The main purpose of this paper is to look at the democratic deficit from different perspectives and find out if the last treaty of the EU, the Lisbon Treaty, could bring the EU and its institutions closer towards democracy and eliminate or at least reduce the democratic deficit. In order to do so, first an attempt is made to define democratic deficit going to its roots and first implementation relating to the EU.
Second, different debates and opinions about the democratic deficit, its existence or absence will be presented in the second chapter of this seminar paper. Opinions of the most prominent scholars in this field such as Moravcsik, Majone and Hix, whose contribution to democratic discussions was enormous in the last decade will be thoroughly analyzed. The part involving opinions of Moravcsik and Majone of this chapter is the longest one based on an assumption that in our everyday life we often hear arguments in support of the existence of democratic deficit. It was important to show another perspective on this issue as not enough attention is drawn to assess democratic deficit from the point of its non-existence. Further opinions of scholars who agree with existence of democratic problems will be presented, whereas there will be many wanted correlations with Moravcsik and Majone to give a complete overview over the issue.
After defining and presenting different perspectives on democracy and democratic deficit I will continue talking about contributions made by the Lisbon Treaty to democracy as well as main reforms and opportunities for further development of the EU.
At a glance
- Grade: 1.0 (1.0 is the best grade)
- Compares perspectives from Moravcsik, Majone and Hix
- Examines five aspects of democratic shortcomings discussed by Follesdal and Hix
- Examines the Lisbon Treaty’s early-warning mechanism for national parliaments
- 20 sources in the bibliography
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Democratic deficit and the two sides of a democratic coin
2.1 Defining “democratic deficit”
2.2 ‘Democratic deficit’ is a myth
2.2.1 Moravcsik
2.2.2 Majone
2.2. Existence of the democratic deficit and main problem areas
3. On the way to democracy: impacts of Lisbon Treaty
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Themes
This seminar paper examines competing perspectives on the European Union’s democratic deficit and asks whether the Lisbon Treaty could bring EU institutions closer to democracy by eliminating or reducing that deficit. It considers how democracy should be assessed in a political entity that differs from a national state and evaluates institutional reforms against arguments about legitimacy, representation and participation.
- Definitions and historical origins of the democratic deficit
- Arguments by Moravcsik and Majone against conventional claims of a deficit
- Follesdal and Hix’s account of democratic shortcomings
- The roles of the European Parliament, the Commission and national parliaments
- Lisbon Treaty reforms, including the citizens’ initiative
- Public participation, accountability and European political identity
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Defining “democratic deficit”
The existence of the democratic deficit in the EU does not show the complete absence of democracy. It more points out the difficulties the EU and its institutions are having on their way to develop and establish democracy at the transnational level, outside of the frames of a traditional national state. Alone the fact that the EU unifies democratic countries could be an evidence that the matter of complete democratic legitimacy is only the matter of time (Strelkov, 2010). Moreover the most often mentioned obstacles towards democracy, like little trust in the EU institutions or low voting rate among the EU citizens (European Parliament) cannot be seen as the only evidence for democracy of such an unusual entity. The main reason for this claim is the fact, that there are the same problems in many democratic countries, which still have the right to be called democratic, in spite of countless troubles in the same areas (Strelkov, 2010).
The necessity of developing more democratic structures in the EU was recognized already in the 1970s. This shows the ‘Vedel Report’, characterizing the role of the European Parliament and depicting the ways to further expansion of its role as well as further empowerment. Though the term ‘democratic deficit’ was not used in that report, many discussed aspects describe exactly this problem. “But if parliament is representative, it also works in a vacuum. Its debates and other work and tensions which arise and which bear witness to its nature as a political institution, have almost no impact on the press, public opinion and the life of the political parties. The parliament thus falls far short of fulfilling its normal tasks of expressing and shaping political opinion” (Commission of the European Comunities, 1975).
The term ‘democratic deficit’ itself was first used in 1979 by a British politician David Marquand (as cited in Trechsel, 2006). In his opinion already the predecessor of the European Union the European Economic Community was suffering under the lack of democratic legitimacy. (Marquand, as cited in Strelkov, 2010)
Nowadays we can find this term used by both Eurosceptics among politicians and citizens as well as people, who support the EU. However the meaning of the term varies depending on which side is using it. In the hands of Eurosceptics it becomes a tool of criticizing the Union of European countries and undermining the very existence of it. Supporters use it to explain certain mistakes of the EU and to find solutions to bring more democracy to its institutions.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: The paper introduces the debate over democratic legitimacy in the EU and sets out its aim of assessing the Lisbon Treaty in light of competing views of democracy.
2. Democratic deficit and the two sides of a democratic coin: This chapter traces the concept of democratic deficit and examines arguments by Moravcsik and Majone alongside criticisms associated with Follesdal and Hix. It discusses institutional accountability, electoral participation and the distance between EU decision-making and citizens.
3. On the way to democracy: impacts of Lisbon Treaty: The chapter examines reforms affecting the European Parliament, national parliaments and citizen participation. It also considers the opportunities and difficulties associated with implementing those reforms.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion reflects on the EU’s distinctive political structure and the continuing challenges of democratic legitimacy. It considers access to information and politicization as possible avenues for further development.
Keywords
European Union, democratic deficit, Lisbon Treaty, democratic legitimacy, European Parliament, European Commission, national parliaments, electoral accountability, citizen participation, subsidiarity, European citizens’ initiative, European integration
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the paper about?
It examines debates about the European Union’s democratic deficit and the potential contribution of the Lisbon Treaty to democratic legitimacy.
What are the main themes?
The principal themes include democratic accountability, institutional powers, electoral participation, European integration and treaty reform.
What is the paper’s main research question?
It asks whether the Lisbon Treaty could bring the EU and its institutions closer to democracy by eliminating or reducing the democratic deficit.
What method does the paper use?
The author compares published scholarly arguments and examines institutional reforms associated with the Lisbon Treaty. The paper does not describe an original survey or interview study.
What does the main body cover?
It defines the democratic deficit, compares arguments about its existence and examines Lisbon Treaty changes affecting EU institutions, national parliaments and citizens.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include democratic deficit, Lisbon Treaty, democratic legitimacy, European Parliament, accountability and citizen participation.
How are Moravcsik’s and Majone’s arguments used?
The paper examines their challenges to conventional claims about an EU democratic deficit, including questions about appropriate standards for assessing the Union.
What role do Follesdal and Hix play in the discussion?
Their arguments provide a contrasting account of democratic shortcomings, including concerns about executive power, parliamentary influence and electoral politics.
Which Lisbon Treaty participation mechanisms are discussed?
The paper discusses an early-warning mechanism for national parliaments and the European citizens’ initiative, alongside changes to the European Parliament’s role.
- Quote paper
- Sabina Agarunova (Author), 2014, Could the Lisbon Treaty bring the EU and its institutions closer towards democracy and reduce the democratic deficit?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/317763
