Comparative Politics 1POL1010

Lecture 7

25th November 2004, 3-4pm

The EU and the Democratic Deficit

POL1010 Class Admin

9th December 2004 lecture postponed until New Year

Last lecture 2nd December

Lecture Plan

• Introduction: EU and the Democratic Deficit

• Evidence Of Public Apathy / Disengagement

• Defining the Democratic Deficit

• Improving Accountability

Introduction: EU and the Democratic Deficit

Treaty on European Union (TEU):‘an ever closer union among the peoples ofEurope, in which decisions are taken asclosely as possible to the citizen’ (Article A)

European Integration: pushed forward by people or by political elites?

Introduction: EU and the Democratic Deficit

This lack of citizen involvement and absence of democratic accountability within the EUhas produced what Franklin describes as ‘acrisis of legitimacy’ (1996: 197)

Two-fold problem: lack of citizen input and hostileinstitutional architecture

Gap between the citizens and the EU system of government

Evidence Of Public Apathy / Disengagement I

Eurobarometerhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/

Historical Statistics on EU Membership:• 1980: 50% in favour of membership• 1990: 71% in favour• 1997: 47% in favour• 2003: 48% in favour

% as an average across the EU member states

Source: McCormick, 1999: 148; Eurobarometer 60, 2003.

Evidence Of Public Apathy / Disengagement II: Eurobarometer

Statistics

Support for Membership by Country:

• Ireland 73% think involvement is a good thing• Greece 62%

• UK 28%• Austria 35%• Finland 38%• Sweden 40%In each of these four countries negative opinion outweighedthe positive

Source: Eurobarometer, 2003: 8.

Evidence Of Public Apathy / Disengagement III: Eurobarometer

StatisticsPolicy Priorities:

Enlargement – Support: 47%Oppose: 36%

Single Currency – Support in 1997: 51%Support in 2003: 59% (67% in the eurozone

countries)

Defining the Democratic Deficit

The DD has multiple definitions – need to beclear about these:• for sake of clarity• because the solutions offered are conditioned

by the definition being followed.Three main definitions:• Focuses specifically upon the EP lack of

powers relative to the other EU institutions• Holistic focus – upon EU institutions and their

relationship with the citizens as a whole• Knowledge deficit exists

Defining The Democratic Deficit I : The European Parliament

1. EP lack of powers relative to the other EU institutions:

‘the gap between the powers transferred

to the Community level and the control of

the elected Parliament over them’

(Williams, 1991: 162).

‘the shift in decision-making powers from thenational to the EU level, without accompanyingstrengthening of parliamentary control ofexecutive bodies’ (Archer and Butler, 1996: 58)

Defining The Democratic Deficit I : The European Parliament

What power does the EP have?• It cannot raise revenue• Introduce and develop new laws in selected

policy areas• Partner in the decision-making process with

the CofM in selected policy areas – via co-decision

• Some ability to hold bureaucrats in the Commission to account – censuring choice of Commissioners

Defining The Democratic Deficit I : The European Parliament and Co-Decision

‘… co-decision is fundamentally differentfrom co-operation. Formally Parliament isnow an equal partner in the legislativeprocess, with acts adopted under theprocedure jointly signed by thepresidents of Council and Parliament’(Earnshaw and Judge, 1996: 110).

Defining The Democratic Deficit I : The European Parliament and the

Commission 2004Case Study of the EP Flexing its Muscles:2004 – forced Commission President Jose Manuel

Barroso to withdraw proposed team of Commissioners

‘These last days have demonstrated that the European Union is a strong political construction and that this parliament, elected by popular vote across all our member states, has a vital role to play in the governance of Europe … I think we can agree … on our common commitment to reinforce the democratic nature of European integration, and I would hope that we can arrive at an outcome in the next few weeks which will permit us to take forward work in the European Union in this spirit’ (Barroso, 2004)

Defining The Democratic Deficit II: Citizens Closeness to Institutions

2. All the InstitutionsThis definition refers to the relationshipbetween citizens and the EU institutions andthe manner in which they interconnect witheach other• European Parliament• ECJ• European Commission• Council of Ministers

Defining The Democratic Deficit II: Citizens Closeness to Institutions

• European Parliament – this is the only institution through which citizens might have a direct influence – elections. However, EP arguably has little power (relative to the other institutions)

• ECJ – no influence, appointed judges• Commission – no influence, unelected bureaucracy,

Commissioners appointed by National Governments• Council of Ministers – citizens have only an indirect

influence (as a product of the votes we cast in national elections). However, when deliberating at the CofMs Govt Ministers are there to represent their member states.

Defining The Democratic Deficit III: Knowledge Deficit

Knowledge DeficitMcCormick argues that the DD may have led to a‘knowledge deficit’ that perpetuates the DD.

Is there a sense of belonging and attachment to EU?2004 European Parliament Election Lowest Turnouts• Sweden – 37.2% • UK – 37.6%• Poland – 21.2%• Slovakia – 20%Average – 45.4%

Source: European Parliament, 2004

Knowledge Deficit and European Election Turnouts

European Elections as ‘second order’ elections (Reif and Schmitt, 1980) – less at stake, not as important as national elections

UK election turnout figures

Gen

Elect

Local

Elect

EP

Elect

1979

76%

1980

39.1%

1979

31.6%

1987

75.3%

1987

49.5%

1989

36.2%

1997

71.4%

1998

28.2%

1999

24%

Knowledge Deficit and European Election Turnouts

‘…unlike national parliaments it [the

European Parliament] is not in decline ….

The European parliament is arguably one

of the most vital EC institutions’ (Lodge,

1993: 21)

Knowledge Deficit and European Election Turnouts

Country Maastricht Referendum Turnout 1992

European Parliament Election Turnout 1994

Denmark 82.9% 52.9%

France 69.7% 53.5%

Ireland 57.3% 37%

Improving Accountability

Does the DD matter anyway?

Authors like Kevin Featherstone – the DD represents a pressing problem:

For Featherstone the elitist structure of ECSC as fit for purpose in the 1950s, but ‘…it continuation in the 1990s threatens instability and an increasing lack of legitimacy in the system’ (1994: 168).

Improving Accountability

Phillip Schmitter (2000) – asks How to Democratize the EU … and Why Bother?

‘It is neither feasible nor desirable to try and democratize the European Union … completely and immediately. Not only would the politicians not know how to do it, but there is also no compelling evidence that Europeans want it’ (Schmitter, 2000: 1).

Improving Accountability I: People’s Europe

People’s Europe:

• Leo Tindemans report on People’s Europe 1975

• 1984 Fountainbleu Summit – an attempt to animate the People’s Europe ideas– European Passport– European Flag– European anthem – Ode to Joy– ‘Europe Day’

Improving Accountability II: Treaty Additions and Principles

Treaty Changes:

• Single European Act (1986):Co-operation Procedure (EP)Free Movement of People

• Maastricht (1992):Co-decision (EP)Subsidiarity – decisions should be taken as close to people as

possible

• Amsterdam (1998):Principle of TransparencyDevelopment of a European Constitution

Improving Accountability

Measures Beyond Constitutionalising a People’s Europe:

• The rise of interest groups and ‘Europeanization’ of policy (Mazey and Richardson, 1996)

• Need to form Pan-European Political Parties

• Creation of an Upper Chamber

Improving Accountability III: Institutional Responses

Lord and Beetham (2001) chide against post-parliamentary solutions:

‘… the non-stateness of the EU’s political system does not remove the need for it to meet the same broad criteria of legitimacy of liberal-democratic states’ (2001: 443-4)

These are criteria which cannot be satisfied bysubstitute forms of legitimation such as:‘transparency’, ‘flexibility’, ‘subsidiarity’.

Improving Accountability III: Institutional Responses

Dehousse (1995) – reform of the EP may

not be the panacea to ills of the democratic deficit

Strengthening it so that looks like National Parliaments – destablise the EU system of Government as the focus would be less about Europe and more about the needs of individual political parties

Bibliography• Archer, C. and Butler, F. (1996) The European Union: Structure and Process London: Pinter.• Barroso, J. (2004) ‘Barroso’s EU Speech’ in BBC News 27 October 2004.• Beetham, D. and Lord, C. (2001) ‘Legitimizing the EU: Is there a Post-Parliamentary Basis for

its Legitimation’ in Journal of Common Market Studies 39: 3, 443-462.• Dehousse, R. (1995) ‘Constitutional Reform in the European Union’ in West European Politics

18: 3, 118-136.• Earnshaw, D. and Judge, D. (1995) ‘Early Days: the European Parliament, co-decision and the

European Union Legislative Process Post-Maastricht’ in Journal of European Public Policy 2: 4, 624-649.

• Earnshaw, D. and Judge, D. (1996) ‘From co-operation to co-decision’ in Richardson, J. (ed) The European Union: Power and Policy Making London: Routledge.

• Featherstone, K. (1994) ‘Jean Monnet and the Democratic Deficit in the EU’ in Journal of Common Market Studies 32: 2, 149-170.

• Franklin, M. (1996) ‘European Elections and the European Voter’ in Richardson, J.J. (ed) European Union: Power and Policymaking London: Routledge.

• Mazey, S. and Richardson, J.J. (1996) ‘The Logic of Organisation: Interest Groups’ in Richardson, J.J. (ed) European Union: Power and Policymaking London: Routledge.

• Reif, K. and Schmitt, H. (1980) ‘Nine Second-Order National Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results’ in European Journal of Political Research 8: 1, 3-44.

• Schmitter, P. (2000) ‘Democracy and Constitutionalism in the European Union’ in ESCA Review13: 2, 2-7.

• Williams, S. (1991) ‘Sovereignty and Accountability in the EC’ in Keohane, R.O. and Hoffmann, S. (eds) The New EC: Decision-making and Institutional Change Boulder, CO: Westview Press.