The Pros And Cons Of Democratic Deficit

The European Union is a group of European countries who combined together as allies after WWII for trade and peace reasons. It was established so countries in Europe would not create conflicts with each other to prevent the disaster of the two World Wars. They also signed trade deals to secure the countries in the EU would be financially stable and not go into depression and poverty like most countries did in WWII. Each country in the EU has to provide the EU with money to operate. In return, not only will they see trade with European countries, but the EU budgets will help redevelopment and regeneration of poor areas, seen in

The EU being an example of democratic deficit can be argued both ways one being bad for people because they can make laws that the people don’t like but they have to follow them regardless and the other being the fact that the EU makes laws that helps the country as a whole such as education and health.

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 European Union was initially set up as a means to terminate the conflict that occurred within Europe throughout the 20th century, culminating with the end of The Second World War (WWII) and The Cold War that followed. The EU ultimately aimed to bring the member countries together in order to form an ‘ever closer union’ between the countries of Europe, thus preventing a future battle. The Union started as the European Economic Community (EEC), which was established in 1957, and over the years endured numerous adjustments to form the politico-economic union that we know of today.

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

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 ‘standard version’ of the democratic deficit formulated by Weiler, consisting of the increased role of the executive Commission in matters of legislation, the weakness of the European Parliament (hereafter the EP), the lack of ‘European’ elections, EU distance to public scrutiny and voters, and finally ‘policy drifting’ by the executive non-compliant to voter interests, has and continues to be a major target of criticism within the field of European Union (the EU) law. The matter is of utmost importance

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.

Democracy: a government by the people, in which citizens rule either directly or through elected representatives - the latter description more relevant to today’s societies. Quite evidently, democracy is not perfect; like any other political system, it is subject to a plethora of flaws. For instance, it is no secret that voters tend to make illogical decisions – not out of sheer malice, but as a result of being wrongly informed. Politicians also make erroneous choices, whether they do so because they are dishonest or simply out of touch with the true will of their constituents. Further, anyone who has studied the government of a parliamentary democracy knows gerrymandering can have a powerful say in determining elections. Despite these and

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

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.

The author has been able to fulfill the target of the book, which is to test and answer the questions raised by critics through the provision of evidence of the reason no democracy exists at the present. The author presents the arguments in a chronological way that gives a better understanding of the past, today, and prospective future of democracy. The root of the present democracy is stated in the book and lays the basis of the other arguments in the book. Dahl argues that there are conditions that any state should attain in order for it to be considered as a democratic

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).