A discussion on how the EU still suffers from a democratic deficit despite the increased involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process.
‘Democracy suggests that citizens should have a real say in govt policy and a real influence on the most’ important decisions, and the European Parliament (EP) is supposed to provide the democratic element in the EU system by representing the citizens of the EU, but whilst the EP is selected by the citizens of Europe, this is only one EU institution and one source of legitimacy.
The ordinary legislative procedure, used to adopt most Union legislation and seen in Article 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, increases the power of the European Parliament, thereby arguably improving the democratic deficit. The European Parliament is now seen on the same footing as the Council and the European Parliament now has the power to prevent a proposal from being adopted. This seems to be an improvement in terms of legitimacy and democracy because there will be direct involvement of citizens through the EP and because the EP has the power to prevent adoption of a proposal.
However, there is no chain of responsibility as regards the EU, so when the Union makes decisions, there is no way in which the persons concerned will be responsible to the voters for what they have done. In addition, from a sociological perspective, there is a democratic deficit in that there is arguably no demos as the vast majority of citizens are totally unaware of what goes on in the European parliament. There is a lack of European civic identity and often the elections have little to do with the EU as we, the voters, are still thinking in national terms. One could say that while the EP will remain a useful forum for debate and a fertile field in which people with vested interests can have a say, it will NOT bring democracy to the EU.
As with many other issues regarding EU law, the answer to the above question is unclear. Moravcsic1 suggests that there is actually no democratic deficit because the Union is not a state and there are other sources of legitimacy for the Union e.g. the accountability of the national executives sitting in Council to their national constituencies. Halberstam2 says that democratic legitimacy is necessary for the Union, but this will not appear in the same form as it does at the national level. Moving policies to the European level of governance extracts them from the broader domestic context of arguing and bargaining – we can’t just say there is legitimacy by the accountability of MS’ executive branches. Chalmers3 however notes that the solution cannot be just to increase the powers of the EP, as this can only partially alleviate concerns about representation. Thus, representative democracy will always be lacking, but there is potential for other conceptions of democracy e.g. as regards focus on the individual. In addition, MEPs increasingly vote with their parliamentary groupings rather than along national cleavages which suggests that MEPs understand themselves to be conducting politics much like any domestic parliamentarian. Thus Halberstam believes that there is potential for the development of a European demos, however citizens need to feel more involved as well as parliamentarians.
Overall, whether there is a democratic deficit within the EU seems to depend on whether we view legitimacy of the Union as the continued involvement of Member States i.e. formal accountability, or as the existence of multiple overlapping spheres of decision-making in which citizens can argue and bargain with one another. It seems that there is potential for the EU to be democratic in both senses with the move towards further involvement of Member States with the ordinary legislative procedure and increased use of this following the Treaty of Lisbon, but whether the Union realises its democratic potential will depend to a certain extent on the emergence of a demos that engages in EU-wide public debate.
1 JCMSS 2002 Vol 40. Number 4.
2 (2005) 30 E.L.REV. DEC
3 European Union Law, Cases and Materials, Damien Chalmers et al, 2nd ed 2010
Law Tutors Online, Top Law Tutors Online, UK Law Tutor, UK Law Teacher, UK Law Notes, Manchester Law Tutor, Birmingham Law Tutor, Nottingham Law Tutor, Sheffield Law Tutor, Oxford Law Tutor, Oxbridge Law Tutor, Cambridge Law Tutor, Bristol Law Tutor, Liverpool Law Tutor, Edinburgh Law Tutor, Glasgow Law Tutor, Belfast Law Tutor, Dublin Law Tutor, Toronto Law Tutor, Vancouver Law Tutor, Montreal Law Tutor, New York Law Tutor, San Francisco Law Tutor, Sydney Law Tutor, Melbourne Law Tutor, Singapore Law Tutor, Hong Kong Law Tutor, Seoul Law Tutor, Paris Law Tutor, Los Angeles Law Tutor, San Francisco Law Tutor, Dubai Law Tutor, Boston Law Tutor, Chicago Law Tutor, Doha Law Tutor, Riyadh Law Tutor, Kuwait Law Tutor, Law Essay Help, LLM Tutor, LLM Law Tutor, PhD Law Tutor, Law Dissertation Help, Law Essay Writer, Law Dissertation Tutor, Law Essay Tutor, UK Law Essay, UK Law Tutors and London Law Tutor are trading names of London Law Tutor Ltd. which is a company registered in England and Wales. Company Registration Number: 08253481. VAT Registration Number: 160291824 Registered Data Controller: ZA236376 Registered office: Berkeley Square House, Berkeley Square, London, UK W1J 6BD. All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 2012-2023.