Демократия в Европе

Is it possible to democratise the European Union

Democracy in Europe by Larry Siedentop

In Democracy in Europe, Larry Siedentop calls for institutional

reforms within the EU to permit greater public participation and to create a federalist structure.Such reforms would be embodied in a European Constitution, which he believes would “bring to the surface and formalize the…[EU’s] role in creating a society of individuals, drawing attention to the way the state fosters a value in all who are subject to it, the value of a fundamental or ‘moral’ equality,” since all citizens share rights and responsibilities, and thus a common identity. Such an approach to the question of democracy divides the problem into two parts: the emotional (the

need to garner popular support behind the EU institutions) and the institutional (the desire to define the institutions’ role, and the peoples’ part in it). While Democracy in Europe sometimes confounds these two issues, the recognition that they are two distinct matters may shed light on the debate over popular participation in the European Union. In some ways, the relationship between the two interests seems clear: institutional arrangements often affect popular approval, and societal attitudes bear on the creation or reform of political bodies. However, in some cases, the desires of institutional actors seemingly differ from those of the people; Democracy in Europe seeks to explore how such conflicts are and should be resolved.

Larry Siedentop explore the various concerns confronting Europe at this critical time in its development. It begins with the question of identity, examining the problems which the current lack of a European consciousness may engender, yet noting that the seeds may already have been sown. The absence of either a popular internationalist leadership or a threat sufficient to impel European unity compounds the difficulties already inherent in building a common identity among the peoples of over a dozen nations. Consequently, Democracy in Europe looks to structural reforms within the EU as an avenue to increase popular participation in the European project, with the belief that democratic governance will strengthen people’s interest in, and respect for, EU decision-making, creating a “culture of consent” to follow Brussels. There are a number of options for EU institutional reform; it can adopt the statist French model (toward which it already tends), the unstructured British model, or the federalist German and American models (which differ in their balance between the center and the periphery). Beyond the general question of form of governance, Professor Siedentop suggests particular institutional changes, while overlooking others. In the end, this article seeks to weigh the obstacles to democratic governance in the EU against the possible solutions, to see if Professor Siedentop’s guarded optimism is warranted.

Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today By: Christopher Brown

The European Union is not perfect. It is unlikely ever to be. What this dissertation has argued is that the EU, in its present form, is lacking in significant democratic accountability –  accountability that is essential to the legitimacy of the governance that it provides. As an actor, it is much more a provider of governance rather than government, but what it lacks is the wherewithal to legitimate the power through democratic means. The new roles of President of the European Council, and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, were meant to add cohesion and legitimacy to the political element of the project, but this is impossible when such roles have no democratic electability.

Cosmopolitan democracy would not allow the EU to become a state, but rather, it would see the reapportion of sovereignty between the constituent elements of the EU, to entrench and develop democratic institutions at regional and global levels as a necessary complement to those at the level of the nation-state.  This theory alters the position in which modern democratic theory is focused upon – that of the nation-state as the principal actor. Cosmopolitan theory believes that all democracy is, first and foremost, a local issue. Decentralisation and devolution of power is the key element in which Cosmopolitanism would thrive in. What it aims to remedy is where democratic accountability should be levelled at. This would require a fundamental rebalancing of power removing the primacy of the state as the key actor. This would see is the state essentially being relegated to equal status and power with devolved regions and larger transnational groupings. Whilst this may, in principle, appear like a valiant attempt at equalising power, or at least reducing the possibility of a single political element holding the majority of power – as the current state system does, to an extent – it also removes a primary reason for the existence of nation-states within the international system; it provides a stable political unit, in which affairs of state can be dealt with, and this is understood in the concept of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. This concept, is to a certain extent, occurring within the EU, as the ability for citizens of member-states to travel and work freely between countries is possible, with the Schengen agreement.

The central state exists to maintain the geo-political nature of the state – with that no longer prevalent, it is uncertain as to whether smaller political units would wish to break out of the state, before aligning itself with a pan-European polity. Indeed, as mentioned in Chapter Two, devolution of power downwards from the central state has been a significant element of change within EU member states in recent years. Yet, it is possible to presuppose that the further weakening of the core nation-state could cause a more likely dissolution, as the geo-politics of the state would have weakened, through the additional powers transposed above the state. However, with Cosmopolitanism it is understood that in order to legitimately provide higher government above the state, localisation is essential to provide such legitimate power.

“The smaller the unit the greater the opportunity for citizens to participate in the decisions of their government, yet the less the environment they can control.”

The Crisis of the European Union: A Response

By: Jürgen Habermas

The main point of this pamphlet is indeed that there is at the moment a democratic deficit and that there should be ways to avoid what Habermas calls “post-democratic executive federalism.” While this point could be put across in a much simpler way, an eminent philosopher’s fight for a more democratic society gives cause for hope. Even here however, Habermas seems to assume that if EU citizens were better represented at the EU level they would agree to decisions being taken at EU level. Some might consider this assumption naïve, and it would be interesting to see this question tackled in the pamphlet. Overall then, readers will appreciate the philosopher’s partisan involvement with such a topical issue, but might find the journey a bit rough.

Democracy in the European Union: Integration through Deliberation?

By Erik Oddvar Eriksen, John Erik 

Аuthors consider The European Union is widely held to suffer from a democratic deficit. Today, the EU is a highly complex entity undergoing profound changes. This book asks how the type of cooperation that the EU is based on can be explained; what are the integrative forces in the EU and how can integration at a supra-national level come about? The key thinkers represented in this volume stress that in order to understand integration beyond the nation state, we need new explanatory categories associated with deliberation because a supranational entity as the EU posesses far weaker and less well-developed means of coercion - bargaining resources - than do states. The most appropriate term to denote this is the notion of 'deliberative supranationalism'.

"We, the Peoples of Europe ..."

By Kalypso Nicolaidis

Nicolaidis consider that decentralised political systems inevitably involve divisions of powers and bargaining relationships, both horizontally – between the regional tiers – and vertically – between the regional tiers and the centre.

The problem at present is that the EU has large proportions of governance, and little government. Democratisation would require a shift in EU institutions to become government; something that would be hard to achieve without alterations to the current political make-up of the EUAnd most crucial of all – the power that the EU has at present, is ‘sovereignty on loan’ – it would take some considerable shift in the behaviour of nation-states to make their sovereign loan to Europe a permanent, legal one.