Holden Caulfield
26th April 2009, 23:53
Would an extension of the European Parliaments powers solve the ‘Democratic Deficit’ problem of the European Union?
The European Union (EU) lacks a single sovereign body of authority; instead it is ‘controlled’ by several groups and committees and by the representatives of national governments. The major groups are: The European Commission (a body of 27 members, one appointed by each state) which is seen by many to be the executive body of the EU; the European Council made up of the heads of the member states; and the European Parliament (EP) which consists of 785 democratically elected (Members of the European Parliament) MEPs but which currently plays a relatively minor legislative role. The problem of a ‘democratic deficit’ arises over the fact that the EP is the only elected body in the EU, thus all other institutions of the EU cannot claim democratic authority or legitimacy. “The European Union has a singular governmental structure. Superficially, it represents a familiar nation state” and so one would assume that the parliament would be the sovereign authority, in this essay we shall discuss whether or not an extension of the EP’s powers would solve the issue of democratic deficit.
“Most members of the European Parliament think that the EP should have all the powers and prerogatives of a national parliament instead of having to share powers with the council. They argue that the EP’s limited legislative authority undermines the EU’s democratic legitimacy and have long found it ‘unacceptable that a union of democratic states should not itself be democratic’”.
The EP is the only body of the EU able to claim democratic legitimacy, however in the current system it is restricted by the powers of the Council and the European Commission. The Council, made up of heads of member states, cannot claim European wide democratic legitimacy or representation, and will by their very nature, first and foremost, represent the wants of their respective states. The Commission is made up of members appointed by the states (although official recognition by the Commission is needed). As the current executive body of the EU they are sworn to act in the interests of the EU, however members are often seen as being biased towards their respective states. Even if the Commissioners were unbiased they cannot claim to represent European Interests due to the virtue of not being appointed by the people of the EU. Under the current system limited powers are given to the EP, it may dismiss the entire Commission with a two-thirds vote of no-confidence, however it cannot remove individual commissioners. A small increase in the power of the EP would mean it could hold Commissioners accountable for their actions at an individual level, bringing new levels of democratic accountability to the EU.
An EP with extended powers would help ease budgetary issues that have been seen throughout the history of the EU. Although the EP does currently have the power to approve the budget, if it had a position of helping to negotiate the budget any outcome would be less biased. The EP is made up of representatives for all of the people of the EU and so any budget formed could be reasonably seen as being the best possible compromise between the states, due to the democratic, rather than diplomatic, nature of its formation and approval. A budget formulated and passed in the EP would be democratically accountable, and could be seen as being fairer than a budget formed by those with a biased for their own state government, the same government that would have appointed them.
However the EU is not simply a copy of a national governmental system, “the EU lies between policy and diplomacy” which brings concern of the ability of the EP to fully account for the wants of all member states. The formulation of treaties in a theoretically extended EP would seriously infringe on the national self determination and sovereignty of smaller member states, undermining the cohesion of the EU, and making the concept of a European Union unattractive to certain states.
Although the EP is the only body in the EU that can make any claims of democratic legitimacy, these claims are not without criticism. There are inherent problems within the EP and the very election process from which they claim legitimacy.
EP elections have been plagued with low turn outs since their introduction in 1979, in the 2004 European elections there was an average turnout of just 45.5%. This average is still artificially high due to the mandatory voting system of some member states (such as Greece, Belgium and Luxemburg). The average participation in the new member states was merely 26.4%. These low turnouts seriously damage the EP’s claims of democratic legitimacy, low voter turnouts suggest voter apathy and a disillusion with the institution. The ratio of representation is yet another factor against the EP’s claims of democratic appointment, under a democracy one would assume that each individual has an equal vote, however in EP elections this is not the case: For example for a candidate standing in Germany to win a seat (through a system of proportional representation) it would take 805,000 votes, however a candidate standing in Luxemburg would require only 66,000 votes. This nation to nation difference in ratio of representation could seem to contradict the elections being for a European Parliament, a parliament that’s very purpose is to represent all the people of the EU.
Democratically elected officials are elected to represent the population of the constituency in which they stand. The UK with a population of an estimated 61,000,000, has 78 elected MEPs meaning that each member represents around 782,050 people. The sheer size of these constituencies means that representation will be minimal, with the overwhelming majority of the people never seeing their representative, and “few British people could name their MEP”. This form of election is more of a elective aristocracy than a true representative democracy, removing yet more of the EP’s supposed democratic legitimacy. European and Domestic political conflict also occurs due to an “animosity” between MPs and MEPs, this animosity can only harm the workings of governments, and the ability for elected officials to represent their constituents fully.
The process of electing MEPs is dominated by national, rather than European, issues. “European elections invariably become referendums on the performance of [national] government” that is to say that voters use their ballot at EP elections to send a message to the national government in regards to their running of the country. The EP cannot claim democratic credentials if those who vote for its members are, in fact, not voting for MEPs but voting as a sign of ‘no-confidence or in support’ of the national government. The national political parties also seem to dominate EP elections: Firstly in the way they select the candidates and put their support (financial or otherwise) behind their chosen man/woman and secondly in the way that national policy, such as the domestic policy of the Labour Party, will be what people vote on. This centrality of domestic national issues in EP elections is partly due to the distance the electorate feel from the EU, partly due to domestic issues being easier to follow (such as in the press, or in everyday life e.g. interest rates) and partly due to a general apathy toward the EU.
“Giving the European Parliament more legislative power will not resolve the European Union’s democratic deficit. After all, the democratic deficit is based on popular perception as well as political reality, and most Europeans tend to see the EP as part of the problem rather than part of the solution”
The EP itself is plagued with problems, problems over which they have no control over, and which lower public confidence. The EP is located in three separate countries: The official location of the EP is Strasbourg, France, however most institutions of the EU are located in Brussels Belgium, this means that the entire EP structure must relocate to Strasbourg once a month for Plenary sessions. The third location is Luxembourg where the Secretariat (EP equivalent of the civil service) is found. This system leads to great inefficiency and is viewed by large sections of the public (and large sections of elected representatives) as a pointless endeavour. The EP has 11 official languages, and therefore relies on a large amount of translators, this again appears to some as a farcical situation, and every word must be translated into 10 other languages. Aside from these kinds of issues there are more pressing political problems with the EP such as the dominance of the European Democrat/Socialist ‘cartel’ in electing the EP President. The European Democrat and the Socialist groups in the EP were, at times, the largest by some margin and were able to enact a system whereby the one group will win the Presidency one term, and then alternate the Presidency between them. This could be contrived to be a ‘one party’ system and is hardly a signifier of a healthy parliamentary democracy. The Supranational Parties themselves are far from perfect with national parties finding it very difficult to find ideological similarities with other parties they are grouped with.
“The European Parliament sees itself as the future democratic focus of 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 the national parliamentary democracy that confers legitimacy to the European Union”
This quote shows the non-integrationist stance of states such as the UK; these states see the EU as a diplomatic union, not the foundations of a federal European community. The power of the states will always be above that of the EP, as it is the governments of states that decide upon membership of the EU, and it is the governments of states who would lose powers and sovereignty with an extension of the EP’s power.
As we have seen simply extending the powers of the European Parliament would not solve the democratic deficit problem found in the EU. The EU has many internal problems that need to be addressed such as: The constitutional make up of the EU is more that of a diplomatic treaty making organisation than a supranational federation; the process of election and representation in the EP is itself flawed; low public opinion, voter turnout and knowledge of the EP damages claims of democratic legitimacy etc. The lack of a cohesive European Community is also a factor which would hamper the work of a more prominent EP: The states of the EU do not share one common language, culture, identity or history; they also have different views of the role of the EU, and different national political systems making further integration difficult.
Before any real democratization could take place the EU, and more specifically the EP, would need to prove itself worthy of authority in the eyes of the European public, raising its profile in the day to day lives of ordinary Europeans. This would bring an increase voter turnout, boosting any future claims of democratic legitimacy. However even if this does occur the democratic deficit could only be truly resolved “by an imaginative blend of public representation and involvement at the regional, national, and European levels, involving parliamentary bodies from all three spheres”.
Bibliography
Arnull, Anthony & Wincott, Daniel (2002) ‘Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union’ Oxford: University Press
Burgess, Michael (1989) ‘Federalism and the European Union’ London: Routledge
Chryssochoou, Dimitris (1998) ‘Democracy In the European Union’ London: Bloomsbury
Cram, Laura & Dinan, Desmond (eds.) (1999) ‘Developments in the European Union’ London: Macmillan
Dinan, Desmond (1999) ‘Ever Closer Union’ London: Macmillan
Holland, Martin (1994) ‘European Integration: From Community to Union’ London: Pinter
-------------------------------------------------------------
CIA World Factbook ‘The United Kingdom’ (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html)
Euractiv.com ‘European Parliament Election 2004: Results’ (Tuesday 17 August 2004) (http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/european-parliament-elections-2004-results/article-117482)
Foreign & Common Wealth Office ‘The European Parliament’ (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/institutions/britain-in-the-european-union/quick-guide-to-the-eu/how-does-the-eu-work/european-parliament)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeler, Brian ‘BBC: My Week as an MEP’ (Wednesday, 14 January 2009) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7817853.stm)
-------------------------------------------------------------
XXXXXXXX ‘How would you account for the low turnout in recent UK General Elections and would you argue that this indicates that British democracy is in crisis?’ (9 December 2008)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Major, John ‘Europe a Future that Works’ (A 1994 Lecture at Leiden University)
The European Union (EU) lacks a single sovereign body of authority; instead it is ‘controlled’ by several groups and committees and by the representatives of national governments. The major groups are: The European Commission (a body of 27 members, one appointed by each state) which is seen by many to be the executive body of the EU; the European Council made up of the heads of the member states; and the European Parliament (EP) which consists of 785 democratically elected (Members of the European Parliament) MEPs but which currently plays a relatively minor legislative role. The problem of a ‘democratic deficit’ arises over the fact that the EP is the only elected body in the EU, thus all other institutions of the EU cannot claim democratic authority or legitimacy. “The European Union has a singular governmental structure. Superficially, it represents a familiar nation state” and so one would assume that the parliament would be the sovereign authority, in this essay we shall discuss whether or not an extension of the EP’s powers would solve the issue of democratic deficit.
“Most members of the European Parliament think that the EP should have all the powers and prerogatives of a national parliament instead of having to share powers with the council. They argue that the EP’s limited legislative authority undermines the EU’s democratic legitimacy and have long found it ‘unacceptable that a union of democratic states should not itself be democratic’”.
The EP is the only body of the EU able to claim democratic legitimacy, however in the current system it is restricted by the powers of the Council and the European Commission. The Council, made up of heads of member states, cannot claim European wide democratic legitimacy or representation, and will by their very nature, first and foremost, represent the wants of their respective states. The Commission is made up of members appointed by the states (although official recognition by the Commission is needed). As the current executive body of the EU they are sworn to act in the interests of the EU, however members are often seen as being biased towards their respective states. Even if the Commissioners were unbiased they cannot claim to represent European Interests due to the virtue of not being appointed by the people of the EU. Under the current system limited powers are given to the EP, it may dismiss the entire Commission with a two-thirds vote of no-confidence, however it cannot remove individual commissioners. A small increase in the power of the EP would mean it could hold Commissioners accountable for their actions at an individual level, bringing new levels of democratic accountability to the EU.
An EP with extended powers would help ease budgetary issues that have been seen throughout the history of the EU. Although the EP does currently have the power to approve the budget, if it had a position of helping to negotiate the budget any outcome would be less biased. The EP is made up of representatives for all of the people of the EU and so any budget formed could be reasonably seen as being the best possible compromise between the states, due to the democratic, rather than diplomatic, nature of its formation and approval. A budget formulated and passed in the EP would be democratically accountable, and could be seen as being fairer than a budget formed by those with a biased for their own state government, the same government that would have appointed them.
However the EU is not simply a copy of a national governmental system, “the EU lies between policy and diplomacy” which brings concern of the ability of the EP to fully account for the wants of all member states. The formulation of treaties in a theoretically extended EP would seriously infringe on the national self determination and sovereignty of smaller member states, undermining the cohesion of the EU, and making the concept of a European Union unattractive to certain states.
Although the EP is the only body in the EU that can make any claims of democratic legitimacy, these claims are not without criticism. There are inherent problems within the EP and the very election process from which they claim legitimacy.
EP elections have been plagued with low turn outs since their introduction in 1979, in the 2004 European elections there was an average turnout of just 45.5%. This average is still artificially high due to the mandatory voting system of some member states (such as Greece, Belgium and Luxemburg). The average participation in the new member states was merely 26.4%. These low turnouts seriously damage the EP’s claims of democratic legitimacy, low voter turnouts suggest voter apathy and a disillusion with the institution. The ratio of representation is yet another factor against the EP’s claims of democratic appointment, under a democracy one would assume that each individual has an equal vote, however in EP elections this is not the case: For example for a candidate standing in Germany to win a seat (through a system of proportional representation) it would take 805,000 votes, however a candidate standing in Luxemburg would require only 66,000 votes. This nation to nation difference in ratio of representation could seem to contradict the elections being for a European Parliament, a parliament that’s very purpose is to represent all the people of the EU.
Democratically elected officials are elected to represent the population of the constituency in which they stand. The UK with a population of an estimated 61,000,000, has 78 elected MEPs meaning that each member represents around 782,050 people. The sheer size of these constituencies means that representation will be minimal, with the overwhelming majority of the people never seeing their representative, and “few British people could name their MEP”. This form of election is more of a elective aristocracy than a true representative democracy, removing yet more of the EP’s supposed democratic legitimacy. European and Domestic political conflict also occurs due to an “animosity” between MPs and MEPs, this animosity can only harm the workings of governments, and the ability for elected officials to represent their constituents fully.
The process of electing MEPs is dominated by national, rather than European, issues. “European elections invariably become referendums on the performance of [national] government” that is to say that voters use their ballot at EP elections to send a message to the national government in regards to their running of the country. The EP cannot claim democratic credentials if those who vote for its members are, in fact, not voting for MEPs but voting as a sign of ‘no-confidence or in support’ of the national government. The national political parties also seem to dominate EP elections: Firstly in the way they select the candidates and put their support (financial or otherwise) behind their chosen man/woman and secondly in the way that national policy, such as the domestic policy of the Labour Party, will be what people vote on. This centrality of domestic national issues in EP elections is partly due to the distance the electorate feel from the EU, partly due to domestic issues being easier to follow (such as in the press, or in everyday life e.g. interest rates) and partly due to a general apathy toward the EU.
“Giving the European Parliament more legislative power will not resolve the European Union’s democratic deficit. After all, the democratic deficit is based on popular perception as well as political reality, and most Europeans tend to see the EP as part of the problem rather than part of the solution”
The EP itself is plagued with problems, problems over which they have no control over, and which lower public confidence. The EP is located in three separate countries: The official location of the EP is Strasbourg, France, however most institutions of the EU are located in Brussels Belgium, this means that the entire EP structure must relocate to Strasbourg once a month for Plenary sessions. The third location is Luxembourg where the Secretariat (EP equivalent of the civil service) is found. This system leads to great inefficiency and is viewed by large sections of the public (and large sections of elected representatives) as a pointless endeavour. The EP has 11 official languages, and therefore relies on a large amount of translators, this again appears to some as a farcical situation, and every word must be translated into 10 other languages. Aside from these kinds of issues there are more pressing political problems with the EP such as the dominance of the European Democrat/Socialist ‘cartel’ in electing the EP President. The European Democrat and the Socialist groups in the EP were, at times, the largest by some margin and were able to enact a system whereby the one group will win the Presidency one term, and then alternate the Presidency between them. This could be contrived to be a ‘one party’ system and is hardly a signifier of a healthy parliamentary democracy. The Supranational Parties themselves are far from perfect with national parties finding it very difficult to find ideological similarities with other parties they are grouped with.
“The European Parliament sees itself as the future democratic focus of 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 the national parliamentary democracy that confers legitimacy to the European Union”
This quote shows the non-integrationist stance of states such as the UK; these states see the EU as a diplomatic union, not the foundations of a federal European community. The power of the states will always be above that of the EP, as it is the governments of states that decide upon membership of the EU, and it is the governments of states who would lose powers and sovereignty with an extension of the EP’s power.
As we have seen simply extending the powers of the European Parliament would not solve the democratic deficit problem found in the EU. The EU has many internal problems that need to be addressed such as: The constitutional make up of the EU is more that of a diplomatic treaty making organisation than a supranational federation; the process of election and representation in the EP is itself flawed; low public opinion, voter turnout and knowledge of the EP damages claims of democratic legitimacy etc. The lack of a cohesive European Community is also a factor which would hamper the work of a more prominent EP: The states of the EU do not share one common language, culture, identity or history; they also have different views of the role of the EU, and different national political systems making further integration difficult.
Before any real democratization could take place the EU, and more specifically the EP, would need to prove itself worthy of authority in the eyes of the European public, raising its profile in the day to day lives of ordinary Europeans. This would bring an increase voter turnout, boosting any future claims of democratic legitimacy. However even if this does occur the democratic deficit could only be truly resolved “by an imaginative blend of public representation and involvement at the regional, national, and European levels, involving parliamentary bodies from all three spheres”.
Bibliography
Arnull, Anthony & Wincott, Daniel (2002) ‘Accountability and Legitimacy in the European Union’ Oxford: University Press
Burgess, Michael (1989) ‘Federalism and the European Union’ London: Routledge
Chryssochoou, Dimitris (1998) ‘Democracy In the European Union’ London: Bloomsbury
Cram, Laura & Dinan, Desmond (eds.) (1999) ‘Developments in the European Union’ London: Macmillan
Dinan, Desmond (1999) ‘Ever Closer Union’ London: Macmillan
Holland, Martin (1994) ‘European Integration: From Community to Union’ London: Pinter
-------------------------------------------------------------
CIA World Factbook ‘The United Kingdom’ (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html)
Euractiv.com ‘European Parliament Election 2004: Results’ (Tuesday 17 August 2004) (http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/european-parliament-elections-2004-results/article-117482)
Foreign & Common Wealth Office ‘The European Parliament’ (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/institutions/britain-in-the-european-union/quick-guide-to-the-eu/how-does-the-eu-work/european-parliament)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeler, Brian ‘BBC: My Week as an MEP’ (Wednesday, 14 January 2009) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7817853.stm)
-------------------------------------------------------------
XXXXXXXX ‘How would you account for the low turnout in recent UK General Elections and would you argue that this indicates that British democracy is in crisis?’ (9 December 2008)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Major, John ‘Europe a Future that Works’ (A 1994 Lecture at Leiden University)