Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union

The paper focuses on the inherent weaknesses in the institutional architecture of the Eurozone, which were revealed with the onset of the European sovereign debt crisis in general and the Greek crisis in particular. First, the absence of a budgetary, fiscal and political union posed insurmountable challenges to the Eurozone from the very beginning, while adherence to existing rules, limited leadership and weak institutions further hindered crisis management across both European and national levels. Second, economic measures taken in response to the Greek crisis worsened an already acute democratic deficit, due to the diminished role assigned to nation states regarding their participation in decision making for their own constituencies Finally, it was the unprecedented social impact of the crisis, as a result of massive layoffs, rise in unemployment, wage cuts, and cuts in pensions and benefits. The outcome indicated that Greece was not the only European member state with a significant budget deficit. The Greek case is distinct, however, because the Greek political system was faced with chronic inherent weaknesses requiring more circumstantial and comprehensive intervention on the part of European leaders. Extending assistance to Greece proved remarkably difficult given the incomplete architecture of the Eurozone. Failure to take necessary steps promptly caused EU citizens to become disaffected and showing less trust in the European Parliament and the European institutions.

Whether their analytic frameworks focus on institutional form and practices or on its interactive construction, scholars have analyzed the EU’s democratic legitimacy mainly in terms of the trade-offs between the output effectiveness of EU’s policies outcomes for the people and the input participation by and representation of the people. Missing is theorization of the “throughput” efficiency, accountability, transparency, and openness to consultation with the people of the EU’s internal governance processes. The paper argues that adding this analytic category facilitates assessment of these legitimizing mechanisms’ interdependencies and facilitates consideration of reforms that could turn this democratic trilemma into a “virtuous circle”.

This article seeks to expose some limitations of dominant discourses about European integration. It argues that the attempt to move towards a more federalist Europe underpinned by the ideal of ‘post-national citizenship’ (Habermas) is both unrealistic and undesirable. The populism and ethno-centric nationalism endangering the European project emerged in Europe not despite the cosmopolitan agendas of its elites, but arguably, in response to their ambitious agendas. A more realistic view on nationalism is imperative for a better understanding of European integration; one capable of addressing the appeal of populist politics.

This paper proposes a research design which allows for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the European citizens' initiative (ECI) – the first EU transnational participatory tool. It provides an analytical framework based on a broader conceptualisation of the notion of " effectiveness " which goes beyond the sole legislative function of the ECI. Consequently, the paper suggests to evaluate the ECI in five different dimensions: as a dialogue and communication enhancing tool, an awareness-raising tool, a deli-berative space, a citizen-activating mechanism, as well as an agenda-setting instrument. Operationalisation of the dependent variable through a set of democratic functions that the ECI might perform allows not only to evaluate its capacity to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU but also to identify the tool's limitations and propose ways of improvement. The paper also suggests a qualitative method of testing the hypothesised effects of the ECI.

In this thesis, our aim will be to explore the grey zone that exists between legal and political studies of EU citizenship. We will try to determine what has been until now the concrete impact of legal developments on the political nature of Union citizenship, and we will replace these findings in a broader political framework to envision the potential role that citizenship could play as an instrument of the EU politicisation. Our approach is a profoundly pragmatic one, which proceeds from the assumption that we need to know precisely what citizenship is before envisaging what it could be. In this respect, our aim is to build a small bridge between legal and political thinking by analysing the link that exists between legal developments of EU citizenship and their constitutional implications on the development of a political European Union. How can we analyse the imbalance that exists between legal developments and political discourses on EU citizenship? What does this gap between legal reality and political perceptions of Union citizenship reveal about the EU politicisation challenge? The imbalance between frequent invocations of EU citizenship as an ambitious status of rights by the Court of Justice and less effective calls for the emergence of a political Status in political and institutional debates is the result of an overall lack of definition of ‘what Europe do we want’. If the law in itself cannot create a political reality, it can however create a praxis which would ultimately lead to the emergence of new political representations. Union citizenship should not be considered as an objective as such of European integration, but it should be acknowledged as a dynamic concept which can contribute to the creation of a new European political culture corresponding to the sui generis nature of the EU.

The 'conflicts law approach' reconstructs the potential of primarily, but not exclusively, European law to address the threat to democracy that is posed by the concern that citizens would increasingly be subject to the effects of laws which they themselves had not authored. This structural democratic deficit calls for consideration of 'foreign' demands. It also calls for cooperation and mutual respect between political constituencies. The normative basis for understanding conflicts law as a constitutional form with democratically grounded validity claims stems from the proposition that states must acknowledge or establish a law that provides a forum for foreign demands and manifests deference through transnational rules. The approach sets out to examine three types of conflict constellations—horizontal, vertical and diagonal legal conflicts—and three types of law-mediated responses, layered as the scheme of a 'three-dimensional conflicts law'.

Could a theoretical model explain European Union (EU) political integration at different levels? Post-national EU directives are changing not just regulations, rules and laws of political macro-structures at different territorial levels; they also change European citizen´ lives. A renewed theoretical take would allow us to observe these new political configurations and multilevel citizenry more accurately. In order to provide a positive answer to our hypothetical question, an analysis of contemporary political structures from a multi-leveled perspective would provide us with an innovative theoretical structure, able to describe regional post-national imbrications of norms and intertwined orders.

Исследована институциональная реформа ЕС в начале 2000-х годов. В частности, рассмотрены тренд конституционализации ЕС, соотношение ценностей эффективности и баланса, дефицит легитимности и попытки его преодоления, развитие гибкой интеграции в ЕС.

The legitimation deficit, inherent in the European integration project, was aggravated significantly by the ongoing eurozone crisis and the way Germany and the European institutions tried to deal with it. The paper maintains a neo Gramscian perspective on European integration and focuses especially on the Greek case, the legitimation crisis and the new political cleavages that emerged as a result of the EU-led “Mnimonio” [Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission, the IMF and the Greek Republic] policies. The paper was published in the journal Σύγχρονα Θέματα [Contemporary Issues], vol. 121, June 2013 (in Greek).

"By examining the case of Switzerland we observed that direct democracy can help develop a public sphere for diversified populations.

The European Union could follow this example to develop a greater feeling of identity and legitimacy of its own.

Based on our analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy, we suggest an optional legislative referendum be promoted on a European level.

We find this preferable to a “constitutional” referendum, to a “constitutional” initiative or to a legislative initiative.

It is more in keeping with the hybrid nature of EU institutions, which characteristically lack a true European demos."

The question guiding this paper is how the deployment of innovative ICT tools and applications produce real effects on the transformation of some aspects of the political process that are responsible of the so-called democratic deficit in the EU. More specifically, this paper explores how Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) are improving the transparency, involvement, awareness and participation in European Elections, which are the four key elements for resolving the EU " deficit ". Moreover, VAAs help to improve the absence of a fully developed transnational European party system by matching the voter and parties preferences at the domestic level with the party position of other non-domestic brother parties in the EU.

Richard Bellamy’s A Republican Europe of States offers a major contribution to the debate on the future of Europe by exending important democratic concerns beyond state borders without conflating into an overly demanding cosmopolitan account. Key to Bellamy’s normative proposal are the two ideas of realistic utopia and ‘freedom as non-domination’. Inspired by Rawls’s political philosophy, the idea of realistic utopia helps to understand the proper relationships between facts and principles and ideal and non-ideal theory. Petitt’s idea of ‘freedom as-non domination’, in turn, provides the foundation for the ideal of democratic legitimacy presented in the book. This paper critically examines Bellamy’s republican intergovernmentalism in light of these two features. It ultimately seeks to show that these two ideas are in tension with one each other and seem to lead to two contrasting models of normative political theorizing.

Recently, the proposal of the transnational list in European elections has been again rejected by a vote of the European Parliament. Nevertheless, the idea of the vote covering Europe-wide constituencies is recurrent in the debate about the constitutional issues, challenges and the future of the European Union. This paper examines the project from the perspective of democratic principles in political sciences and discursive legal theory. It seeks to answer the question of whether the idea could serve as a possible solution to the democratic deficit and legitimacy problem within the European Union. For this reason, at first some considerations approach the general constitutional issues of the EU as a political organization, among them the crucial problem of democratic principle and its current realisation in the EU primary law shaping Community’s institutional system. Then some aspects of European common public sphere and European discourse are examined in order to identify, within it, the key directions to resolve the problem of democratic deficit regarding complex, multi-level constitutional nature of EU.Then, the project of transnational list is analysed as a possible step towards enforcement of European civil identity and EU democratic legitimacy.

This research paper aims to offer an innovative and comprehensive assessment of the impact of differentiation on EU governance. It addresses the organizational, constitutional and socio-political factors affecting differentiation and integration in the EU in order to assess the effectiveness, sustainability, accountability and legitimacy of differentiated arrangements within the EU and between the EU and participating third countries. The ultimate aim is to provide an overall appraisal of how much and what form of differentiation propels European integration forward – as a whole and for specific policy areas – and what kinds of differentiation should be avoided to prevent disintegration in the future. The empirical research shows that formal arrangements of differentiation are not only compatible with, but also conducive to a more effective, cohesive and democratic Union when they have a direct link to EU institutions, are established with clear objectives in line with EU core values, and are equipped with adequate mechanisms to ensure accountability and to connect ins and outs. On the contrary, excessive flexibility entailed in looser forms of differentiated cooperation that are established outside the EU Treaties are likely to produce fragmentation dynamics and ultimately jeopardise the EU’s political unity and normative consistency.

This chapter focuses on two significant aspects of crisis management in the Eurozone: (a) its democratic legitimacy and (b) its socioeconomic consequences. The two issues are very important, since both the socioeconomic effects of an adjustment program and its democratic credentials determine to a large extent its "ownership" by local societies and consequently its chances of success. Effectively, these two aspects refer to the "input" and "output" side of democratic legitimacy, that is, to legitimation through democratic processes and representation, and policy outcomes respectively. The analysis evaluates the first aspect of the legitimacy equation using criteria derived from democratic theory and applying them to the governance structure of the bailout programs. On the second aspect of legitimacy, that of outcomes, the socioeconomic consequences of the crisis management are reviewed, and their distributive aspects discussed. The chapter demonstrates that the EU's legitimacy has suffered along both aspects as a result of the crisis and the way it was handled. This leaves the EU in a particularly vulnerable state in the event of a future crisis.

During his first visit to Warsaw after re-election as prime minister of the UK, David Cameron found an
ally in support of one of his ideas to reform the EU. Rafał Trzaskowski, the Polish minister for Europe,
speaking on behalf of the Polish government, officially endorsed the British position to strengthen
national parliaments in EU policymaking. Yet, the proposals to date either require treaty changes or
are merely technical adjustments. In fact, much more could be achieved by enhancing the mechanisms
of inter-parliamentary cooperation within the existing scope of the treaties. Although this would play
very well with the current institutional climate of better regulation and more transparency, it also
requires a genuine political will on the side of EU institutions and Member States, which seem to be
the missing link.

T. GROSBOIS, Démocratie, in Dictionnaire historique de l’Europe unie, éd. P. GERBET, G. BOSSUAT et T. GROSBOIS, Bruxelles, 2009, p.378-382.

Ce dictionnaire présente une originalité : il se place résolument dans la perspective historique, indispensable pour comprendre les singularités – qui paraissent parfois illogiques – des structures qui se sont développées pour aboutir au système européen tel que nous le connaissons aujourd’hui. Depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, le “chantier européen” n’a cessé d’évoluer. L’unité de l’Europe s’affirme maintenant dans l’Union européenne compétente dans les domaines politiques, économiques et sociaux, dotée d’une monnaie unique et élargie à la plupart des États de l’Europe géographique. Il s’agit donc d’un phénomène très complexe, résultant du jeu de forces diverses, variable selon les époques, dont la compréhension est facilitée par la connaissance de l’évolution historique. D’où l’utilité d’un dictionnaire qui précise l’origine et le développement des éléments constitutifs de ce grand mouvement vers l’unité : les hommes dont les idées et l’action ont poussé à l’organisation de l’Europe, penseurs, militants, hommes politiques ; les idéologies politiques qui ont intégré progressivement la notion d’Europe ; l’opinion publique dans les différents pays, favorable en principe mais capable de s’opposer sur des problèmes particuliers ; les États nationaux, leur attitude à l’égard de l’Europe et leur rôle dans ses institutions ; les institutions européennes, leurs origines et leurs réalisations.

This EU IDEA paper engages with ideational origins and normative political theories of European differentiated integration. Specifically, it examines a “graduated” policy of integration backed by European-wide referenda in light of the work of Jürgen Habermas and Hannah Arendt – two theorists who are strong advocates of European political integration and constitutionalisation. The paper illuminates justifications, advantages, dilemmas and problems of such differentiated integration with regard to its democratic legitimacy and normative as well as political-theoretical plausibility. While Habermas has proposed and refined this model, Arendt’s radically pro-European ideas can work as a cautioning corrective alerting to the risks and potentially disintegrating effects of differentiated solidarity and integration on the European project. While she would arguably see the democratic legitimation benefits of a European-wide constitutional referendum as suggested by Habermas, her work also points to the risks of further fragmenting or even dismantling the EU altogether.

After the negative referendum in France and Netherland in May-June 2005, how can we think the new european integration, in a double level integration or a federal union ? This conference published in The Federalist in 2006 opens some paths of reflexion.

Európska únia sa dnes dostala do paradoxnej situácie. Na jednej strane, prebieha mimoriadne intenzívna diskusia o nákladoch a benefitoch európskej integrácie, obsahu a výsledkoch európskych politík a pod. Európske témy sa v dôsledku krízy dostali do centra pozornosti. Na strane druhej rastie pocit, že integrácia stráca podporu občanov, stráca demokratickú legitimitu. Ako tento paradox vysvetliť?

The 2000s saw a shift in dynamic within the European Union. Continuing on its steadfast pace towards further integration, the Union sought to reform itself in the decade following the Nice Treaty. After the failed ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, Member States drafted what was to become the Lisbon Treaty in October 2007. Following the upset to the Constitutional Treaty by the French and Dutch rejection, Ireland again stagnated the integration process by holding a referendum on Lisbon’s ratification. Pursuant to the 1987 Crotty v. An Taoiseach decision by the Supreme Court, which lead to the tenth amendment of the Irish constitution, any significant changes to European Union treaties require an amendment to the Irish constitution before they can be ratified. Under Irish law, a change in the constitution must first undergo a referendum.

This article presents a rational reconstruction of the practice of constitutional politics in supranational polities. In doing so, it seeks to refocus the ongoing debate about constituent power in the EU on the question of who, under what conditions, is entitled to decide on the EU constitutional order. The analysis leads to a number of principles of democratic legitimacy , which include the political autonomy of the members of the state demoi as well as the political autonomy of the members of a cross-border demos. In explicating these parallel entitlements to political autonomy, I provide a systematic justification for the notion of a pouvoir constituant mixte, according to which the citizens should take control of EU constitutional politics in two roles – as European citizens and as Member State citizens.

The European Union claims independent legal authority and thus political power. The latter, in order to be effective, needs to be legitimated. It is a common topos that legitimation need not necessarily be procedural; however, the main claim of the democratic theory is that political power does have to be ‘democratically’ legitimated. But what does ‘democratically’ mean in the ‘postnational constellation’?
This paper traces the theories that have developed concerning the democratic legitimacy of the European Union and acknowledges the progress that has been achieved with the adoption of the theory of double legitimacy, according to which the EU is not merely an international organisation, based only on the will of the ‘high contracting parties’, the Member States, but a ‘Sympolity’(See D Tsatsos, The European Sympolity, Towards a New Democratic Discourse, Brussels: Bruylant, 2009) of states and peoples. At the same time, the study discards the arguments for assessing the legitimacy of the EU as a regulatory regime whose legitimacy should be assessed exclusively in terms of its results. It contends, however, that the theory of double democratic legitimacy is no longer sufficient for the present state of Union affairs. It also challenges the view that the only ‘pure’ type of democratic legitimacy would be that emanating from a single ‘European demos’, which would transform the Union into a state. It rather proposes that the most suitable type of ‘democratic’ legitimacy at the present historical and political conjuncture is a triple one, based on states, peoples and citizens alike.
The triple legitimacy theory aims both to describe the state-of-the-art of the Union today and also to serve as a normative yardstick for future developments: As for the former, triple legitimacy is already enshrined in some EU Treaty provisions, especially Articles 10, 11 and 12 TEU, newly inserted by the Lisbon Treaty, and the provision concerning the composition of the Convention (Art 48 par 3 TEU). These provisions have yet to be put into effect. As for the latter, further steps towards a more enhanced citizens’ approval of the Union law and politics need to be taken in accordance with the triple legitimacy theory, given a number of specific limitations: the particularity of European citizenship and sentiment of (non-) belonging, the asymmetry in the federal structure which follows from the flexibility clause, and the notion of sovereignty, which is conceptually deeply flawed and rather absent in pragmatic terms. Nevertheless, it remains popular as a discursive claim in favour of state-centrism, which preserves the particular status of states and nations.