic nature and functionality.
1. The EU as Exercising State Power
Though the EU is not a state, it exhibits many state-like characteristics. This perspective explores the idea that the EU, despite its international organisation status, functions in ways that resemble a state.
State-Like Features of the EU:
• Defined Territory: The EU operates within defined geographical boundaries.
• Permanent Population: It has a stable, resident population across its member states.
• Capacity for International Relations: The EU engages in diplomatic relations and enters into agreements with non-EU countries.
• Own Currency: The Euro is used by many member states, reflecting a degree of economic integration.
Key Doctrines:
• Direct Effect: EU laws can be directly applied in member states without the need for national legislation.
• Supremacy: EU law takes precedence over national laws.
Implications for Democracy:
• Electoral Accountability: Under this model, there would be a strong emphasis on the ability of EU citizens to vote out leaders and hold them accountable.
• Representative Politics: The EU would ideally reflect majoritarian principles and deliberative processes.
• Participatory Politics: Engagement and involvement of EU citizens would be crucial.
This model suggests that viewing the EU as a state-like entity provides a basis for assessing its democratic deficits. However, it also implies that the EU's democratic practices should be akin to those of a nation-state, which may not fully align with its current structure.
2. The EU as "Demoicracy"
This perspective focuses on the EU as a unique blend of democracy and the concept of a "demos" or people, where democracy exists at the national level but is sensitive to national preferences.
Key Concepts:
• Responsive to National Preferences: The EU aims to balance national interests with collective European goals, handling issues like migration in a way that considers different national rules.
• Power Distribution: Advocates of this model argue that national parliaments (NPs), rather than the European Parliament (EP), should hold more power because NPs are more directly representative of national interests.
Challenges:
• Externalities and Domination: Decisions made at the EU level impact all member states, potentially leading to domination of certain states over others.
• Naivety in Power Distribution: The model may underestimate the complexities of power dynamics within the EU, where some states' preferences can disproportionately influence outcomes.
Assessment: While this approach underscores the importance of national representation and responsiveness, it may overlook how EU decision-making can sometimes lead to imbalances among member states.
3. The EU as a Consociational Democracy
Consociational democracy, as theorised by Arend Lijphart, involves managing a fragmented society through consensus and power-sharing mechanisms. This model applies to the EU's decision-making processes.
Elements of Consociational Democracy in the EU:
1. Decision-Making Process: The Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP) requires consensus among the EP, Council, and Commission, reflecting a compromise-oriented approach to governance.
2. Integration Scope and Citizen Control: The EU’s integration processes are not fully controlled by citizens, with significant technocratic elements present in bodies like the Commission and COREPER.
3. Depoliticisation of Conflict: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) often depoliticises conflicts between policy objectives and legal norms, using principles like supremacy and direct effect.
4. Pragmatism and Dynamism: Decisions about integration, such as saving the Eurozone or structuring the Next Generation EU funds, are made consensually and pragmatically.
Critiques and Concerns:
• Entrenchment of Elite Interests: Removing political control from citizens can entrench elite interests at the European level, potentially leading to backlash, especially when decisions become politically salient (e.g., the migration crisis).
• Lack of Contestation: The absence of robust contestation mechanisms within the EU can lead to dissatisfaction and resistance among citizens.
Assessment: This model highlights the EU’s efforts to maintain stability through consensus and power-sharing. However, it also acknowledges the risks associated with removing political control from citizens and the potential for elite entrenchment.
Conclusion
Each model offers insights into the EU’s democratic nature and its challenges:
1. EU as a State-Like Entity: Highlights the need for state-like democratic practices within the EU.
2. EU as Demoicracy: Focuses on balancing national preferences with collective European goals, stressing the role of national parliaments.
3. EU as Consociational Democracy: Emphasises consensus and power-sharing, while noting the risks of depoliticisation and elite entrenchment.
These perspectives collectively provide a nuanced understanding of how the EU navigates democratic principles and practices in its unique political structure.