The European Union will never be fully democratic: discuss

Résumé du document

On 13th October 2005 was launched the Commission's “Plan D” for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate, which intends to “lay the foundations for the profound debate about Europe's future” in order to “mak[e] the European Union more democratic” . This strategy is a reply to the appeal for “a broad debate” made during the European council of June 2005, which took place in a context of ‘shock', after the French and the Dutch negative referenda. These “no” have been considered to some extent to stem from the European democratic deficit and the remoteness of the European Union (EU) from its citizens.

This issue has been regularly highlighted since the 1970s. It has been frequently referred to as a “parliamentary deficit” and many attempts have been made to address this paradoxical situation : direct election of the European Parliament (EP) in 1979, steady increases in the EP's powers, endeavors to set up a dialogue with European citizens, etc. Nevertheless, the democratic deficit appears severely rooted. But is it a sufficient reason to acknowledge that the European Union will never be fully democratic?

In order to answer this question, we will first examine the meaning of “democracy” and thus the alleged European “democratic deficit”. We will then come up with a solution for the EU to overcome this deficit.

Our modern societies emphasize respect for the concept of “democracy”. However, this ideal doesn't refer to a clearly defined idea, as it has been given different meanings throughout History. Etymologically, for instance, it means ‘the people's power' and it expressly refers to the direct democracy exercised in the Greek city-states. In our contemporary conception, the power is still thought as stemming from the people but delegated to representatives who take decisions on citizens' behalf – since it is concretely impossible to apply a system of direct democracy in our vast and populous states. This principle of delegation is attached to few other elements such as conditionality which supposes that “politicians are under a structural imperative to deliver to the electorate and to communicate their achievements”.

But it also presumes the equality of every citizen and the existence of a formal Parliament. These four elements are necessary to a representative democracy which constitutes the current “standard of legitimacy”. The fulfilment of these criteria would thus attest the democratic nature of a state.

Extraits

[...] in: European law Journal, vol.11, No4, July 2005, pp.452-45 Ibid., p Ibid., p. 454-456. Giandomenico Majone, ‘Europe's democratic deficit: the question of standards', in: European Law Journal, Vol No1, March 1998, p.5. It is true that the direct elections were not the rule until 1979 and that this parliament had the name of Assembly, being merely consultative. As we have seen it, conditionality presumes that “politicians are under a structural imperative to deliver to the electorate and to communicate their achievements” (e.g., Crum, op.cit., note p. [...]

[...] The decision-making system is indeed completely different from the one applied at the Member States level. In a nation-state the division of power even if it is slightly transformed due to the ‘parliamentary rationalisation'[23] establishes a certain hierarchy between the executive, legislative and judiciary powers and defines their core functions in order to fit with the principles of accountability and transparency. On the contrary, within the EU there is no clear division of power and institutions are in an horizontal political system.[24] No institution can impose its proposal to the others: the whole system relies on a constant interaction between the institutions trying to influence each other in order to reach a consensus leading to a decision.[25] Besides, more than thirty different decision-making procedures have been registered[26] and one have to add to these procedures all the non formal ways of decision-making developed around the Open method of coordination and the concept of “soft law”. [...]

[...] Ibid., p. 223-225. Ibid., p It is all the more relevant as, since the Treaty of Maastricht, we can observe a trend of awarding more and more various rights to individuals, which tend to divide people into categories (Ibid., p. 182-183). Ibid., p.256. But one can also be doubtful how representative a majority can be, if elected with a participation rate lower than 50%. e.g. Michalowitz, op.cit, note 42, p e.g., Pech, op.cit., note 23, p.139. [...]

[...] But what about the European Union? At first glance it may appear that the EU is quite close from the system described or at least that it tends to follow this model, fulfilling at least three of the criteria enounced. It guarantees equality between its citizens, who elect representatives in charge of taking decisions within the framework of the EP.[11] Nonetheless, if one has a look at the question of conditionality which is linked to accountability[12] one should be more careful. [...]

[...] Consequently if one speaks about democracy understood as representative democracy, the EU will never be fully democratic. Nonetheless, the concept of democracy does not rely only on this definition and the criteria to declare a state or an entity democratic are wider. Some new paradigms are currently developed and are tried to be implemented at the European level. As a matter of fact, if one applies the more general definition of democracy as being the “government of the people, by the people and for the people”[56], the EU largely tends to get closer to this ideal. [...]