Is a steady retreat from democracy a necessary price to be paid for growing involvement in the European Union?
Heywood (2002) defines the ‘European idea’ as the belief that Europe ‘constitutes a single political community’ with shared objectives and difficulties despite its historical, linguistic and cultural differences. In the 20th century the European community essentially concerned itself with defence, peace keeping, and economic progress partly in response to the devastation caused by the Second World War. However, the European Union is increasingly focusing on more domestic issues such as civil rights within the EU, environmental issues and social policy. This expansion of the EU was symbolically displayed with the introduction of the Euro, a single European Currency first introduced in the 1st January 1999 (dti, 2005). This has become a contentious issue within Westminster partly due to the economic risks and partly due to the perceived democratic deficit surrounding control of the Euro and all other European Union legislation. The debate over Britain’s involvement also encapsulates whether there is actually any benefit in being part of a supranational organisation, which needs to be addressed in this essay. However, it is first essential to investigate whether the EU is undemocratic and whether Britain will become less democratic if it is fully subjected to a European constitution. This essay will then analyse whether this would be a worthwhile price to pay for involvement in the European Union.
The European Union constitution agreed On 18th June 2004 was signed as an attempt to establish values and goals it was also a vital opportunity to provide stability, protect freedoms and legitimise governance of the EU. It is important to scrutinize the constitution to establish if there is a democratic deficit within the composition of European Union. Democracy implies rule by the people, in this case that means the citizens of the EU, the constitution explains that ‘Citizens are directly represented at Union Level in the European Parliament’ (euabc, 2004). In practice this means every five years citizens elect MEPs to represent their interests in the European Parliament. The relationship between the MEPs, the citizens and the electoral process needs to be examined. Firstly voter apathy is stronger in EU elections than national elections; from 1979 to 1999 turnout has averaged at 20% across EU member states (Bromley, 2001). Before the 2004 elections The UK office of the EU released a study which suggested they were expecting a 18% turnout (EU law, 2004) which appears to be accepting of poor participation. Possible reasons for this were distrust of politicians, a lack of compelling choice (Kitkat, 2004) and insufficient education through publicity; this basically means people didn’t know who to vote for and didn’t feel their vote would really change anything anyway. With such a low turnout it is impossible to view MEPs as being truly representative of the citizens of their Nation States; Jason Kitkat (2004) suggests ways of encouraging voters such as opening the channels of voting, publicity and parliamentary reform. It is possible that publicity and reform would reduce the amount European elections are influenced by the domestic political cycle. Bromley (2001) explains that results are strongly guided by their timing ‘held immediately before or after a national election they tend to mirror it. If they are held during mid-term of national parliament they tend to register an anti government swing’. This means those who do vote are not doing so out of preferences for future EU policies or dissatisfaction of the previous MEP’s performance instead the electorate is voting over national issues. Something Bromley (2001) claims is encouraged and exploited by political parties through their coverage of national issues in European election campaigns. What is termed ‘second-order voting’ (Bromley, 2001) implies that a weakness in the linkage between elections and representation, which reduces the level of accountability, thus creating what many would view as a significant democratic deficit which is unnecessary.
