Reconstituting European Democracy

European Law Journal, 1998

Arguments about Europe’s democratic deficit are really arguments about the nature and ultimate goals of the integration process. Those who assume that economic integration must lead to political integration tend to apply to European institutions standards of legitimacy derived from the theory and practice of parliamentary democracies. We argue that such standards are largely irrelevant at present. As long as the majority of voters and their elected representatives oppose the idea of a European federation, while supporting far-reaching economic integration, we cannot expect parliamentary democracy to flourish in the Union. Economic integration without political integration is possible only if politics and economics are kept as separate as possible. The depoliticisation of European policy-making is the price we pay in order to preserve national sovereignty largely intact. These being the preferences of the voters, we conclude that Europe’s ‘democratic deficit’ is democratically justified.The expression ‘democratic deficit,’ however, is also used to refer to the legitimacy problems of non-majoritarian institutions, and this second meaning is much more relevant to a system of limited competences such as the EC. Now the key issues for democratic theory are about the tasks which may be legitimately delegated to institutions insulated from the political process, and how to design such institutions so as to make independence and accountability complementary and mutually supporting, rather than antithetical. If one accepts the ‘regulatory model’ of the EC, then, as long as the tasks delegated to the European level are precisely and narrowly defined, non-majoritarian standards of legitimacy should be sufficient to justify the delegation of the necessary powers.

The aim of the article is to present possible scenarios on maintaining democracy in the EU, while assuming different hypothetical directions in which it could develop as a federation, empire and Europe à la carte. Selected mechanisms, norms and values of the EU system that are crucial for the functioning of democracy in the European Union are the subject of this research. The abovementioned objective of scenario development is achieved through distinguishing the notions of policy, politics and polity in the research. In the analysis of the state of democracy in the European Union both the process (politics) and the normative approach (policy) have been adopted. The characterised norms, structures, values and democratic procedures in force in the EU will become a reference point for the projected scenarios. The projection refers to a situation when the existing polity transforms into a federation, empire or Europe à la carte. The article is to serve as a projection and is a part of a wider discussion on the future of the basis on which the European Union is build.

Living Reviews in Democracy, 2009

The EU as the most developed international organization, provides a laboratory for observing the development of democratic structures outside its member-states. The democratic deficit debate thus has implications that reach beyond the EU and touch upon crucial issues of future developments within democratic theory. This review distinguishes between three different types of legitimacy, namely procedural, efficiency and social legitimacy, and authors are discussed according to which type of legitimacy that underlines their analysis of the democratic deficit. Most authors invoke one type of legitimacy as their basis, but a new strand is emerging that mixes different types of legitimacy when establishing normative criteria for the EU. It is concluded that, in order to further the debate, this new strand has potential to develop advanced normative models appropriate for democracy beyond the nation-state. 1 In Dahl's view, proponents of guardianship find the assumption that ordinary people can be counted on to understand and defend their own interests preposterous. Instead, power should be entrusted to a small group of people uniquely qualified to govern (Dahl 1989; 52).

In this assignment, I will present how democracy is interpreted today according to current issues related to democracy in the contemporary world and particularly the supranational levels of government, the interplay between national and European democratic developments, and the present challenges of globalisation and terrorism. More specifically, using the apprpriate library and internet resources I will attempt to discuss the topics of democracy as an ideology and as a political system, the relationship between democracy and European Union and how much democratic is the latter. Furthermore I will study democracy in the national and supra national level examining the ralationship between local and regional democratic institutions and supra national organisations. Finally, I will try to present the impact of globalisation and terrorism on democracy presenting the current threats and subsequently how could we protect the latter from the formers’ negative effects. To sum up, the Union will be strong in the eyes of public opinion and member states alike if it manages to come up with solutions to the present challenges of de democratic deficit, globalisation and terrorism. In this respect, there is no reason why difficulties encountered over the last decade should endure, to the extent that they were a systemic consequence of poor Union functioning. For the time being, what needs to be kept in mind is that the member states and EU citizens, however mangled by crises and difficulties, continue to turn to the Union when seeking solutions to problems that cannot be solved nationally, and that there is an extraordinary proliferation of subjects and channels providing participation in European debates and decisions, in new and ever-changing ways. Of course, this continuous adaptation process has not been without consequence for institutional balance. The idea of a supranational polity has been scaled down to accommodate a more realistic view of power attribution and sharing. With the extension of the Union’s scope, and its increasing politicization, the weight of Council and Parliament in decision-making has increased and through this continuous adjustment process, the Union has continued to design new legitimisation solutions for multi-level and transnational political structures, which may well represent the future of democracy in a world of diverse but increasingly interconnected communities.

The State of the …, 2000

In this paper we address the ongoing debate on the democratic quality and the legitimacy of the European Union. We focus on the recent argument that at least in the foreseeable future the European Union will not be able to develop an inputoriented legitimisation due to a lack of a 'thick' collective identity and therefore should be satisfied with an output-oriented legitimisation. We raise several question with regard to this debate. First, we address the empirical implications of this argument. Output-oriented legitimisation supposes both a common perception across the European Union of the most important problems to be solved and a common understanding that these problems should be solved at the European level. Secondly, we take issue with the argument that a well developed democratic political system at the European level requires a thick collective identity. The concept of a 'demos' is not identical to the concept of a 'people' (Volk) in its sociological meaning. Also, we express our doubts about the democratic quality of a democracy only based on government for the people. We argue that once political decisions are taken at the European level, there is every reason to apply the same normative democratic principles to the European Union that are applicable to its member states. In modern politics democracy almost by definition means representative democracy and representative democracy supposes a competitive party system. Therefore, we address the question to what extent a competitive party system at the European level would be feasible.

2011

Documentos De Trabajo Politica Y Gestion, 2004

International Journal, 2000

2010

Institutional democratization has made considerable progress in the history of the European Union. Mainstream theories of democratization, however, fail to capture this process because they are wedded to the nation-state context. This paper therefore proposes a transformationalist theory of democratization beyond the state. EU democratization results from conflict about the redistribution of political competences between institutional actors in a multi-level system, in which liberal democracy is the shared norm of legitimate authority. To the extent that institutional actors, who push for further integration in order to increase efficiency, undermine existing democratic institutions at the national level, their competitors can put into question the legitimacy of integration by invoking the shared liberal democratic community norms and shame them into making democratic concessions. The normative origins of democracy in the EU are illustrated in case studies on democratic membership conditionality, legislative rights of the European Parliament, and the institutionalization of human rights in the EU.