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. Families work together, appointing their friends, running on a vast ‘gravy train’. Yet it wields an increasing amount of power in the European Union of today. It has the exclusive right to initiate legislation. It implements common policy, manages the European Union’s extensive budget and is widely regarded as the "guardian" of the euro-federal ideal.
The Commission has no mandate whatsoever from the people, European voters do not elect their commissioners; member governments appoint whomever they wish (Blair appointed Kinnock (and family) and Chris Patten). This gives cynics a platform to say that these people are not always the most appropriate, but those who national governments want out of domestic politics. 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 board of Commissioners. 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.
Just as the European Commission can be viewed as the body of 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 (Prodi). 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 Single European Act of 1986, no longer have the right to veto proposed initiatives, rather decisions are taken using a system known as Qualified Majority Voting (QMV). The Council of Ministers mirrors the European Council, dealing not with national issues but with sectional affairs such as agriculture or transport. It plays a valuable part in co-ordinating the efforts of national governments on a continent wide basis. Critics state that in many ways, its powers make the representive Council more like the legislature body than the elected Parliament.
Parliament has no authority to endorse 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 every person in the whole of Europe. Perhaps the most significant exercise of undemocratic power involved the Single European Currency. The project was directed by certain heads of government, commissioners and representatives, but general support for the 'Euro' in Europe is relatively low, yet the project went ahead. 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 drive generated by the leaders in the Council.
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 MEPs (Member’s of the European Parliament) would have at best a outsider influence in a Parliament of more than 600. The European Parliament itself is hardly representative of the feelings, hopes and desires of EU citizens with lower turnouts than national elections and usually fought on strictly national issues. The Parliament arguably has little or no mandate to justify its actions.
National parliaments are often dismissed by the more ardent euro-federalists as a relic of a bygone era, at best their place in neo-Europe will be at a level similar to that of the United States. Yet surely national parliaments are the most democratic institutions in the European Union today, with a much higher turnout figure? Many would claim that they epitomise the nation itself and its identity. Can Spain have the same wants as Poland, Ireland and the Benelux countries.
The European Parliament, at first sight is a democratic institution. However, as I have demonstrated, the citizens of Europe 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 a noble ideal. However, it is a concept, which the people are not ready for. The view of Euro co-operation in the Parliament is an attractive one, but does it really make a difference, which way votes go when the Parliament makes little or no difference to policy making? Ultimately, the people of the European Union do not want a powerful European Parliament, most wish for questions of national interest, to continue to be resolved at a intergovernmental level 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 unaccountable Commision.
From this it is clear that the democratic deficit will never be resolved until the European Union is willing to strike a balance, and change the framework of the European Union’s institutions. It has to be remembered that this was only ever an economic body, which has evolved into a political arena and the levels of accountablity haven’t evolved similarly, allowing for a Union devoid of accountability and lacking a mandate to implement legislation.
