French - Elias Gherbi
Heir to the European economic community–an intergovernmental organization enhancing peaceful cooperation among European countries - the European union was formed as a political body by the 1992 treaty of Maastricht. It includes groundbreaking, supranational elements, as member states, cede voluntarily some of their sovereignty to the collective Union. The Emile, as set out in article A of the treaty, was that “decisions [be] taken as close as possible to the citizens.” There is controversy, today, over whether this democratic ideal has been officially achieved, and the idea of a democratic deficit - a distance between decision making and the ability of citizens to influence it – feeds growing criticism of the EU. It is clear, however, that the European Union has a fundamentally democratic framework, despite some practical limitations in its legitimacy, accountability, and transparency. First, the study of EU institutions and processes allows us to affirm that it is strongly democratic. Second, the way the EU has tried to safeguard its values, often in response to crises, reveals that there is still much potential for improvement.
The European Union is built on a model of parliamentary democracy, though it is more complex because of its unique supranational structure. Institutions have often been accused of being too far away, burdened by bureaucracy. However, by studying the four major law making institutions, it is clear that the process is inherently democratic. The European Council, composed of the heads of state or government of the EU nations, has a directing role – much like that of the Presidency in a semi-presidential regime. It appoints the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and the European Commission - the executive government. Leaders of the council are democratically elected, as long as member states are internally democratic. Regrouping the most powerful people of Europe is an efficient way of moving forward and finding consensus to tie together the European people, in Maastricht’s “ever closer union”. However, the council lacks fundamentally in transparency, with obscure private debates, tainted by geopolitical interests. In addition, leaders have no direct accountability for their European actions, though they will be elected nationally partly on the basis of their European program. So the Council is efficient and legitimate, but not accountable and transparent enough.
The commission acts as the governing body, proposing laws, and carrying out public service. Commissioners are appointed by member states, but contrary to the council, the commission is supranational. Its members take the oath of independence to serve only the general interest, granting them credibility and, most of all, accountability. Indeed, the EU’s fundamental mechanisms are those of a parliamentary democracy: the executive Commission is controlled by the European Parliament, through direct questions, enquiry committees, and most importantly, votes of confidence. In 1999, Jacques Santer’s Commission resigned under the threat of a no-confidence vote, which would have stricken it down if 2/3 of members of Parliament chose to. In 2019, Parliament also refused some commissioners. Therefore the commission is fully accountable to Parliament, making it no more bureaucratic than any Parliamentary national system.
In fact, the parliament is at the heart of the EU’s democracy and it is the most democratic of the institutions. Its debates are public and it has achieved great transparency. Its 705 members are directly elected to represent the citizens supranationally, making them fully accountable to the people and, theoretically, judged only on their actions at the European level. They are seated by European Political Party, and not by nationality, a powerful symbol of common-interest, supranational lawmaking. The role of Parliament has been consistently enhanced by successive treaties, from its first direct election in 1977, to the establishment by the Treaty of Lisbon (2007) of co-decision as the ordinary legislative procedure, giving Parliament a voice in 80% of European laws. However, the parliament still doesn’t have the initiative of laws, reserved to the Commission. Some decisions are also still taken without its approval. But it seems on the right track to imposing its legitimacy as a great democratic institution.
Finally, the Council of the European Union – or Council of ministers – is the other legislative chamber. As an intergovernmental body, it remains supposedly democratic as long as member states are democratic. However, there is no direct accountability, as it includes all national ministers competent on the subject discussed. Its debates are not usually public. This lack of transparency from the intergovernmental institutions constantly undermines and decredibilizes democratic efforts. It naturally obscures debates and does not allow two draw interest to the matters discussed.
In addition, the fractures between national systems and cultures does not allow for a true Continental debate on public policy. The lack of a renown European media exemplifies this obstacle very well. As a result, citizens often feel disinterested in European issues and do not understand how they can express themselves in a debate that, essentially, does not seem to exist on a continental level. The turnout in the last 2019 parliamentary elections was 51%, usually lower than that of national elections. Moreover, debates on European issues are often overshadowed during the election by inter-party debates on national Issues. It is clear that the lack of participation in interest in European elections is correlated with growing Euroscepticism and populism. In Hungary, turnout was only 33%, with a Eurosceptic party in power. On the other hand, Belgium – where EU institutions are housed – saw an 86% voter turnout. The democratic institutions of the EU are supposed to function properly as a “Parliamentary democracy” model, and they usually achieve this well, despite important discrepancies of accountability and transparency and an organic disunity among the member states.
The Union is a very dynamic organization, constantly working on its institutions and making efforts to uphold its values. Indeed, the EU can only be as democratic as its member states, knowing that European politics stem from national politics. To this end, the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, in its article 7, has given means to concretely carry out the necessary “respect for human rights as defined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights” that was inscribed in the Maastricht treaty. Article 7 has been most notably called to use by Parliament and enforced by the Commission against Hungary, from 2018 onwards. The country was accused of discriminating against Roms, Jews and LGBT communities, breaking the “human rights” and “minority rights” clauses, as well as of interfering with media, elections and judicial systems, breaking the “rule of law“ and “democracy” clauses. However, the only effective action taken was to freeze the economic package of €5.9 billion dedicated to Hungary after Covid. In 2022, Parliament solemnly called Hungary an “electoral autocracy“ in a resolution, but the concrete means to enforce the European justice decisions are lacking. Unanimous vote would be required in the European Council to take out Hungary‘s voting rights. Even decisions of the court of justice cannot be carried out unless the national administrations are willing. The EU lacks a strong judiciary, a head of state, an army. It has many of the theoretical powers of a sovereign state, but no means to enforce them. The Union is therefore consistently granting more supranational power and looking for ways to improve its framework, including through the Conference, on the Future of Europe of 2022.
The profound lack of legitimacy sometimes transforms into fears of EU organizations, deemed distant and bureaucratic. Europhobia, sparked Brexit’s “take back control !” slogan. To ensure that citizens feel heard and listened to, the EU has put in place the Citizens’ Initiative mechanism, enabling 1 million people to petition requests to the Commission. Though nonbinding, this is exactly the sort of event that can spark interest, debate and action. In 2017, an initiative to ban glyphosate, though it did not achieve its primary goal, prompted the creation of new laws, requiring independent studies to transparently scrutinize pesticides. To fight defiance and cultural fractures, the EU has tried to increase transparency – through the news channel Euronews in 1993, for example – and demonstrate that it can define beneficial policies. There is much work to be done, but the EU fundamentally needs more strength and authority to ensure that democracy triumphs nationally and is safeguarded continentally. The EU has proven open to beneficial changes in innovations to reinforce democracy, and crises such as Hungary’s breaches have shown that some mechanisms to uphold democracy are already in place, and that stronger ones must be found.
To conclude, The European Union’s governing institutions have been thought in a broadly democratic way. Supranational Parliament and Commission both function according to the principles of a parliamentary democracy which is as democratic as national Parliaments. Lacks of accountability and transparency in the intergovernmental institutions have caused a democratic deficit, reinforced by a great disinterest in continental lawmaking. Breaches and responses have clearly shown that the Union lacks important sovereign powers to enforce its legislation and safeguard its values, but the organization is very dynamic and open to fruitful initiatives. A turning point in the union history is set in the near future, as nations have to decide whether to take the last crucial steps toward a sovereign federal Europe, or to move back and destroy its supranational element to privilege national legitimacy. The EU cannot stay in this hybrid format forever. It is unstable. Granting it more powers would allow it to move towards the “kind of United States of Europe” envisioned by Churchill to peacefully govern the European continent after World War II. The Union has been very successful in maintaining peace and collaboration, its primary objective. Perhaps it is now time to move further, towards a true political supranational organ, fully legitimate, accountable, and transparent, ever closer to the European citizen.
Comments