Is EU's Democratic Deficit A Myth?

[kaya'08]

Oh and Peter, I don't consider it misleading to say Ministers are indirectly elected. They are indirectly elected. Ministers are not appointed by majority in elections anywhere in the EU.

 

[joG]

And finally the conclusion:

"So, we might reasonably ask, why then is there such public and scholarly concern about the democratic deficit? Concern appears to result, above all, from a tendency to privilege the abstract over the concrete. Most critics com- pare the EU to an ideal plebiscitary or parliamentary democracy, standing alone, rather than to the actual functioning of national democracies adjusted for its multi-level context. When we conduct the latter sort of analysis, we see that EU decision-making procedures, including those that insulate or delegate certain decisions, are very much in line with the general practice of most modern democracies in carrying out similar functions. This overall trend to- ward insulation of certain functions is in turn driven, most analysts believe, by considerations that should be given normative weight, such as the com- plexity of many policy issues, the rational ignorance and apathy of many publics, the desire to protect minority rights, and the power of certain special interests in situations of open political contestation. These constraints cannot be assumed away; they must be acknowledged on their own terms. As long as political procedures are consistent with existing national democratic practice and have a prima facie normative justification, I conclude, we cannot draw negative conclusions about the legitimacy of the EU from casual observation of the non-participatory nature of its institutions - a dictum that could usefully be applied in many contexts outside the EU.

That is an interesting proposition and somewhat cumbersome to meet. But let me be anecdotal at first.

The EU Constitution is a rather involved and sometimes technical treatise spiked with words you must look up and compare in meaning to the interpretation in other language/culture contexts. I have looked up various readings and found that French, English and German interpretation would be quite different. It is very hard to argue democracy, where the the voter does not understand, what his vote means or how, if at all, it influences political decisions. The document is much too convoluted for the man on the street and one could believe that that was intentional as it leaves more space for politicians to maneuver. It also makes it very opaque and therefore difficult to control those lent power to do jobs for the voter.

Also it is important to look at the 60 Pages of Human Rights that the Charter (once part of the Constitution) and wonder about what it means, when so many elementary rights must or can, depending on your point of view, be weighed against each other for a verdict. Anything can happen and can be right or wrong. If long held belief that something is a human right must be totally reconsidered and how else can it be with two dozen or so new trade-offs between rights to consider, then it seems quite normal for the citizen to feel the fundamental of his system of rights and democracy is mushy. He didn't decide these new rights.

But I would think that the first strike against the paper is demonstrated by the Bundesverfassungsgericht that bases legality of the EU Constitution and therefore arguably the EU on the hypothesis that the Constitution is not a constitution but a non-binding treaty in which the German Supreme Court maintains its sovereignty of last decision. This may be as it may be. In other member states this is viewed differently. Of course in one and the same realm the constitution must be a constitution or not. Having it both ways seems to many that are interested in such esoteric stuff a weird way of going about constructing a democracy.

Also there is a question of the weight of a vote in the representative House. Is it okay that in one country 68.000 voters get a representative and in another country you need about 870.000? Is that democratic? Remember this is not the House representing the member state. There it is even more slanted but makes systemic sense. But in the EU Parliament we are talking representation of individuals not members. That is an enormous difference. Is it democratically viable that there be such a difference in the value of individuals' democratic say?

These things and many others were talked about, when the EU Convent wrote the initial document. The document failed before the people and was then legislated under another name. Its birthright is anti-democratic.

 

[joG]

I agree with most of it.. in fact I would say that the EU has more democracy than some member states or comparable states outside the EU.

The problem is that each country has generations after generations that grew up understanding their democracy and how it works, where as we were not taught in the same way how the EU works.

Even today, while talking to my own father on this very subject, I discovered that he was not fully aware over what the Council of Ministers was. In the discussion he proposed that we got Senate or 2 house system like in the US/UK, where each country elected 1 or 2 people to represent them or maybe used sitting ministers instead. When I pointed out that this was already going on he was semi shocked. He did not know, as many dont know, that the Council of Ministers is each countries mostly elected minister on the specific area that meets and ultimately agrees on policy, which then also has to be agreed with the Parliament.

Then there is the argument that we dont directly elect the Commission.. and my answer is do we elect management in individual ministries back home? Of course not. Does the Prime Minister of the UK have his Prime Ministers Secretary or whatever runs the PM office.. does he get elected? No. Does the Chief of Staff of the White House get elected? No.

This debate will go on and on, and the anti-EU types will always lose the debate once the facts are on the table, because in most cases they simply do not understand how the system works because they have never bothered to understand it or are actually trying to deceive people.

Your father is not alone. I have been engaged with the EU Constitution since it was being written and even then I find it hard to keep all of the smoke and mirrors straight and and the essence in view.

 

[PeteEU]

Your father is not alone. I have been engaged with the EU Constitution since it was being written and even then I find it hard to keep all of the smoke and mirrors straight and and the essence in view.

Oh I fully understand he is not alone.. it is hard enough to find the time to read up and understand how your national political system works, let alone another layer..but is that the fundamental problem of the EU or random organisation that the people dont have time or will power to spend a bit of their life trying to understand them, or is it the fault of the people?

The only way it is not the fault of the people is if the information is not there for consumption.. but it is.

And that is why it is so easy for the anti-EU crowd to get a following... it is easier to say no to something than involving yourself in it..

 

[joG]

The only way it is not the fault of the people is if the information is not there for consumption.. but it is.

That is true, but makes it neither democratic nor legitimate. It might even be construed as a trap in a more rational world.

 

[PeteEU]

That is true, but makes it neither democratic nor legitimate. It might even be construed as a trap in a more rational world.

What.. that the people dont engage themselves in the process makes the process undemocratic? Well.. I would agree with that if the voter turnout reflected this, but in most countries it does not reflect it, especially on national level. If anything it might be "too much" politics for people to care, or that people dont understand why the process is important. There are many ifs and buts and so on... guess it depends on the country.

 

[joG]

What.. that the people dont engage themselves in the process makes the process undemocratic? Well.. I would agree with that if the voter turnout reflected this, but in most countries it does not reflect it, especially on national level. If anything it might be "too much" politics for people to care, or that people dont understand why the process is important. There are many ifs and buts and so on... guess it depends on the country.

No, it was not that I was referring to. It was the idea that putting a large and complicated document written in a language subculture most people do not have the education to understand and whose meanings, in any event, are disputed in the international discussion made the thing somehow legitimate and democratic. Most people will not be able to determine, whether the Eu has a democracy deficit after reading the documents, because they don't have a chance of understanding them let alone the consequences. Why that thing is as bad to read as Das Kapital. And a political elite that states its position in that way is probably trying to pull a quick one. And reading the essay entry remarks of this thread is also obfuscation of sorts in its attempt to look as though the EU could be democratic though the voter has no idea how his vote affects politics.

 

[Camlon]

What.. that the people dont engage themselves in the process makes the process undemocratic? Well.. I would agree with that if the voter turnout reflected this, but in most countries it does not reflect it, especially on national level. If anything it might be "too much" politics for people to care, or that people dont understand why the process is important. There are many ifs and buts and so on... guess it depends on the country.

I seem to have heard similar excuses before. Yes, from every single country with low voter turnout. "No, our country is different and don't follow that law." If awareness is the problem, then there should be a correlation between awareness and turnout. There is no proper correlation between awareness and turnout, see graph at the bottom. Its not because voters are too stupid too care, but because they don't believe their vote counts because they cannot see a direct effect from their vote.

And they are right. EU is not very democratic, it is secretive, there are no direct elections, the parliament does not have the power to make laws or appoint anything, people do not know what they are voting for, and the most powerful organ (the council) is not elected. But doesn't the council consist of the leaders of different nations? Yes, but they are not elected in the EU elections, they are elected in the national election where EU issues are mostly ignored.

There are lots of ways EU could become more democratic, they could
- Have direct elections
- Have EU wide parties and give the Parliament more power
- Let people vote for the council
- Have more referendums

But none of these will ever happen, because EU is not meant to be democratic. People like PeteEU do not want real democracy, because they think voters are stupid and do not know their best interest.

 

[PeteEU]

I seem to have heard similar excuses before. Yes, from every single country with low voter turnout. "No, our country is different and don't follow that law." If awareness is the problem, then there should be a correlation between awareness and turnout. There is no proper correlation between awareness and turnout, see graph at the bottom. Its not because voters are too stupid too care, but because they don't believe their vote counts because they cannot see a direct effect from their vote.

Sorry but that is bull**** as usually from you. Having awareness of something is not the same as understanding something, something you clearly dont.

And they are right. EU is not very democratic,

Again this argument.... prove it. Compare it to other nations, members and major nations outside the EU.

it is secretive,

It is very open especially compared to many national governments. You can access far more legislative material and proposed material online than you can in many countries.

there are no direct elections,

Err we just had direct elections or did you miss that part?

the parliament does not have the power to make laws

Yes and no. The Parliament can ask the Commission to come with a proposal, and from that with the Commission/Council of Ministers find a common solution. This is not an uncommon thing. For example, if I remember right, it is the American president that has to propose the budget.. and it is the American president that proposes appointments..

or appoint anything,

They have to approve and are consulted.. same freaking thing. Do you really think that the EU leadership would appoint someone that would not pass the parliament? You do know that this goes on in most countries to some degree or another?

people do not know what they are voting for, and the most powerful organ (the council) is not elected.

And we are back to lack of knowledge by the people.... which you show clearly. The council IS elected in most cases, as it is up to each country on how to appoint their ministers. Now most are elected, but there are a few countries where that is not a requirement... so how is that the problem of the EU?

But doesn't the council consist of the leaders of different nations?

Well no, and yes. The European Council is, but the Council of Ministers is not. And it is the political leaders, not the heads of state. For example, Queen Lizzy does not attend the European Council meetings.

Yes, but they are not elected in the EU elections, they are elected in the national election where EU issues are mostly ignored.

And? The EU is not a country. They represent their individual member states... that is the whole point!

There are lots of ways EU could become more democratic, they could
- Have direct elections
- Have EU wide parties and give the Parliament more power
- Let people vote for the council
- Have more referendums

So you want it to become a country then.

But none of these will ever happen, because EU is not meant to be democratic. People like PeteEU do not want real democracy, because they think voters are stupid and do not know their best interest.

A real democracy? Again the EU is not a nation, it is a trade organisation.

And democracy is always a bit... For example I would say there is far far far more democracy in the EU than there is in say the UK and US. The UK has an un-elected upper house. The American President is not elected but chosen.

 

[Camlon]

Sorry but that is bull**** as usually from you. Having awareness of something is not the same as understanding something, something you clearly dont.

What I see here is excuses. If you are not even aware of the existence of the European Parliment then you are unlikely to vote. Hence if knowledge is the cause, then awareness should correlate with turnout.

The main reason the turnout is low is not because people lack knowledge. It is because people do not see the effect of their vote. If you don't think that is true, why do so many people vote in EU referendums?

Err we just had direct elections or did you miss that part?

Don't play stupid. You know what I am talking about. There are no direct elections of people in power. In America you vote directly the President. That makes the US more democratic.

Yes and no. The Parliament can ask the Commission to come with a proposal, and from that with the Commission/Council of Ministers find a common solution. This is not an uncommon thing. For example, if I remember right, it is the American president that has to propose the budget.. and it is the American president that proposes appointments..

That is not real power. It is like saying China is a democracy because people can come with proposals that the government can choose to implement or not.

But is US the same?
First off, the US president is elected
Secondly, congress can make laws

If US was like EU, then we would have a powerless congress. (today they are very powerful). There would be no presidential elections. And most of the power would be through the American Council which is represented by the governors of each state. That would make US a lot less democratic

They have to approve and are consulted.. same freaking thing. Do you really think that the EU leadership would appoint someone that would not pass the parliament? You do know that this goes on in most countries to some degree or another?

No it isn't. Being able to approve a candidate is not the same as being able to pick a candidate.

And we are back to lack of knowledge by the people.... which you show clearly. The council IS elected in most cases, as it is up to each country on how to appoint their ministers. Now most are elected, but there are a few countries where that is not a requirement... so how is that the problem of the EU?

The ministers are not elected. They are chosen by the parliament who are elected on national issues, not EU issues.

That is the main problem with the EU. The people with the most power are not elected in the EU election. They are elected in national elections where EU issues do not take a major role.

And? The EU is not a country. They represent their individual member states... that is the whole point!

A real democracy? Again the EU is not a nation, it is a trade organisation.

Exactly, EU has never had the intention of being democratic. The intention is to let the national leaders do whatever they want.

So you want it to become a country then.

Why is it necessary to become a country to do democratic reforms?

If EU wants to keep integrating then democratic reforms are needed. I do not want EU to become a country, but if it becomes a country then at least I want it to be democratic.

You seem to want to compare it to UK and the US. But I never claimed they are very democratic countries, especially the UK. I want to compare it to Norway because I am from Norway. In comparison to Norway, EU democracy truly stinks. Why would Norway want to join the EU if that means a step back in democracy?