Study Notes on European Union Politics: Democracy, Legitimacy, and the Rule of Law
European Union Politics: Democracy, Legitimacy, and the Rule of Law
Abstract
The chapter discusses the democratic nature and legitimacy of decision-making in the European Union (EU).
Definitions and clarifications of ‘democracy’ and ‘legitimacy’ are provided.
Initially, the legitimacy of the EU was not seen as problematic; however, it became contentious as the EU expanded its competences.
The European democratic deficit surfaced as a critical debate starting in the 1990s, particularly post-Maastricht Treaty when substantial powers were transferred to the EU.
The initial response to the democratic deficit entailed enhancing the European Parliament's role while considering national parliaments’ influence.
Governance debates in the early 21st century began to redefine democracy in terms of European governance's complexities.
Two major challenges to legitimacy analyzed: (1) meeting high policy output expectations; (2) the impacts of nationalism and populism on the rule of law amidst growing disinformation in the digital age.
Keywords
democracy, legitimacy, permissive consensus, democratic deficit, democratic backsliding, European Parliament, crises, rule of law, disinformation, populism.
Chapter Contents
Introduction
From ‘permissive consensus’ to ‘democratic deficit’
Strengthening representative democracy
Governance and participatory democracy
Checks and balances and the rule of law
The challenges of output legitimacy
Populism, decline of the rule of law at the national level, and disinformation in the digital age
Conclusion
27.1 Introduction
Conceptual Clarification:
Democracy: Defines as a set of procedural rules that facilitate collective decision-making.
Bobbio (1987: 19): "A democratic regime is a set of procedural rules arriving at collective decisions in a way which accommodates and facilitates the fullest possible participation of interested parties."
Legitimacy: The trust the governed have towards their political system.
Two aspects of legitimacy:
Input Legitimacy: Derived from the participation in decision-making, regardless of outcomes.
Output Legitimacy: Based on satisfaction with policy outcomes, even without direct participation.
Legitimacy often blends both elements, but the EU has historically leaned more on output legitimacy due to its technical and bureaucratic nature.
27.2 From ‘permissive consensus’ to ‘democratic deficit’
Historical Context:
Founded in 1957 with the European Economic Community (EEC), democratic accountability was not prioritized.
The EEC functioned as a ‘special purpose association’ with delegated, specific responsibilities.
Legitimacy was derived from the democratic foundations of member states.
The Monnet Method emphasized a strong, technical European Commission with exclusive initiation power, while the Parliamentary Assembly only held consultative powers.
Permissive Consensus (Lindberg and Scheingold, 1970): Suggests a general acceptance without deep democratic engagement or popular interest.
Growth of Democratic Concerns:
As the European Court of Justice clarified the European legal order (supremacy and direct effect), the realization of the EU's everyday impact increased scrutiny of the legitimacy of the integration process.
The term democratic deficit emerged to signify the lack of democratic accountability accompanying power transfer from national governments to EU institutions.
Parliamentary Solutions:
Addressing the democratic deficit involved either:
Democratizing decision-making by reinforcing the European Parliament (EP).
Limiting power transfers to ensure national parliaments maintained accountability.
Developments:
In 1979, direct elections began for the EP to enhance democratic input.
The EP gained more powers in legislative and budgetary processes, introducing a bicameral system where the EP and Council share legislative roles.
Challenges Faced:
The parliamentary model presupposes a strong connection between electorate choice and executive accountability, yet the EP struggles to control the Commission.
EU’s status as a sui generis political system, lacking a strong traditional identity (demos), complicates parliamentary democracy.
Political Identity and Engagement:
The absence of a common identity in the EU is a significant barrier to establishing an effective democratic process.
Many EU citizens view European elections as secondary, often reflecting national rather than EU concerns.
27.3 Strengthening representative democracy
Legislative evolution since the early 1990s aimed to bolster democracy through Treaty amendments (Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon).
The Maastricht Treaty introduced the co-decision procedure (now ordinary legislative procedure - OLP), allowing joint legislative authority for the EP and Council.
Subsequent Changes:
The EP elections and Commission appointments were synchronized to reflect electoral outcomes more effectively.
The Lisbon Treaty requires the Council to consider EP election results when nominating a Commission President, inaugurating the Spitzenkandidat process for direct candidate representation.
Political Limitations:
2014 highlighted modest impacts of this process on politicking EU matters—national interests still dominate discussions.
Elected heads of government showed reluctance to cede power pertaining to nomination processes.
27.4 Governance and participatory democracy
The governance discussion expanded the definition of democracy beyond parliamentary representation towards active citizen participation.
Advocates for participatory democracy promote mechanisms like referenda, community involvement, and decentralized governance systems.
The Commission facilitated citizen engagement through various channels: civil society consultations, online forums, and enhanced transparency measures.
The Citizens' Initiative mechanism, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, allows for public advocacy of proposals but faces operational challenges and public disillusionment.
27.5 Checks and balances and the rule of law
The principle of checks and balances as a safeguard against centralized power is crucial to democracy.
Although the EU lacks strict separation of powers, it maintains an institutional balance involving the Commission, Council, and Parliament.
The rule of law is fundamental to EU governance, defined by transparency, legal certainty, and respect for fundamental rights as per Article 2 TEU.
Elements of rule of law: legality, independence of courts, and equal application of the law.
27.6 The challenges of output legitimacy
Discussion has often centered on input legitimacy, overlooking significant challenges involving output legitimacy wherein the EU must meet the expectations of its citizens.
Member states’ reticence to enable EU action creates tension, particularly when it comes to addressing crises like COVID-19 and climate change.
National leaders frequently communicate EU policies as their own, leading to a disconnect between public perception of EU's effectiveness and its actual contributions.
27.7 Populism, decline of the rule of law at national level, and disinformation in the digital age
The rise of populist agendas undermines the EU by depicting it as an illegitimate external force.
Democracies within member states are directly impacted by the adherence to democratic standards at the national level.
Increasing populism produces complications for EU legitimacy when combined with declining rule of law, especially in states like Hungary and Poland.
27.8 Conclusion
The EU’s legitimacy hinges on maintaining high democratic standards, which become more complex as policy areas expand.
Despite advances in representative democracy and participatory governance tools, a disconnect with citizens remains tangible.
Future challenges include addressing democratic backsliding at the national level and producing effective responses to disinformation in the digital sphere, marking an ongoing evolution for EU governance.