Реферат: 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
generated 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.