‘Transparency and complexity issue’ the complexity of the legislation processes means that it is practically impossible for even experts to understand. In addition much of the decision- making of the Union takes place behind closed doors. ‘Substantive imbalance issue’, an argument that the most important element in a democracy is to maintain the balance between market liberation and social protection. The European Union cannot maintain this balance despite significant for the maintenance of welfare systems because of a liberal prejudice in the constitutional structure of the European Union.
When analyst is comment on the lack of democratic legitimacy in the European Union, they usually mainly criticise the nature of policy outputs and modes of political representation. To this date, there is only one of the four major actors in creating European Union policies and law making. It is a body without any power or accountability it is dismissible. Only three quarters of the EU parliaments amendments are even accepted by the Commission and Council of Ministers. The commission is powerful but is well known as a technocracy (“a form of government system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.”).
There are three forms of law making within the European Commission which parliament have varying degrees of control over: co-operation, consultation and assent. The consultation procedure demands that the Council consult of parliament before coming to a decision on Community secondary law. Failure to consult can lead to an instrument being struck down, yet this really gives very little power to Parliament as the council may still disregard their opinion.
The co-operation procedure, which was introduced by Art 252, establishes a first and second reading in areas largely affecting the internal market. Here parliament can force the council to a unanimous vote on a legislative proposal or table amendments that the Council must reconsider. However, this procedure is almost redundant applying to the EMU matters exclusively.
Co-decision is where Parliament can reject a proposal submitted by the council. Parliament is entitled to propose amendments, which the council must adopt unanimously if the commission also has a negative opinion. The veto powers of Parliament can only take effect if the conciliation committee cannot agree on a mutual position.
Assent procedure is needed to be followed in six instances, where proposals may not be enacted unless assent is given by Parliament. They cannot amend the proposals but they can approve of reject the measures.
The negotiations regarding the co- decision procedure tend not to take place at conciliation meeting, but rather at the committee of permanent representatives. This group of civil servants, who are attached to the council, they agree on legislation before it reaches the Council. For example, unelected technocrats are given preliminary responsibility for proposing legislation. This may seem unreasonable at first but civil servants of many nations contribute to legislative proposals. It is the involvement in the co-decision procedure and the clarity with which they work that may undermine the democratic ideals.
Declaration number 17 annexed to the EC treaty stipulates the transparency of the decision- making process is needed to strengthen the democratic nature of the institutions and attempt to restore public confidence in the EU. Improvements in this nature are slowly forthcoming and even though the debates of the council are secret, they hold a public debate every 6 months with other debates possible on major issues of community interests and legislative proposals, only if there is a unanimous vote by the council. “Although the transparency is a crucial instrument in bringing the community closer to its citizens and increasing their confidence in its operations, such confidence being a key element in any democracy”
Analysts have also criticised the undemocratic nature of EU legislation, for example, the fact that interest groups constantly dominate policy- making in the EU. The legislative processes are very complex, this means that it is nearly impossible for even specialists to understand, the public would be unable. Also, most of the decision-making processes take place behind closed doors.
Even the election process of the EU can be perceived as undemocratic, the party ‘list’ method caused controversy and there is a strong argument that the system is largely undemocratic. The choice of candidates for the list is done by the party hierarchy, the same people also choose the order in which they appear on the ballot, these factors could effect the chances of the candidates being elected or not.
The research I have made whilst studying the EU institutions (specifically the study of the democracy of the EU) shows that most authors who discuss this matter are in agreement that the main problem of the democratic situation is that the main problem of the democratic situation is that the ‘European parliament has not got wide-range rights to control the common institutions (the council and the commission)’.
For development reasons the national governments are needed to make all the wider field of decision-making. The national government need to finalise on decisions by importance of national interests and the citizens’ interests. E.g. Terrorism or natural disaster.
These democratic issues means that, between the EU and the European citizens, the citizens do not know why they need the European Union, or why they are members of the Union, they feel as if the EU is too distant from them. To try to overcome these problems the EU constitution was sent out via post to citizens in France. Communication will bring citizens to realise their policies and involve them more in the Union. “European Union has not got accountable politicians for European citizens; therefore, the EU appears like an organisation above nation- states… Decision making happens by consensus or qualified majority voting- often behind closed doors”
The matter of democracy is easier to tackle and obvious points to the responsibility of the European Parliament as the only directly elected organisation but only having an insignificant task in the legislative progression and the query of delegation to Committees controlled by the Council and not the EU. “His entire argument is described as the democratic deficit in the community”. I.e., due to the fact that the European Parliament is the only directly democratic factor, to ensure the democratic rights are maintained or the justification of Community laws the legislative proceedings must be given to elected organisations. The fact of the matter is, is simply; if the statement ‘the European Union is fundamentally undemocratic’ is factual then certain things need to be done.
There have been several suggestions made to the EU to help reduce the democratic problems rather that worsening them; firstly, creating serious European political parties with recognisable programmes and clear visible leaders of these parties a list of all of the member states should be collected for the next commission president, then all citizens can vote for any of the Unions’ member states. The rest would be up to the political parties themselves; this could be a more straightforward structure that everyone could follow easier.
So far I have discussed only the ‘institutional’ aspects of the democratic issues stated in the question within the European Union. It is important to note that these derive from the Western ideals on democracy that are base on nation- states. It is obvious; the European Union is not a nation-state. Looking at the democracy from this perspective it could appear to be more psychological.
The large scale of the European Union means that it is far more difficult for effective participation of citizens, with the uncertain public opinion in the face of the transfer of policy responsibility from state to the European Government.
The European Union has done far too much work in the establishment of human rights. Both the ideas of citizenship and free movement of workers have been created by the commission and the European Court of Justice. In relation to the policy making process, provisions to increase transparency are clear. For example, any citizen of the Union to access to documents subject to certain limits. It is also included a provision for a third party, a figure to receive complaints from citizens where maladministration (when the actions of a government body can be seen to be causing an injustice) is said to have occurred.
I realise that I have described the policy making process as undemocratic, Nugent, points out three ways in which this is not in fact the case. First of all, political accommodation and sidelining is common amongst the European Union member states’ coalition governments, meaning that the political interests model does not prove the European Union to be undemocratic in relative terms. Secondly, not all policy-making procedures consist of putting together deals to satisfy the current complexion of political forces. The commission aims for coordinated forward planning and look at medium to long-term plans, rather than short term. Finally, Nugent brought the fact that; a considerable degree of policy cooperation and integration has been achieved at EU level, to our attention. This can be seen as coming closer to the EU objective of furthering the interests of those who live in member states.
It is difficult to deny the fact that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic. This is a result of its remoteness from ordinary citizens and a feeling that its directives lack relevance to each member state. Its main policy-making institutions, the commission and the council, are indirectly elected and lack a sense of accountability in the same way as the governments of member states. The fact that the European Parliament is weak and an interdependence rather than separation of powers creates a poison of secrecy that infects the liquidity of policy-making.
The problem with this is that the EU is a unique concept that cannot be compared to anywhere else in the world. The psychological aspect of the democracy problems relates to the way these words were taken out of context. The EU is not a national government and the ‘United States of Europe’ does not exist. Judging the EU on the same level as a national government is unfair. Also the EU is becoming more democratic through slow change, while its increasing importance brings growing opposition and subsequent accountability.
A democratic deficit does not exist in the structural features of decision-making system and barriers to citizen participation.
I believe that a lack of democracy could exist due to a lack of transparency and an excess of delegation in legislative proceedings, a solution to this could be giving more power to the European Parliament because, this is the only institution that was elected in. The question of democracy clearly points to the role of the European Parliament, because it is the only directly elected body, having only a minor role in the legislative process as opposed to the question of delegation to Committees controlled by the council. Perhaps the Parliament could be given a greater opportunity not only to propose but also to enact legislation. To achieve this there will have to be a greater affinity between the European Community as an institution and its citizens as MEPs can hardly be described as currently acting upon a democratic mandate when electoral turnout is so low. This could steadily be achieved over time or it could be accelerated with a ‘Bill of Rights’ or constitution. It is, however, worth stating that although there is a ‘democratic deficit’ in the EC’s legal system, it has come a long way in a short time. At the same time, structural changes could reduce the democratic problems until the mandate of the European Parliament gains greater legitimacy through larger turnouts at European elections. It could also be reduced by opening up the decision making process and by maintaining the powers of the intergovernmental institutions, mainly the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is accountable to the European citizens and is best placed to protect their interests. Until the European Unions Identity can be achieved along with the greater support for a more powerful and closer union, the autonomy of the supranational institutions should be kept to a minimum.
Bibliography
Schmidt. Vivien. “Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities” 2006. First Edition. Oxford University Press
Siedentop. Larry. “Democracy in Europe” 2001. Penguin Group.
Connor, Tim. Lecture Notes and Course workbook 2007-2008
Chryssochoou, D “EU Democracy and the Democratic Deficit” 2003. Oxford University Press.
Westlaw.UK (Journal 2, bibliography)
Hanlon, European Community Law, 3rd Edition (London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2003)
Re Road Taxes: European Parliament v Council [1998] 1 CMLR 94
J Mather, ‘Transparency in the European Union- An Open Shut Case’ 1997 1 Eur. Acc 9
Hix, Simon (2005) the political system of the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan p.177
B Boyce, The Democracy deficit of the European Community. 1998
Nugent, Niell. ‘The Government and Politics of the European Union’, Sixth Edition. 2006. Duke University Press.
