Analysis of the Level of Democracy of the European Union

There is an argument that the government has the power and right to change laws and represent people without necessarily having to be elected. This can also be known as ‘Democratic deficit’. An example of democratic deficit is the House of Lords. The members in the House of Lords aren’t elected but they get to make laws and represent the people. The members in House of Lords are usually given their seats hereditarily so many people found it unfair that they’re not elected into the Parliament but they can make decisions and laws

Democracy in the United Kingdom has changed a lot over the years however the definition has never changed. The right for people to choose and decide how a country is run. This essay will help decide whether the United Kingdom still follows that definition of being a true democracy and analysing how this has affected the people of the UK.

When identifying the presence of a democratic deficit in the European Union, it is important to consider a range of factors, including international treaties and the effect they had on its structured governmental framework. One of the first official agreements established by the European Union (formerly

The democratic deficit is a theory developed by scholars in order to illustrate that the European Union and its institutional bodies suffer from a lack of democracy (Wincott, 1998, p. 414). However, there are many definitions of the democratic deficit (Chryssochoou, 2000; Justice, 1996; Warleigh, 2003; Weiler, Haltern & Mayer, 1995) depending on the views and approaches of each scholar. Joseph Weiler's ‘standard version' of the democratic deficit is one of the most common definitions and it is a set of widely-used arguments by academics, scholars and the media (Weiler et al., 1995, cited by Follesdal & Hix, 2005, p. 4). It consists of five claims that explain why the EU can be called undemocratic and they are the following: a) there is an

The multigovernmental nature of the European Union and the national governments of its member states also helps to decrease the democratic deficit, not only on a supranational level, but on a national level as well (Eising 2011). Because there is a division of powers and sovereignty between these two levels of governance, citizens have the capacity, through interest group activity, to represent their interests to two different legislative bodies that could pursue legislation in their favour (Kohler-Koch 1997; Eising 2011). Similarly, due to the relatively nascent state of European Union interest group activity, many groups with similar interests are combining and coordinating efforts in order to have a bigger influence over policy decisions (Greenwood 2003, Eising 2011). Because of this unique phenomenon, smaller groups may work in tandem with

A Democratic Deficit in the EU The question over the legitimacy of the EU has been a nearly continuous debate and many commentators appear to agree that the EU suffers from a severe ‘democratic deficit’. There are many reasons why this perception is so widespread. As a multinational body it lacks the grounding in common history and culture upon which most individual polities can draw.

The European parliament – the EU citizens elect a Member of Parliament, which Leads to subsequent legislation.

Further, the Commission’s institutional structure is a factor putting great weight on perceptions of the democratic deficit since it lacks democratic credentials yet largely dominates EU law-making in spite of the presence of the EP as its democratic face. Commissioners are not elected, directly nor indirectly, as is with most sovereign executives. Follesdal and Hix however argue that the exercise of these executive powers requires contestation of political leadership and policy. They also suggest that direct elections by citizens or national parliaments should be allowed for the contestation of the Commission President who holds the most powerful EU executive position, so as to increase democratic input. Contrary to this position is that of Moravcsik, who discounts the idea of elections as a possible remedy and rejects the notion of

Firstly, there is democratic deficit as the Commission is not democratically elected but appointed by the Member States’ governments and it has the monopoly of initiating laws. It may alter its proposal during law-making process as long as the council has not amended the proposal. However, EU citizens do not elect this powerful body and thus it lacks legitimacy as it is much too powerful for an institution that is not democratically representative of the EU citizens. It is only accountable to the European Parliament and the Council. It can be argued that the Commission does not represent the interest of the EU as a

In this assignment I will be assessing the democratic accountability of the European Union. I will begin by briefly describing the institutions, their functions, compositions and discuss how they work as check and balance system to ensure democratic accountability further to look on to how laws are made and what they are In order to establish whether or not the EU is in fact answerable to its citizens.

The European Union (EU) is fundamentally democratic and is evident through its institutions, however, the current democratic electoral structure is of great concern. The EU is a new type of political system, often referred to as a sui generis, implying its uniqueness as there exists and a non comparable political body. The EU can neither regarded as a ‘state’ nor as an ‘international institution’ as it combines supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics (Hix, 1999, p7). In this regard it has developed its own understandings of what democracy is. It is evident that the development of and spread of democracy is a central concept and foundation to all politics within the EU, and remains focuses on makings its governing

The European Parliament consisting out of 785 members represents the people of the EU and is directly elected every 5 years, it is with the Council which is acting as the representative of the Governments of EU members the main Law-making institution (Adams, 2010). It passes jointly with the Council new EU Law, this process is called ordinary legislative procedure. Other tasks of the Parliament is scrutinising other EU institutions like the Commission to ensure their democratic operating. Further Tasks include the annual budgeting of the EU carried out by a committee which also works in collaboration with Council (Europa.eu, 2014).

The only institutions that are permitted to perform the tasks entrusted to the European Community are A European Parliament, a Council, a Commission, a Court of Justice and a Court of Auditors.1 In the Parliament members took seats not by nation, but by party affiliation. They had limited legislative authority but they supervised the European Commission and the budget. The Parliament also kept the idea of unity alive. Unity was the main reason that all of these communities were formed in the first place. The final decisions rested with the Council of Ministers representing each of the member countries. Their decisions on very important matters had to be unanimous. Another important aspect of the Community was the Court of Justice, it gave the whole Community a sense of federalism.1

Winston Churchill once remarked that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. In agreement with his statement, this paper will examine the problems of democratic governments using specific examples, and compare it to the failure of fascist governments in Nazi Germany and Italy and communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) perceive that democracy is sustained when the elites give access to power to the opposition, otherwise elites make choices that generate poverty on purpose, so politics is crucial in explaining inequality. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that EU institutions will promote democracy through enabling 1) democratic access to power and resources and 2) policies that curb economic inequality in Eastern Europe. Regardless of the strong formal resolve of EU institutions to reform the economic structure of Eastern European, these policies and initiatives produced superficial results because the process had unintentional outcome that 1) legally transferred power and resources in the hands of the former communist elites and 2) generated significant income inequality during and after the transition to democracy.