A democratic deficit is considered to be occurring when ostensibly democratic
organizations or institutions (particularly governments) are seen to be falling short of
fulfilling the principles of the parliamentary democracy in their practices or operation where representative and linked
parliamentary integrity becomes widely discussed: State-corporate crime:
incorporated governance. The phrase was coined by UK Member of the European Parliament Bill Newton
Dunn in a pamphlet in the 1980s.
The United Nations, United States,
European Union and United Kingdom have been
accused of having democratic deficits.
European Union
-
Those who argue that the European Union suffers from a democratic deficit often attribute this to a number of factors:
- The Council of the European Union, which is one half of the EU's
bicameral legislature (the other half being the European Parliament), is made up of
national ministers and meets in secret when agreeing legislation. As such, there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the Council's
legislative decisions at EU level, and many last-minute negotiations are conducted by diplomats.
- There is no requirement for national parliaments to scrutinise the performance of their government ministers in the Council,
though most do this to some extent as a matter of course.
- There are still some policy areas where codecision does not apply. In these
areas, the European Parliament only has the power to approve or reject proposed
legislation, or the right to be consulted before the Council takes its decision.
- The European Commission is led by Commissioners who are proposed by national
governments and approved by the European Parliament, rather than being directly
elected by citizens. Although the Commission has no legislative power, it is essentially the executive of the European Union and
is the only body empowered to draft legislative proposals. Many eurosceptics argue that
Commissioners wield more power than is justified by their limited democratic mandate. Furthermore, detractors say that they are
sometimes politicians who have failed in their native countries and have been "pensioned off" to the Commission, and that they
have little control over the thousands of bureaucrats who are regarded as a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
Critics of the democratic legitimacy of the EU tend to point to three areas of democratic accountability: representative
democracy (European and national Parliamentary involvement); participatory democracy (pluralistic coverage of interests); and
deliberative democracy (debates on EU issues between EU citizens). It is important to note the inclusion of national
parliamentary involvement in representative democracy, as many would argue that simply by increasing the involvement of the
European Parliament (i.e. in the co-decision legislative procedure, or the 'regulatory procedure with scrutiny' for delegated
decision-making) would not suffice since it is insufficiently connected to the peoples of Europe. Instead, some commentators
point to an increased role of national parliaments, particularly in legislative procedures, as a means of countering the poor
representative democracy within the EU.
Proposed changes under the new constitutional treaty
Successive revisions of the treaties that form the constitution of the European Union have increased the power of the
directly-elected European Parliament in an attempt to reduce the perceived
democratic deficit.
The proposed Treaty establishing a Constitution for
Europe, if it had been ratified, would have made the following changes in this regard:
- It would have extended the power of codecision to virtually all policy areas.
This means that Parliament would become an equal legislative partner with the Council for virtually all EU-level
decision-making.
- It would have required the Council to meet in public when legislating.
- It would have ensured that national parliaments receive information about new EU legislative proposals in enough time to
mandate ministers on how to vote in the Council.
- It would also have given national parliaments a new power to send any proposal back to the Commission for reconsideration if
they believe the proposal lies outside the EU's competence (i.e. if they believe it covers a policy area for which the treaties
do not allow EU-level decision-making).
- It would have created a new citizens' right of initiative, obliging the Commission to consider any proposal for legislation
that has the support of 1 million EU citizens.
However, some commentators argued that the treaty did not go far enough in reducing the perceived democratic deficit. In
particular, they pointed out that:
- There would be no change to the principle that EU laws, and the terms of constitution itself, supersede national laws: "The
Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over
the law of the Member States" (Article I-6). The constitution specifically spelled out that, for those areas of policy where member states
share competence with the EU, national governments may act at national level only where they have not already acted through the
EU. In other areas, member states confer sole competence on the EU, i.e. they agree to act only at European level (Article I-12). In any case, the question of whether EU laws can reasonably be described as
"national governments acting at EU level", when the European Commission has the sole right to propose those laws, is
controversial.
- The appointed European Commission would remain the sole initiator of legislative
proposals. Other bodies (Parliament, Council, citizens) can only require it to consider drafting a proposal.
- Similarly, national parliaments would acquire the right to send a proposal back to the Commission for reconsideration, but
there is no explicit requirement for the Commission to make any changes to its proposal as a result.
The constitutional treaty failed after a rejection of the draft first by the French voters and days after, the Dutch voters in
2005. Each member state was required to accept the new treaty for it to become legal. Several states, including the United
Kingdom, have yet to vote on the proposed document, however once France and the Netherlands vetoed it, there was no point in
continuing the process. There are discussions now about whether to scrap the entire constitution or pick and choose from the
treaty and create a new one based on those sections.
United Kingdom
-
Devolution was introduced in 1998 in Scotland and Wales, but not in England.
The European Union and the Labour Party are in favour of devolution to
Regions of England[citation needed], whereas the Conservative Party prefers "English Votes on English Laws".
[1]. Some political parties such as the English Democrats Party want a full English parliament.[2]. The Liberal Democrats are currently
reviewing their policies on this subject. [citation needed]
References
- ^ BBC news article
- ^ The English Democrats
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
