The Constitution Of The Nation State

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

In addition to defining the political units for democratic governance, nationalism can also bind citizens to a common destiny, and in doing so provide the motivation for citizens to take part in the democratic life. Much of democracy is based on the voluntary participation of citizens with a personally identification with the democratic ideals: rights, responsibility, and procedure. However, such commitment is often insufficient to inspire an

The authors also argue that the greatness of the government driven by democracy is the right to

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.

In this document, Mazzini largely focuses on how the ideas circulated after the French Revolution regarding the rights of man have corrupted the true nature of a nation by creating a culture of greed and egoism. While he openly discourages the erasure and pursuit of these rights, he is quick to point out that individuals’ egoism and each nation’s separation of class “… has grown and grows worse in nearly every country, and especially where I write the price of the necessaries of life has gone on continually rising, the wages of the working-man in many branches of industry falling and the population multiplying” (87). He argues here that allowing any nation to be solely characterized by the rights of its citizens causes a nation to define itself based on the millions of individuals, dividing any community or society—which he believes is the backbone of the nation. In Mazzini’s view, the solution to this is by fostering a national culture of duty to one another. When he asks, “What is Society but a collection of men who have agreed to bring the strength of the many in support of the rights of each?” the audience is forced to question their own personal hierarchy between rights and duties; for what is a nation if there is no work or duty in achieving and maintaining the rights of every man within the nation (89)?

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

The main question that Martha Nussbaum’s Political Emotions undertakes is “How can a decent society do more for stability and motivation than Locke and Kant did, without becoming illiberal and dictatorial in the manner of Rousseau?”. Here the term “decent society”, is implied to be a form of “political liberalism” in which political principles are not built upon comprehensive doctrines, and in which the idea of equal respect for individual views gives rise to careful self-discipline of governments to not endorse of any bias. She further adds 4 crucial points that not to be overlooked or misinterpreted and they are as followed 1.) The account of political emotions assumes a set of normative commitments. 2.)

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.

From a macro scope it is evident the EU is strong promoter democracy and has deeply embedded democratic features, however, as Peterson and Shackleton point out that “understanding politics always begins with understanding institutions not at least the EU”. Taking this advice the essay will seek to examine the two main legislative bodies within the EU,

The general understanding of democracy is that it is a state of leadership where citizens of a country participate equally either directly or by representative individuals in the establishment of laws, which run the society. However, like many other forms of leadership, democracy has its cons and may not give the citizens the necessary freedoms that they think they have. Different philosophers have different insights on democracy in terms of concepts such as liberty, which they embraced. This paper will look at Benjamin Barber and Joseph Schumpeter’s idea of democracy contrasting their definition in terms of citizenship, obligation, rights and duties of each individual in the society declaring whose idea of democracy creates a compelling vision (Terchek & Conte, 2001).

If both benefit the most in cooperating, as is the case in the prisoner’s dilemma, they will both cooperate, and peace will be maintained . This basic liberal assumption of the importance of individual gains is the main support for European integration. If all states cooperate in all arenas, leading to a collectively sovereign “Europe”, the individual gains of each state will be adequate enough to avoid conflict among themselves making it easier to approach the rest of the international system together peacefully.

As Mark Mazower notes in his Dark Continent text the tale of democracy in the twentieth century, was not one of, an inevitable victory, but rather one “of narrow squeaks and unexpected twists,”.( Preface, Kindle Location 116). This paper will examine important events of the era that factored into the ideological fight for supremacy. While also highlighting examples that show that Europeans largely have not always been incredibly enthusiastic about democracy.

On 25 March 2017, the European Union will celebrate the 60th anniversary of its existence. Nevertheless, the European Council and the presidents of the twenty seven member states are aware that it is not a perfect union.

Willy Brandt once remarked:” Western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it; after that it will slide under the surrounding sea of dictatorship” (Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, 1973, 2). It would seem that democratic governments have become increasingly unable of facing “the challenges of the modern world”. Specifically, democratic European governments have become increasingly incapable to adequately represent the interests of the governed, while economic growth has also produced forces within nations that could potentially lead to the potential “regression”(Crozier, 1973, 49-50) of European states from democracy into tyranny (Crozier, 1973, 49-50).