Is the EU Democratic?

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 consciousness of democracy and decentralization grow in people’s mind and formed various kind of country during the history of human. The UK evolves about thousands years and become a constitutional monarchy country with nowadays appearance. The Europe suffered first and second war and others conflicts between European countries, to prevent further war occur in Europe European Union were built. In the last about sixty years the EU shows it’s potential and has the second largest parliament in the world with multiple member countries. The essay mainly focus on discuss the differences between UK parliament and European Parliament, statistics, government act, declaration and treaties will be given in order to support the opinions. Firstly, the origin and developments of the two parliaments will be given. Secondly, the essay will compare the two parliaments from aspects of structure, composition, function and role. Thirdly, a clear definition of power and ability between UK parliament and EU parliament will be illustrated. Then, the ability of parliament hold executive to account will be discussed. Ultimately, there will be conclusion to brief review the gist of this essay.

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

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

There is no single body that can be described as the Union’s legislature. Both the Council and the Parliament play significant roles in the process. The European Parliament is frequently accused of democratic deficit. In particular, there are two separate issues to consider: one relates to its composition and another is connected to the engagement of citizens in Parliament. First of all, the European Parliament initially consisted of delegates designated by the Parliaments of Member States, but since 1979, it has been directly elected by the people according to the national electoral system of each Member State. Undoubtedly, that reform helped to overcome the democratic deficit to some extent. Nevertheless, the European Parliament is often criticized of failing to generate much commitment and

For the first time in known history, most people around the world are living under democratic ruling. Although to many this can be seen as a positive step forward from the gruelling nature of dictatorship and other forms of governance, one needs to understand the true nature of the worlds democratic state. This report will investigate and analyse the state of democracy around the various countries of the world and elaborate on the chosen countries democratic crisis and state of governance.

‘Democracy’ is a word from the Greek language meaning ‘rule of the people.’ ‘Representation,’ a Latin word, entails a delegated action on the part of some on behalf of someone else. With these two aspects, representative democracy has four major features; a) Sovereignty of the people expressed in the electoral appointment of the representatives, b) Representation as a few mandate relation; c) Electoral mechanisms to ensure some measure of responsiveness to the people by representatives who speak and act in their name; and d) The universal franchise, which grounds representation on an important element of political equality.

It is necessary to say “previously well-developed” democratic institutions because the eurozone countries surrendered their sovereign rights to control their most important macroeconomic policies: first monetary and exchange rate policy, and then increasingly fiscal policy for the so-called PIIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain). As we will see, this was a profound loss of democratic governance, and one for which tens of millions of eurozone residents would pay dearly in the years following the world financial crisis and recession of 2008-2009, and for as yet untold years to come.

he following paper will address the question of how democratic the European Union is by analysing each of its institutions and the decision procedures in the European context. It will take into account the special role of the European Union as “a system of polycentric governance” (Garner, 2009: 230), and the complex relationships between its institutions and the institutions of its member countries. Hereby taking into account that the “EU can be characterized as ‘a system of network governance’ in which ‘the ‘‘state’’ is vertically and horizontally segmented and its role has changed from authoritative allocation ‘‘from above’’ to the role of an ‘activator’ ” (Crum and Fussom, 2009: 257). The EU with its high degree of complexity remains unique in the world of governance and shouldn’t be compared to nation states. Following a multilevel approach that recognises this uniqueness the question whether the scepticism towards the EU’s institutions and the voices that see a democratic deficit inherent in the EU are right shall be answered.

The European Union is run on a sophisticated system based on a hierarchical structure. Relative political powers of member states in the Council of the Euro- pean Union, an important legislative institution in the European Union, are of interest to us. In the first part, we will illustrate some basic concepts of Shapley-Shubic Power Index, Banzhaf Power Index, and the specific voting regulation and the definition of qualified majority

Around the turn of the millennium political leaders around Europe were challenged by two antithetical developments within their societies. On one side, the European citizens rely on them to handle and solve the major contemporary political issues (e.g. unemployment, peace- and safekeeping). On the other side, increasing distrust and indifference concerning politicians, politics and institutions (on the national and European level) leads to a growing legitimacy issue for the European Union and its institutions. As a result the incumbent president of the Commission of the European Communities, Romano Prodi, announced “promoting new forms of European governance” (Prodi, 2000:4) as a key strategic objective of his Commission from 2000-2005. Consequently, the European Commission published the White Paper on European Governance in 2001, introducing steps to a more democratic Union.

Integration in the European Union is an everlasting field of interest for social and political scientists. In consequence, recent events such as the economic crisis and the latest EU elections have fostered heated debates around the legitimising basis of the EU, and whether the so-called democratic deficit indicates an upcoming EU downfall. In this case, the concept of integration within the EU becomes highly relevant, as is generates questions such as: ‘What binds the European citizens together?’ and ‘What constitutes the EU and what should it look like?’. Here, there seems to be

The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political partnership between 28 European member states that together cover much of the continent. The EU operates through a system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmental negotiated decisions by the Member States (Nugent, 2010). EU member states have long believed that the Union magnifies their political and economic objectives. Nevertheless, tensions have always existed within the EU between those members that seek a closer union through more integration and those that prefer to keep the Union on a more intergovernmental footing, in order to better guard their national sovereignty. The interaction between international cooperation and domestic politics is pressingly relevant to the effect of European integration on domestic politics and democratic accountability in EU Member States. Many scholars consider democratic politics in Europe to be closely linked to increasing integration. This paper will argue that the process of European integration at the EU level has strengthened and also weakened the Member States in various different aspects.

Michel Crozier argues that despite the many issues surrounding the governability of European democracies (Crozier, 1973, 39), the crisis of democracy in Europe arises on a more basic level from our understanding of “the relationship of institutional values to behavior”- a relationship that has defined European government and societies for centuries (Crozier, 1973, 40). Devoid of rapid economic and technological change, people were able to define goals according to their preferences. Generally, this meant that the “technical knowledge of societies” could provide them with the means to create certain political goals. (Crozier, 1973, 40) Despite this fact, Crozier emphasizes that a since the