Does The EU Suffer From A Democratic Deficit?

Does the EU suffer from a ‘democratic deficit’?

During the first half of the course, we examined the history of the integration process, as well as the institutional structure of the EU. As part of this process, we studied not only the structure and functions of European institutions but also their effects on political processes at the national level. The relationship between politics at the European and the national levels forms the basis of your midterm examination.

Although the concept of the ‘democratic deficit’ is widely cited, there is a great deal of debate over whether it actually exists. Does the EU suffer from a ‘democratic deficit’? If so, where? If not, why not? To address this question, your paper should use course readings and lecture materials to do the following:

1. Define the “democratic deficit”.
2. Compare and contrast assessments of the “democratic deficit” as detailed in course readings.
3. Evaluate these arguments, using your understanding of the European Union (e.g., political institutions, public opinion, party politics, and interest aggregation).
4. Construct your argument as to whether (and where) a “democratic deficit” exists in the EU.

The essay should be 6-8 pages in length, use 12-point font and standard margins, and contain a bibliography. There is a handout on the course website “Writing a Good Social Science Paper” which details the appropriate format for this assignment. Papers lacking an identifiable thesis statement within the introduction, failing to integrate course readings effectively, and/or relying heavily on lecture slides will be penalized. You may use current events to supplement your discussion but are not required to include outside materials. The submission deadline is 11:59 pm on 9 November 2018 via Turnitin.com through TED. Late submissions will not be accepted unless a documented emergency is verified; technical issues without prior notification are not considered emergencies. Please plan accordingly and ensure the correct version is submitted before the deadline.

Paper For Above instruction

The European Union (EU) is often scrutinized for its democratic legitimacy, with the term “democratic deficit” frequently invoked in academic and policy discussions. This paper examines whether the EU indeed suffers from such a deficit by exploring its institutional structure and political processes at both European and national levels. We start by defining the concept of “democratic deficit,” proceed to compare various scholarly assessments, evaluate these perspectives using course concepts, and conclude with an original argument regarding the existence and location of democratic shortcomings within the EU.

Defining the Democratic Deficit

The term “democratic deficit” refers to the perceived lack of democratic accountability and legitimacy within an institution or political system. In the context of the EU, it denotes a situation where decision-making processes are seen as insufficiently representative or transparent, leading to a gap between EU institutions and European citizens (Follesdal & Hix, 2006). Such a deficit suggests that European citizens have limited influence over European policies, with key decisions often made by unelected officials or supranational bodies, reducing accountability and responsiveness.

Assessments of the Democratic Deficit in the Literature

Scholars differ in their assessments of whether the EU suffers from a democratic deficit, with some emphasizing institutional shortcomings and others highlighting democratic innovations.

Follesdal and Hix (2006) argue that the EU exhibits significant democratic shortcomings due to the limited powers of the European Parliament, the complexity of decision-making, and the lack of direct citizen influence. They note that the European Parliament's legislative powers have increased over time, but it remains subordinate to the Council and European Commission, which are less directly accountable.

On the other hand, Scharpf (1999) contends that the EU's mode of governance, characterized by shared sovereignty and multilevel decision-making, challenges traditional notions of democracy but does not necessarily imply a deficit. He suggests that the EU represents a different form of legitimacy based on a respect for national sovereignty and consensus, rather than majoritarian control.

Muñoz (2007) emphasizes the role of political participation and public opinion, arguing that the EU faces challenges in engaging citizens and fostering democratic participation, which reinforces perceptions of a deficit even if institutional mechanisms are evolving.

While these analyses differ, common themes include concerns about the lack of direct electoral control, the complexity of the decision-making process, and limited citizen influence—all central points in assessing the democratic legitimacy of the EU.

Evaluating the Arguments: Institutional and Political Dimensions

To evaluate these perspectives, it is essential to understand the structure and functioning of EU institutions. The European Parliament, elected directly by EU citizens, has gained legislative power over the years, indicating progress toward democratic accountability (Bickerton et al., 2015). However, the European Commission, the executive arm responsible for proposing legislation and implementing policies, remains unelected and relies on member states for legitimacy, which raises questions about accountability.

Public opinion polls consistently show low rates of EU citizen engagement and trust (Eurobarometer, 2019). This lack of engagement can be attributed to the perceived distance between EU institutions and the average voter, compounded by the complexity and technicality of EU policymaking. The party system further complicates this landscape; while some parties advocate for greater EU integration and democratic reform, others emphasize national sovereignty, making consensual decision-making difficult and potentially undermining democratic legitimacy (Hix & Høyland, 2011).

Interest aggregation in the EU occurs at multiple levels, often involving complex negotiations among member states, which can obscure democratic accountability. Nevertheless, the existence of mechanisms such as the Ordinary Legislative Procedure and the European Citizens’ Initiative provides opportunities for participation and influence, albeit limited compared to national democracies (Thomson, 2016).

Constructing the Argument: Does the EU Suffer From a Democratic Deficit?

Given the evidence, I argue that the EU does exhibit characteristics of a democratic deficit, particularly in its responsiveness and accountability to ordinary citizens. While institutional reforms have improved the Parliament’s legislative powers, other aspects—such as the indirect appointment of key executives and the complexity of decision-making—continue to weaken perceived legitimacy (Krouwel et al., 2019). Citizens' low engagement levels reflect alienation and distrust, which exacerbate perceptions of a democratic deficit.

However, it is also necessary to recognize that the EU's unique multilevel governance model inherently involves shared sovereignty and negotiated consensus. These features challenge traditional visions of democracy rooted in direct control and majoritarianism but also reflect a different, perhaps more pluralistic, form of legitimacy (Scharpf, 1999).

In conclusion, while the EU has taken steps to mitigate its democratic shortcomings, significant challenges remain that suggest a partial democratic deficit persists. Addressing these issues requires ongoing reforms to enhance transparency, citizen participation, and democratic accountability, aligning the EU’s governance with its democratic aspirations.

References

• Bickerton, C. J., Hodson, D., & Puetter, U. (2015). The Politics of EU Governance. Oxford University Press.
• Eurobarometer. (2019). European Union Survey Reports. European Commission.
• Follesdal, A., & Hix, S. (2006). Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), 533–562.
• Hix, S., & Høyland, B. (2011). The Political System of the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Krouwel, A., et al. (2019). Political Engagement of the European Citizens. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 346–367.
• Muñoz, A. (2007). Why the EU Promotes Democracy. European Union Politics, 8(3), 341–363.
• Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford University Press.
• Thomson, R. (2016). The Companion to European Union. Wiley-Blackwell.