РефератыИностранный языкDeDemocratic Deficit In The EU Essay Research

Democratic Deficit In The EU Essay Research

Democratic Deficit In The EU Essay, Research Paper


The European


Union continues to play an important role in traditionally domestic areas of


policy, but many people however see the union as distant, and believe they have


extremely little involvement and influence. The only body over which they have


any control, the European Parliament, is by far the weakest, and important


decisions are seen as being taken behind ‘closed doors’. This lack of public


accountability in the European Union is known as the ‘Democratic Deficit.’ The


term, ‘Democratic Deficit’ refers to, "The growing gap between the


power and authority of EU institutions"[i].


As more aspects of national sovereignty are transferred to the European level,


the ability of citizens to influence and supervise this new power base has


declined significantly. Politicians began to take the issue of the democratic


deficit seriously from 1992, when Danish voters failed to ratify ‘The Treaty on


European Union’; Leaders could no longer afford to continue to appear


unaccountable.The question of


the democratic deficit involves not just a discussion of the role of the


European Parliament, but also an examination of the roles of other


institutions, and especially the need to look at the way in which these


institutions relate to each other. The main emphasis lies with the three main


"institutions" of the European Union – the Commission, the European


Council and Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.It is the


connection between the European Union?s institutions where the ?democratic


deficit? has gained the most publicity.?


The erosion of the national governments, over policy areas, has been the


result of the quickening of European integration.? Continual amendments to the institutions powers have meant that


areas were national governments used to govern have now been transferred to the


European Union.? Relatively


unaccountable institutions have taken over responsibility from the accountable


national governments of the member states. ? The


European Commission is perhaps the epitome of this. With members, made up of


largely, of old white males, un-elected, appointed by national governments this


institution is anything but democratic. Yet it wields an increasing amount of


power in the European Union of today. It has the exclusive, and jealously


guarded, right to initiate legislation. It implements community policy, manages


the European Union?s budget, conducts external relations on behalf of the


European Union member states and is widely regarded as the "guardian"


of the euro-federal ideal. Dinan describes it as a "strategic authority


established by the founding fathers to ?guarantee continuity of the integration


project despite the political or geopolitical hazards??[ii]. The


Commission, which has the substantial power and responsibility of proposing and


forming laws, is, according to McCormick, "Appointed, without reference


to the people?[iii].? This mighty body has a President appointed "as


a result of a strange and informal little power dance among the leaders of the


member states?[iv] The


Commission has no mandate whatsoever from the people, European voters do not


elect their commissioners, member governments appoint whomever they wish. The


cynical would perhaps suggest that these people are not always the most


appropriate, but those who national governments want out of domestic politics.


Those below the ‘College of Commissioners’, the ‘Directorates General’, have


the power of implementation over dozens of policy areas, yet these powerful


people are virtually unknown to the public, and are not held accountable by


them. The Parliament also lacks the legal authority to hold the Commission


accountable for its actions; it does have the theoretical power to dismiss the


entire College of Commissioners, but in reality, it would never do that because


chaos would ensue. Parliament, although slowly growing in influence, is almost


a token body, with which the union could function without. The true powers lie


mainly with the Commission and Council of Ministers.In


1974, Valerie Giscard d?Estaing, the French President, famously declared,


"the European Summit is dead – long live the European Council". Just


as the European Commission can be viewed as the manifestation of


euro-supranationalism, the European Council can be seen as the epitome of the


intergovernmental ideal. Basically the Council consists of the leaders and


foreign ministers of the nation-states of the European Union together with the


Commission president and a vice-president. Each nation of the European Union


takes it in turn to control the presidency of the council for a six-month


period, often providing valuable political benefits to the national government


on the hosting back home. The European Council also has a proven track record


of effectiveness, as many decisive turning points in the history of the


European Union came about at Council meetings, such as that at Maastricht in


1991. An important point to make in regard to the European Council is that


national governments, since the SEA, no longer have the right to veto proposed


initiatives, rather decisions are taken using a system known as "Qualified


Majority Voting", hereafter referred to as QMV. The Council of Ministers


theoretically mirrors the European Council, dealing not with national issues


but with sectional affairs such as agriculture or transport. However it is less


effective than the Council, the preponderance of ministerial advisers often


creates what Roy Jenkins has referred to as a "football pitch"


effect. Yet it still plays a valuable part in co-ordinating the efforts of


national governments on a continent wide basis. McCormick


states that, ?In many ways, its powers make the council more like the


legislature…than the Parliament?[v]. Parliament


has no authority to ratify appointments, and indeed has no influence over


selecting candidates. This directly elected European Parliament, the only body


with Europe-wide legitimacy, finds itself excluded from critical legislative


and policy decisions that affect the whole of Europe; the public can be


affected by measures over which they have absolutely no direct control. Perhaps


the most significant exercise of undemocratic power involved the Single


European Currency. The currency project was directed by certain heads of


government, senior ministers, commissioners and representatives, but general


support for the ‘Euro’ in Europe is relatively low, and the project went ahead,


over many objections and fears. Even if the public had sent anti ‘Euro’ MEP’s


to Parliament, it would not have been able to stand in the way of the momentum


gen

erated by the key leaders. Most Europeans were not asked official opinion,


and indeed permission in referenda, The citizens of the ‘Euro 11′ have had


almost no way to halt this profound change. John


Major in 1994 commented that, ??the European Parliament sees itself as the


future democratic focus for the Union.?


But that is a flawed ambition, because the European Union is an


association of States, deriving its basic democratic legitimacy through


national Parliaments?it is national parliamentary democracy that confers


legitimacy on the European Union?[vi].? John Major was wrong and although national


parliaments can ?pull-out? of the European Union at any time, they have very


little control over which powers they abandon to the European Union?s


institutions.? The continued attrition


of the national parliaments powers is not directed by the national powers but


by the over zealous institutions of the European Union, trying to put in place


the mechanism for further integration! ? It


is the common belief that in order to eliminate the ?democratic deficit? within


the European Union, power will have to be taken at the expense of the national


Parliaments; this is not necessarily the case.?


It has been the case in the past that with the introduction of the


?Qualified Majority Vote? that the European Parliament has not gained the


sufficient power of that taken from the national Parliaments and therefore the


influence of the national Parliaments has been reduced over community


decisions.? . Public disquiet over what


Dinan refers to as "the elitism and obscurity of Community


decision-making" seems to lend urgency to the need to make Community


institutions more accountable to the people.It


is the belief of many commentators that in order to reduce the lack of


accountability within the European Union, the European Parliament has to


receive more power.? Were this to be


done small countries would undoubtedly lose out. Ireland?s 15 MEPs (Member?s of


the European Parliament) would have at best a peripheral influence in a


Parliament of more than 600, and this is with a seat/population ratio heavily


tilted towards small nations. The European Parliament itself is hardly


representative of the feelings, hopes and desires of EU citizens. Political


Scientists have identified European elections as "secondary


elections", with lower turnouts than national elections and usually fought


on strictly national issues. The


question we are examining ought not be how to reform the community institutions


so as to make them more "democratic" as that is an impossible and


costly task. Rather we should be looking at how we make the governance of the


people of Europe more democratic, how do we involve the people of Europe in the


decision-making process.National


Parliaments are oft dismissed by the more ardent euro-federalists as an


antiquity, a relic of a bygone age, at best their place in the "New


Europe" will be at a level approximating to that of State legislatures in


the US. Yet surely national parliaments are the most democratic institutions in


the European Union today? National Parliaments are rooted in both History and


Legitimacy. They epitomise the democratic principles of a nation, indeed many


would claim that they epitomise the nation itself and perhaps this would


explain the disdain of euro-federalists.?The


?democratic deficit? will have to be resolved by an imaginative blend of public


representation and involvement at the regional, national, and European levels,


involving parliamentary bodies from all three spheres?[vii].? The


European Parliament, at first sight is a democratic institution. However, as I


have demonstrated, the citizens of the Union view it at best with disdain, some


even with hostility. The idea of a Parliament of Europe, to represent the hopes


and aspirations of Europe?s people is indeed a noble concept. However, it is a concept,


which the people are not ready for. The notion of co-operation between the


groupings in the Parliament is an attractive one, yet does it really make a


difference which way we, as European Union citizens, vote if the composition of


the Parliament makes little or no difference to the manner in which it conducts


it?s business? Ultimately, the people of the European Union do not want a


powerful European Parliament, most wish for questions of vital national


interest, to continue to be resolved at a national rather than a supra-national


level. That said Parliament does have a role in addressing concerns common to


all European Union citizens, issues such as the environment and human rights,


which at present are dealt with largely by the faceless Commission.If


we are to resolve the question of the democratic deficit I believe it is


important that we achieve the right balance between the various institutions of


the European Union. National Parliaments are getting increasingly overlooked,


yet they continue to wield much more historical legitimacy than any European


Union institution.So


in answering how the democratic deficit can be eradicated without reducing the


powers of the national Parliaments, the answer is simple. Listen to the


citizens of the European Union and not to the European Union?s


institutions.? Dinan addresses the


problem in a simple and straightforward way, when asked the question ?Will


the democratic deficit ever be rectified?? he answers, ?Certainly not


simply by giving more power to the European Parliament.? The European Union is not a state, and it?s


institutional framework and political system will never correspond to that of a


classic liberal democracy?[viii]. From this it is


clear that the democratic deficit will never be resolved until the European


Union is willing to admit that the national parliaments are still the most


democratic institutions in Europe.? If


the balance is to be met, then the whole framework of the European Union?s


institutions has to be addressed, as it was never meant to be a political


arena, only economic and that is the reason behind the Commission becoming too


powerful without the proper jurisdiction!!! [i] Michael


J.? Baun, An Imperfect Union.? Page 86. [ii] Desmond


Dinan, Ever Closer Union.? Page


210. [iii] John McCormick,


Understanding The European Union.?


Page 152. [iv] John


McCormick, Understanding The European Union.? Page 152. [v] John


McCormick, Understanding The European Union.? Page 97. [vi] John Major,


?Europe: A Future That Works?.?


William and Mary Lecture, Leiden University, September 7th,


1994. [vii] Desmond


Dinan, Ever Closer Union.? Page


298. [viii] Desmond


Dinan, Ever Closer Union.? Page


298.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Democratic Deficit In The EU Essay Research

Слов:2258
Символов:16096
Размер:31.44 Кб.