EU Democracy Deficit: Unpacking Challenges and Reforms
The European Union’s Democracy Deficit
The notion of a democracy deficit within the European Union has been widely used, referring to a variety of factors affecting the European democratic process. Before moving forward with a critical assessment of these factors, it is worth mentioning the origins of the concept of democracy and how the European Union has approached it since its inception.
Democracy: Origins and EU’s Representative Model
The term democracy comes from the Greek term demos (=people), and its literal English translation is “rule by the people.” It therefore refers to a political system in which the people have active participation in the policy-making process. This participation can be expressed through two different types of democratic systems: direct democracy, where everyone has a say in decision-making (as in the case of referendums), and representative democracy, where citizens elect their representatives to make legislative decisions on their behalf. As per Article 10, the European Union operates as a representative democracy, confirmed by the fact that since 1979, European citizens have directly elected their representatives to the European Parliament.
Institutional Hurdles to EU Democracy
However, several features arguably undermine the democratic process within the European Union, especially as the organization gradually shifts from an intergovernmental to a supranational entity. The establishment of the EU as a treaty-based organization – rather than a constitution-based one – has limited public intervention in the decision-making process. Indeed, while a constitution would imply direct approval by EU citizens, treaties can and have been approved directly by the European institutions, thereby affecting the public’s willingness to participate in policy-making as they would in their national context. As a result, voter turnout in European elections so far has been lower than in national elections around Europe; in 2014, only 42.6% of the electorate participated in the Parliament elections. This lack of engagement stems partly from the absence of a strong European identity, but also from inherent contradictions within the European institutions.
The Complexity of European Political Parties
An example is the concept of political parties within the European Parliament. Here, national parties are not single entities; rather, they are members of larger political groups along with Members of Parliament (MPs) from other countries who often do not share identical ideals. For example, within the European People’s Party (EPP), socialist, centre-left, and right-wing parties coexist, despite normally competing against each other in national elections. This creates confusion for the electorate, because if they vote for their national party, they implicitly support all other parties within that group, even if those parties hold contrasting ideas.
European Commission Appointments and Accountability
Also, the appointment of European Commission members is another area where the democracy deficit is evident. Indeed, its 28 members are nominated by the Heads of Government (HoGs) and subject to oversight by the European Parliament (EP), which is meant to represent the public interest. However, the Parliament’s power is limited to questioning potential candidates; to vote out a single commissioner, the Parliament must vote out the entire Commission. A similar principle applies to the election of the Commission President, nominated by the Council of Ministers, with the EP merely approving this appointment. Critics frequently question why European citizens cannot directly or indirectly (through Parliament) elect the members of such a crucial institution.
Qualified Majority Voting and Member State Influence
Furthermore, the impact of different countries on decision-making raises concerns about the democratic representation of EU member states. In order to adopt a decision within the European Union, the Council of Ministers, which holds both executive and legislative roles within the EU, adopts the Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) system. Under this system, each country’s voting power is weighted by its population; larger countries like Germany, France, and formerly the UK, possess significantly more votes than smaller countries. While partly designed to ensure that legislation has the support of the majority of the EU population, this system can also disadvantage smaller countries (e.g., Greece during the Eurozone crisis).
Euroscepticism: A Proposed Solution?
The consequences of these contradictions have prompted many institutional and academic figures, holding diverse opinions, to propose solutions to mitigate the democracy deficit. Currently, one of the most prominent responses is the rise of Euroscepticism, which, through radical and sovereignty-focused actions, seeks to reduce the subsidiarity of nations to the European Union. Proponents argue that national governments should retain the power to propose, decide, and execute legislation affecting their own countries, while the EU’s role should be limited to market-related aspects, as it was at its inception. However, it is arguably unrealistic to believe that improving democracy solely involves returning power to national parliaments, as this could lead to decreased collaboration among member states and potentially the dissolution of the European Union itself – a prospect that seems less distant today than it did a few years ago.
Structural Reforms for Enhanced EU Democracy
More radical arguments, however, have focused on a series of structural reforms within the European Union’s institutions.
Empowering the European Parliament
Regarding the European Parliament, one proposed path to democratize the EU is to grant it the power to initiate legislation, alongside extending its scrutiny powers over the Commission and Council. However, complications arise here too; the EP is often seen as too ideologically and politically fragmented to make coherent decisions on certain issues.
Direct Election of Commission and Council Presidents
For the Commission, it has been proposed to directly elect the Commission President from nominees put forward by party groups. This would enhance transparency in what is often perceived as a ‘shadow institution’ and increase public participation in policy-making. A similar concept could be applied to the Council presidency. Direct election of this figure would guarantee a certain level of control and scrutiny over their actions; member states could then influence the president’s choices if they deviate from promised policies.
Beyond Structural Fixes: Identity and Unique Governance
Beyond structural reforms, some argue that the most impactful solutions are ideological. It is widely argued that Europe lacks a strong sense of shared identity among its citizens. To date, the Union has struggled to establish or reinforce a shared history, a common language, a unifying constitution, or even a common army that unites the population under a shared principle of security. Therefore, it would be necessary to focus on the creation of shared values.
Considering the current structure and constraints under which European institutions operate, achieving a degree of transparency, accountability, and legitimization that would render the Union ‘fully democratic’ remains a significant challenge. However, as argued by Moravcsik (2002, p. 605), it is unproductive to view the EU through the lens of ancient or Westminster-style democracies, as they represent incomparable concepts of governance. Therefore, perhaps the most appropriate approach is to analyze the issue through a sui generis political theory, acknowledging the EU’s unique nature.