Revision:Democracy within the European Community

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > Democracy within the European Community

EC's democratic deficit is subject to much debate. Phrase 'democratic deficit' has several facets to its meaning:

• Excessive dominance issue - transfer of competence to the Comm enhances the power of the executive at the expense of Parliamentary bodies. Difficulties experienced by national Parliamentary bodies in exercising any real controls in decisions made by the EC.

• Bypassing of democracy argument- many technical and complex issues are dealt with by regulations made by committees (Comitology). These are dominated by technocrats to the exclusion of more conventional routes of democracy i.e. EP.

• Distance issue- EC has resulted in the transfer competence over many issues to Brussels, taking it literally further away from the citizens of the MS.

• Transparency and complexity issue- many issues are dealt with behind closed doors and due to the complexity of the legislative nature of the EC, it would take an expert to interpret.

• Substantive imbalance issue- leftist writers argue that the imbalance between the labour and capital which has been exacberated by freeing up of European mkt. should also be encompassed within the term democratic deficit.

• Weakening of judicial control issue- a number of MS have courts which have powers over constitutionality of primary legislation. Transfer of competency to the Comm reduces this power.

Executive dominance- MS executives used to have dominance over the contents of legislation passed at a national level, with the introduction of the EC this dominance is questionable. Traditionally it is viewed that neither national parliaments nor EP have much say as to the contents of Comm legislation. However this argument is weakened by the fact that the EP has much more power these days and many acts of the Comm are done so by co-decision.

What is Democracy?

• Procedures in place whereby decisions are taken by directly elected representatives.

• Peoples of a state have some control over the running of the state.

• Notions of protection of fundamental human rights.

• Balance of power between various institutions.

• Ideas of transparency and accountability.

Assumptions of Argument

It is important to realise that there is no true "base-point" from which to measure democracy. Consequently, any discussion is necessarily theoretical and empirical.

Apply critique of EU to MS

Known as the empirical discussion - Craig & de Burca.

• Executive dominance: The executive is dominant in almost all domestic politics - e.g. how many changes, which were not executive-sponsored, has the legislature in the UK manage to incorporate in statutes in any one year? The force of the "executive dominance" critique of Community decision-making appears rather weak when viewed in this light.

• Weakness of EP: It is not necessarily true that the EP has no real power. Most of its amendments have been accepted and the co-decision procedure is now widely used. Whilst it can be argued that the Council need to agree to the amendments of the EP, this does not prove that real power was not exercised to ensure such compliance.

• Comitology: The legitimisation of secondary norms is an endemic problem for domestic political systems too. (Still a problem for EU, however).

What if there was no EU?

The common premise is that, if there were no EU, all matters within its competence would be dealt with at national level, thereby countering the distance problem and mitigating the executive dominance problem with closer parliamentary control.

BUT, such a conclusion does not follow from the premise. The pressures for some form of international co-ordination would still be present, especially for trade, even if the EU never existed. Consequently, if there were no EU, a more likely situation would be ad-hoc agreements. These would be complex, confusing, time-consuming and, perhaps, no more democratic. Such international agreements rarely have any constitution or political system. They are created and controlled by executives.

Modes of Governance

Known as the theoretical discussion - Craig & de Burca.

It is common to see arguments based on the criteria applied to nation states. Such arguments compare the EP to MS Parliaments and argue that EU is deficient because the EP does not have sufficient power.

BUT, the EU is not a super-state and, consequently, such comparison between the division of power within MS and within the EU is unwarranted.

Weiler argues that different aspects of the EU are best analysed as different modes of governance:

• International/intergovernmentalism: Dealing with fundamental rules of the system and high politics. MSs have the power.

• Supranational: Governance under EC treaty itself and making legislation under it. MSs and Community Institutions are principal actors.

• Infranational: Implementing community policy through regulatory norms. Main players are interest groups and bureaucrats - often by-pass normal democratic ideas.

Different modes of governance require analysis using different models of democracy. Whilst academics may differ over which model best fits the different aspects of EU governance, Weiler's general methodology frees us from the confines of the rigid paradigm of the traditional nation state and is more suited to the sui generis nature of the EU.

Council: The role of the Council can be defended, fundamentally, because the democratic legitimacy of the Community is founded upon its states as well as it peoples. Most Council members are also indirectly elected, i.e. elected within MS.

EP: The EP is deserving of power by virtue of being directly elected.

Commission: The legislative initiative of the Commission can be justified in part by remembering that the Commission looks to the advancement of the Community as laid down in the treaties, whereas the EP and, to a greater extent, the Council will often be swayed by short-term national politics.

Conclusion

The present system is capable of improvement. Significant issues include:

• Quality of EU legislation.

• Role of national parliaments.

• Role of citizens/individuals in decision-making.

• Operation of Comitology.

• Implications of variable geometry [flexibility].

BUT, should look to more than just superficial national comparisons and keep in mind that democratic concerns will never be fully resolved at any one point in time.

Comments