European Union’s Democratic Deficit: A Critical Assessment

europiuman federations republi crumb shortage A Critical perspicacityIntroductionTheEuropean sexual union is in a middle of a crisis. The worst part of its economicalcrisis has passed but it still faces counterbalance more(prenominal) than severe effect a trust crisis.People do non feel represented by the European sum of m angiotensin converting enzymey and consume cancelled theirsupport towards populist and radical movements. Whatis the basis of this crisis? Some authors incline to phrase it is the EUs republican famine. Thus, since on that point is a wide open frame betwixt what EU citizenswant from their politicians and how the EU bureaucrats and institutions act. Thisleads to a situation where the humanss opinion and desires ar non taking intoaccount by the body that should represent them1.Yet, first we need to analyse in peak what a elected dearth means to then al smoke this both(prenominal)(prenominal)er. Democratic deficit is a tricky issue as it does non arouse a widely accommodateed definition between politics and lawfulness scholars. Depending on the author and its background, the marge can be use with several(predicate) connotations and meanings hence, the results of the analysis tend to depend on the notion of pop deficit the author uses2.Therefore,first, we sh wholly develop our own egalitarian deficit conceptual approximation.Then, we go out be fitted to lead a critical assessment on representation andparticipatory actual problems of the European trades union. Afterwards, we will haveall the to a faultls necessary to address in detail if in that respect is a true democraticdeficit problem in the European coalescence and to put up few possible alternativesto solve it.The European coupling and Democratic deficitIf a hyperbole is permitted, democratic deficit may have as m some(prenominal) meanings as authors have discussed it. It is not an easy issue to address or to encompass in a single-simple defi nition. First of all, especially because, even though we can agree on some basis for state, in wide terms it is an ambiguous subject. So, what an author believes a democratic deficit will be highly influenced by what he considers to be a res publica. Oneof the first scholars to use this term was British David Marquand. He used itto define the democratic genuineness faintness of then- European Community. He extracted indicate elections for representatives before the European fantan.When this was adopted, the issue around European Community democraticlegitimacy arose even further, as for the European sevens represented the congresswoman of the European Community citizens but the Community was not gety to empower more powers to the fan tan, causing more tension. After the approval ofthe Maastricht treaty, the problem grew. cardinal pillars were added to the spousal relationship(common Foreign and Security Policy and Home Affairs), and in no(prenominal) of them thefantan had any control3.Other authors propose the democratic deficit problem in the terms of abackwards Humes is/ought as they consider on that point is a discrepancy between isand ought/ should in the European marrow4institutions and commonwealth as the transfer of substantial amounts of brassaldecision-making towards the supra depicted object level on non-elected institutions hasdiminished the democratic influence and the basic control the citizens have ontheir policy-making institutions. Itis obvious that at the first stages of the European Community it was probableand necessary to keep citizens apart from decision-making as it was initiallydesigned to be an economic community and not a political institution5,but its goals mutated in time. The Community passed from a purely economicinstitution to a political virtuoso. As it was a community formed by democraticcountries, one could expect that the supranational body they formed would as well ashave democratic and participatory channe ls. Nonetheless, European labor union turnedinto a bureaucratic and political giant that has s let loosely diminished the nationalentities and at once-elected supranational bodies -European fan tan- andpassed it to its hands.Yet,other approaches6suggest that, even though the democratic deficit issue is real, it has to beattributed to the Unions part states, quite a than the Union itself.Integration between European states was responding to a series ofalready-existing democratic legitimacy issues in spite of appearance the states. They arguethat the Union is not democratic unspoilt because the outgrowth states have not beenable to democratise their integration. The issue of the escape of democracywithin European Union institutions is not considered as the cause of theproblem, but the natural consequence of the democratic deficit of EuropeanUnion appendages. Thisperspective must be ineluctably rebuked. Even with their flaws, most of theEuropean Union members have developed and electrostatic democracies. If an institutionposes itself as the supranational ruler of a continent and its acceptedrepresentative, it must follow the same form of government that those nationalunits it intends to rule, which is democracy. Where could European Unionlegitimacy come if not from its citizens? The Unions decisions directly impactits citizens, as much as a national government decision, or even more. It alsobreaks citizens capacity to rely on the firm channels of influence voting-to ensure they atomic number 18 being listened and to participate in political process7.The drop of democracy of the Union and is tightness to evolve and acceptcitizens demands only causes further disgust and loss of legitimacy. EuropeanUnion is a sui generis institution,as it is not a state but it represents them and takes decisions in their name, and then it should be held accountable for its decisions in direct elections. Onecannot fail to score that there is a deep democratic defici t in the EuropeanUnion from the turnout in its elections. Ever since legislative powers weretransferred to the Council of Ministers of the European Union from the nationalgovernments, the setup of the European Union shifted from that of an economicblock to that of a political one. The lack of democracy in the Union has beenevident in the voter turnout. From the first vote in 1979, the turnout has beengoing lour and lower with the 2014 election having a dis distributeing turnout of42.54%. Comp atomic number 18d to the individual member nations where the average voterturnout is 68%, this is a sign that the members of the European sevens havenoted something wrong with the setup and are thus silently revolting. This hasled to the debate as to what ought to be done to lodge the Union back on track.While one side states that reforms are enough to make the Union deal out its postulate, others think the European Union should be precisely debunked. The circumstance thatthe European Uni on has a lot of benefits for its member states and the world ingeneral, however, means that its abolishment is not the silk hat solution. To getthe best solution for the case, therefore, requires an in-depth analysis of howthe Union works and where it is failing. The assembly line of the Democratic shortfall of the European Union spiritat the origins of the European Union, it is easy to make the conclusion that itwas brinyly meant to be purely economic and the introduction of the politicalaspects only complicated issues. The pact of Paris in 1951 saw to theformation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which was meant to digest a trading bloc for coal and steel in Europe as suggested by its name.In 1957, the treaty of Rome saw to the constitution of the European EconomicCommunity (EEC). The EECs original members were cognize as the EuropeanCommunities. In 1993, the Maastricht Treaty would see to the establishment ofthe European Union. With the European Union came the introduction of Europeancitizenship. The latest of the treaties in this construe is the 2009 Treaty ofcapital of Portugal. While a lot has changed in the structure and place of the EuropeanUnion to the present moment, some of the problems that plague the Union are thesame. TheManifesto for the Young European Federalists by Richard Corbett first raisedthe issue of the lack of democracy in the European Union in 1977 where the termdemocratic deficit was first used. David Marquand would later use the term inreference to the whole caboodle of the European Economic Community. The coining ofthe term primarily cogitate on the European Parliament, which was previouslyreferred to as the European Assembly, and why it had a deficit of democracy.The primary argument behind this assertion is that the Parliament was make upof members who had not been directly elected by the citizens of the EuropeanUnion. As such, the European Union was not serving the inescapably of its citizensbut those of a few people. Effectively, the European Union is thus notdemocratic enough given that it does not meet the definition of a democracywhere there is a government for the majority. The accompaniment that the majority is notrepresented through with(predicate) free and fair elections of the members of the EuropeanParliament is one point to the fact that there is a deficiency of democracy inthe Union. The European establishment The European Union prides itself in democratic legitimacy through unhomogeneous aspects of the constitution. The first of these aspects is the European Parliament. The Parliament is subject to the electorates of the member states. The other pipe organs are the Council of the European Union also called the Council of Ministers, and the European Council do up of the heads of national governments of the member states. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union appoint the European Commission members. This system of making decisions is suppose d to give the European Union democratic legitimacy in the same way the US House of Representatives and the US Senate give democratic legitimacy to the joined States. Decisions are thus to be r separatelyed by both bodies agreeing, and a third organ in this case the European Commission.The intended democratic legitimacy has, however, not been entirely attained by the European Union. The construction of the Union itself has occasioned what the German implicit in(p) Court called a structural democratic deficit in the Union. This court established that the process of making decisions for the European Union was primarily those of an global organisation rather than those of a government. The difference is that, as an international organisation, the European Union based its democracy on the equality of the member nations rather than the citizens of these countries. It is thus rocky to reconcile the needs of the citizens and those of the member nations of the European Union provided its operation as an international organisation rather than a government. Similarly, the British electoral Reform Society filed a report in 2014 to the same issue of the EU constitution having a structure which focus on the needs of the member states rather than the citizens. The report stated that, musical composition the European Union has focused on upholding the principles of democratic engagement, accountability and representativeness, there is the need to focus on the needs of the minority in any democracy. The European Union, being mostly made up of minorities, thus needs to have a focus on serving the needs of the citizens rather than those of the member governments8. Democratic Deficit and the European CommissionOne of the main structures put in place by the European Union in support of democracy is the European Commission. First, there has been criticism concerning the legitimacy of the European Commission and its role in the initiation of legislating in the European Union. H owever, this criticism does not have the backing of facts as similar bodies within national governments have yielded similarly poor results. However, its position as a body that legitimises the European Union and its take on democracy has failed by a large extent. The main weakness with such a body, as also noted in the case of the United States government, is that the regulations may be so detailed that the member states have little freedom in making their decisions on legislation9. While the issue of a democratic deficit was noted as far back as the 1970s when the nous of a united Europe was still in development, democratic legitimacy has always been an issue the Union has been dealing with ever since. When the Treaty of capital of Portugal was put in place, its primary aim was to provide room for relegate democracy in the region. The Treaty of Lisbon required that the chair of the European Commission ought to take account of the results of the European Union parliamentary elec tions. This simply means that the President of the European Commission should be nominated by the most dominant group in the parliament. This step effectively makes the European Union a political body rather than the economic one meant for the over watch of the economic activities of Europe. In fact, the European Union, owing to this attractive of structure, has become partly a federation and also an international organisation10. The President of the European Commission would thus be partly elected and partly appointed. This position gives the president less power than is indispensable to win the assumption of the population, and too much power to earn the trust of the governments of the member nations. The resulting example is one where little democracy is accorded to the citizens of the European Union and their governments as well. The European Parliament and Democratic Deficit When the European Parliament was set up, a lot of people were ready to voice its weaknesses in seei ng to the executing of legislation. However, political scientists would come to the rescue of this organ by stating that, first, the European Parliament is contrary from the parliaments of single countries due to confused factors such as the lack of a watershed between the government and the opposition, the presence of a divide between the executive director and the legislature, the presence of political parties that are decentralised, bipartisan voting, and the roles of the various committees. For this reason, the European Parliament has been compared to the US House of Representatives but with the advantage of not having a governing body over it wish well the latter house. The fact that the majorities in the European Parliament have to be built severally time while depending on negotiations, persuasions, and explanations ought to make it better in part than the US House of Representatives. This is true given that the lack of interference between the executive and the legis lature has made the European Commission and the European Parliament more effective. For instance, the member states of the European Union have less than 15% of their legislative initiatives becoming the law. This is largely due to the lack of support from the executive. The executive bodies, on the other hand, rarely require the input of the legislature in the same nations to pass amendments. The role of the European Parliament is the propositioned amendments to the existing laws. The supremacy rate of these amendments is as high as 80% with the lowest levels save (mostly for the hotly contested acmeics) is at 30%. Toan extent, however, the structure of the European Parliament allows for a levelof lack of accountability and weakness when it is compared to parliaments withan overwatch body deal the case of the US House of Representatives.Voter Turnout in European Elections and the Impact on Democratic Deficit With any democracy, the legitimacy of the leadership in power heavily relies upon the turnout of the voters during elections. The European Parliament has had some of the lowest levels of elections voter turnout hence the reduction in its democratic legitimacy. This is based on the fact that the turnout of the European Parliament elections has been declining consistently since its formation. However, the President of the European Union, Pat Cox, said that the 1999 European Parliament elections and a far much better turnout than the presidential elections in the United States. Compared, the voter turnout for the presidential elections in the United States in 1996 was 49%. However, the voter turnout in the European Parliament elections for 1999 was at 49.51 percent. For both types of elections, this turnout was among the actually(prenominal) lowest. Whileboth are at their lowest, it is difficult to use this as an excuse for the lackof democracy in the European Union. As a matter of fact, the case of the UnitedStates is very different from that of the E uropean Union and the reasons forthe low voter turnouts. For the European Union, the people have an option ofwhether to belong to the Union or not. And the way they can charge theirwillingness to belong or not belong to the Union is through take part (ornot active) in its activities such as elections. The social aspect ofthe European Union, that of being accepted or rejected by the people, has beenobserved in the way the people have turned out in low numbers at all(prenominal) EuropeanParliament vote11.The massive lack of knowledge for the common citizen of the European Union hasled to the lack of betrothal by the voters. On the other hand, the UnitedStates electorate can have a low voter turnout for many other reasons none (orvery little) of which is being against the union that is the United States. Asit is, the European Union is not a very effective and efficient democracy giventhat its workings are not in line even with the developing democracies of theworld. First, it is rupture between being a government, and an internationalorganisation. Secondly, the citizens, having seen that the democracy of theUnion does not work (and it is too complex to understand), are increasinglyceasing to buy into the root of the European Union being there to improve theirlives through advance democracy.Democratic Deficit and the Council of the European Union Anotherorgan of the European Union is the Council of the European Union. This Councilis also part of the efforts of the union to foster democracy among the memberstates. Its primary role is acting as the voice of the member governments ofthe EU while adopting the laws European Union and coordinating the polices ofthe union as well. Depending on the policies of the union, the governmentministers of the members states are the members or the Council of the EuropeanUnion. The presidency of the Council is held on a rotating basis (among thestates) with each president holding the office for 6 months only. The Councilcar ries out voting on legislation and discussions with both exercises beingheld in public. The decisions are based on a qualified majority whereby atleast 55% of the countries (which is about 65% of the total population of theEuropean Union) are required. In blocking a decision, 4 nations are needed(being the equivalent of 35% of the European Union population). For issues thatare of an administrative and adjectival nature require a simple majority whilea unanimous vote is needed for the very sensitive topics such as taxation andforeign policy. Whilethe structure of the Council of the European Union seems to read democracy allthrough it, the same weaknesses that plague the European Parliament plague ithence it is just another example of democratic deficit in the EU. For one,own-initiative reports from either the European Parliament or the Council ofthe European Union do not have legal consequences as such to the member states.Also, both bodies cannot play major roles in the amendment a nd repealing oflegislation that is already in place. Lastly, and most importantly, the bodiesdo not address the needs of the citizens of the member nations. Looking at thestructure of the European Union, it is easy to conclude that the reason it hasnot met the needs of the citizens is because there is too much bureaucracybetween the top organs of the Union and the common citizens for the memberstates. The organs are too separated from the citizens in that the decisionmade take a very long route to reach the citizen. The representatives also haveto make decisions which serve the needs of the Union and those of theirrespective countries an issue which often introduces a troth of interest. What theEuropean Union has Done to Better Democratic Legitimacy entirely the concerns expressed here about the democratic legitimacy of the European Union have been expressed before by various persons and bodies and they have been perceive by the people at the helm of the Union. For this reason, t he Union has put in place various changes to the constitution with the focus being on doing away with the noted weaknesses in the laws and constitution of the Union in general. Among the changes made overwhelm the introduction of the Maastricht Treaty. This was a landmark treaty which is credited with the introduction of citizenship of the European Union. This citizenship would grant EU citizens voting unspoilts to the European Parliament in each of their countries. Even municipal elections of the European Union were also included in the treaty. The treaty would also introduce co-decision procedure in which the European Parliament was given powers that gave it an equal footing to the Council of the European Union in making legislative decisions12. These steps would make the European Parliament much more functional and powerful but not powerful enough to exceed the issues of being a purely democratic entity. The other change made to the constitution of the European Union is the Tr eaty of Lisbon. Becoming effective from the initiatory of December 2009, the treaty saw to better representation of the EU citizens both directly in the European Parliament and indirectly through the Council of the European Union. This was meant to foster democracy and representation. The treaty would also see to the implementation and acceptance of the co-decision procedure as the primary procedure for the legislative dealings of the Union. The Treaty of Lisbon is also credited with tremendously increasing the powers of the European Parliament by a large extent13. One of the main areas in which the Treaty of Lisbon helped focus on the EU citizens was in giving the citizens the right to make petitions to the European Parliament concerning any matters of material effect14. This increased the powers of the citizen and their levels of participating in the making of decisions. Further on, the treaty would ensure that Council of the European Union meetings which discussed public matters are made public for all to see. In this way, the citizens can better understand the debates and the workings of the European Union. The Treaty of Lisbon also receives credit for improving on the role played by the national parliaments of the member nations in putting in place the laws and legislations of the Union15. Lastly, the Treaty of Lisbon is credited with giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union full legal effect. This meant that various steps taken by the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, and the European Parliament would have full legal effect in areas where they apply16. Conclusion The workings of the European Union in seeking democracy have been so far ineffective on various levels as observed above. While there is intention from the leaders of the European Union to remedy these weaknesses in the workings of the Union, the fundamental reason why there have been low levels of success when it comes to attaining democracy for all c itizens is its structure. It aims to operate like a government yet at its basic form it is an union of governments. Each of these governments have different needs, goals, histories and fundamental principles. The rest is that the leaders of each country first take care of their countries needs before those of the European Union. Also, its structure makes it difficult to make laws that will lead to better nerve as each piece of legislation needs to have the needs of the many member states at heart. With time, it can be hoped that better legislation will be enabled for all the democracy to be attained. References Avbelj,M. 2005. Can the forward-looking EuropeanConstitution Remedy the EU Democratic Deficit?. EUMAP.org Campbell,M (2012) The Democratic Deficit of theEuropean Union. Claremont-UC Undergraduate Research Conference on theEuropean Union, p. 25. Castro,C. (2015). Assessing the Democratic Deficit in the EU towards a democraticApproach. RIPS, 14 (1), p. 63. Craig,P Grainne D e P. P. Craig (2007). Chapter11 Human rights in the EU. EU law Text, Cases and Materials (4thed.). Oxford Oxford University Press. p. 379. Dilek,K. (2011). The Problem of Democratic Deficit in the European Union. worldwide daybook of Humanities andSocial Science, 1 (5) p. 244. ElectoralReform Society finale the Gap Tackling Europes democratic deficit. EuropeanParliament Relations with guinea pig Parliaments. Innerarity,D (2015). The Inter-Democratic Deficit ofthe European Union The Governance of Europes Economic, Political and LegalTransformation. Pp. 173-174. Kelemen,R. (2012). The Rules of FederalismInstitutions and regulative governing in the EU and Beyond. HarvardUniversity Press. pp. 2122. Milev,M. (2004) A Democratic Deficit in theEuropean Union? manipulate Thesis, I.H.E.I. p. 10. Schtze,R (2012). European Constitutional Law.Cambridge University Press. p. 99.1Castro, C. (2015). Assessing the Democratic Deficit in the EUtowards a Participatory Approach. RIPS, 14 (1), p. 63.2Milev, M.(2004) A DemocraticDeficit in the European Union? Master Thesis, I.H.E.I. p. 103Milev (2004), pp. 11-12.4Dilek, K. (2011). The Problem ofDemocratic Deficit in the European Union. International Journal ofHumanities and Social Science, 1 (5) p. 2445Castro, C. (2005), p. 66.6Innerarity, D (2015). TheInter-Democratic Deficit of the European Union The Governance of Europes Economic, Political and LegalTransformation. Pp. 173-1747Campbell, M (2012) The Democratic Deficit of the EuropeanUnion. Claremont-UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union,p. 25.8Electoral Reform Society Close the Gap Tackling Europes democratic deficit.9Kelemen, R. (2012). The Rules of Federalism Institutions andRegulatory Politics in the EU and Beyond. Harvard University Press. pp.2122.10Charlemagne. 2013. Ademocratic nightmare seek to confront the rise of Eurosceptics and fill thedemocratic deficit. The Economist. 11Avbelj, M. 2005. Can the New European Constitution Remedy theEU Democratic Deficit?. EUMAP.org12Schtze, R (2012). European ConstitutionalLaw. Cambridge University Press. pp. 3132.13Schtze, R (2012). EuropeanConstitutional Law. Cambridge University Press. pp. 434414Schtze, R (2012). European Constitutional Law. CambridgeUniversity Press. p. 99.15EuropeanParliament Relations with National Parliaments.16Craig, P Grainne De Burca P.P. Craig (2007). Chapter 11 Humanrights in the EU. EU Law Text, Cases and Materials (4th ed.).Oxford Oxford University Press. p. 379.