European Parliament and Democratic Legitimacy in the EU

Introduction and Background

The EU has three legislative dimensions: the supranational aspect (the Commission), the intergovernmental aspect (the European Council and the Council of the EU), and the parliamentary aspect (the EP). Yet only one of these bodies is directly elected in a democratic fashion — the EP — which means that the overwhelming majority of the EU's legislative structure is specifically non-democratic in character. In other words, the only way the people of Europe can directly and democratically influence the shaping of EU policy is through the EP. This is undoubtedly why, as Ronald Holzhacker points out, "scholars, politicians and the public have bemoaned a lack of democratic legitimacy in the European Union (EU) for decades."¹

The question this essay aims to answer is: to what extent does the European Parliament (EP) provide democratic legitimacy to the European Union?

This paper argues that the EP provides democratic legitimacy to the European Union mostly aspirationally and in theory: it is designed as and resembles an authentic democratic body and foil to the unelected majority of the EU governance structure, but as the EP holds insufficient power and inadequately displays its democratic credentials to the people of Europe, it serves as a hollow institution in practice. This paper will explain the lack of democratic legitimacy in the EU by using Holzhacker and other theorists to explain how the EP works, comparing the EP to the UK's parliament, and discussing the issue of legitimacy from both sides — the side that argues the EP does increase democratic legitimacy in the EU, and the side that argues that in spite of that increase, it does not do enough to put power in the hands of the people.

Defining Democratic Legitimacy

Democratic legitimacy is defined as "citizen orientations toward the main principles of the political regime or the entire political system (i.e., democracy and not a particular administration, needs to be perceived as the best form of government or at least as the least evil)."² In terms of the EU, democratic legitimacy refers to the character of the EU being democratic and representational of the will of the European people, rather than reflecting the will of a select group of individuals in powerful governmental positions who are not chosen by European citizens.

In a legitimate democracy, those in power are accountable to the people: "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is the way Abraham Lincoln phrased it.³ Hage and Kaeding note that democratic legitimacy "can be assessed through a number of criteria."⁴ Among the main principles of democratic theory are "the representativeness and accountability of political decision makers."⁵ At the same time, legitimacy can be determined by the ends and not just the means — that is, by the output of the political system. If the end of democracy is to ensure a set of features well-regarded in modern society as characterized by freedom, security, and equality, one could argue that who makes legislative decisions is less important than the outcome of those decisions and whether they align with the features that modern society seeks to establish in its culture.⁶ However, the specific character of democratic legitimacy is the way in which power is distributed — and that character depends upon the people having a voice in selecting their leaders or representatives and in directly shaping the laws that govern them.⁷

The EP's Limited Power and Democratic Shortcomings

The EP falls into this definition rather poorly. It is largely impotent in terms of real power and gives more the impression of democracy than a legitimate reflection of this governmental style. While effort has been made to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EP and thus of the EU, this seldom extends to sufficient power being exercisable by the EP on its own initiative. The EP is limited in terms of the extent to which it can shape legislation. There are two trends in Europe at the moment — the populist trend (seen in countries from Italy to France to Germany and Hungary) and the globalist trend (also visible across Europe but more on the side of establishment politicians and global capitalists). For the EU to truly be representative of the people of Europe, the EP would require more power within the political system, but it does not hold such power, because that would go against the very aim of the EU: to bring member nations into conformity under one governing body so as to eliminate the risk of war, tension, and conflict. The EP is there to offer a concession to the populace, but not much more; the real decisions are made by technocrats who take a long-term view of the organization of Europe within a globalized context.

The people of Europe, by contrast, tend to take a less macrocosmic view, focusing more on their own nations and cultures. Fossum describes the situation thus: "The problem facing representative bodies is that populists will challenge the very merit of catching up with executives and experts because they will argue that it will fail to connect to citizens."⁸ Where powers are made available to the EP, these do not usually permit it to dictate any change in the course of European policy. As a result, the EP is weak — particularly in comparison to the European Commission — and both democratic scrutiny and democratic accountability of the EU as a whole are threatened.⁹

As Kohler shows, the EP is in a weakened state with respect to the authority vested in the European Commission.¹⁰ There is neither a great deal of democratic scrutiny nor accountability throughout the EU as a result. The rise of populist parties throughout Europe reveals the extent to which the people are dissatisfied with the hegemonic government at the heart of the EU. Theoretically, the EU has provided a channel for populist sentiment via the EP. In reality, the EP, as part of the EU, fails to represent the voices of diverse peoples. Italians are not Germans; Germans are not French; the French are not English; and the English are not Hungarians. Though their sympathies may sometimes align, each nation faces its own set of obstacles. Populist parties do express dissatisfaction with the EU's lack of democratic legitimacy by utilizing its most effective democratic mechanism — but this reflects the fact that, for the time being, they remain members of the EU and have little alternative other than to pursue the example set by the UK and seek a total exit.

Compared to parliament in the UK, the EP has little authority. Though the EP has managed to increase its direct influence over EU policy, its practical power remains very limited. It substantially lacks the right of legislative initiative, and its power is often limited to merely approving the Commission's proposals. In other words, it functions largely as a "Yes" parliament — an institution whose primary role is to rubber-stamp the Commission's directives. There is little accountability to the people, and the public, sensing as much, shows little interest at the ballot box, with voter turnout for European Parliament elections remaining persistently low.

Conclusion

Is the EU more democratically legitimate as a result of the EP? Its existence clearly increases the democratic legitimacy of the EU — certainly more so than the European Assembly that preceded it. But it does not necessarily follow that an increase in powers for the EP automatically increases the democratic legitimacy of the EU, and achieving perceived legitimacy will require much better engagement between MEPs, European institutions, and the people of Europe.

True democratic legitimacy is difficult to find anywhere in the world. The UK is a mixed picture; and even the United States has succumbed to bureaucratic heft, which impedes the ability of ordinary citizens to hold their officials accountable, as a "deep state" — a continuation of unelected officials from one administration to the next — maintains a foothold within the power structure. In the EU, the EP gives the impression of democracy, but the foothold of real power is wielded by a European equivalent of this unelected permanent class — and that is what makes all the difference. Understanding this embedded structure and its role in European government is where this topic deserves further exploration. As The Economist has pointed out, "European elections will neither lend new credibility to the European Parliament nor give the European Union greater democratic legitimacy."¹³ The reason is that the players deep within the state will nonetheless retain their power.

Bibliography

Aragon, Jorge. Political Legitimacy and Democracy.

Bonde, J. The Treaty of Lisbon: An Impact Assessment. London: Stationery Office, 2008.

Church, Clive and David Phinnemore. "The Rise and Fall of the Constitutional Treaty." In European Union Politics, edited by Michelle Cini. UK: Oxford University Press, 2007.

The Economist. "Elected, Yet Strangely Unaccountable," 2014. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/05/15/elected-yet-strangely-unaccountable

Fossum, John Erik. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the EU. Challenges and Options." ARENA Working Paper (2017): 73–90.

Häge, Frank M. and Michael Kaeding. "Reconsidering the European Parliament's Legislative Influence: Formal vs. Informal Procedures." European Integration 29, no. 3 (2007): 341–361.

Holzhacker, Ronald. "Democratic Legitimacy and the European Union." European Integration 29, no. 3 (2007): 257–269.

Kohler, Manfred. "European Governance and the European Parliament: From Talking Shop to Legislative Powerhouse." JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 52, no. 3 (2014): 600–615.

Lincoln, Abraham. "Gettysburg Address," 1863. http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/gettysburg/good_cause/transcript.htm

Selck, Torsten J. and Bernard Steunenberg. "Between Power and Luck: The European Parliament in the EU Legislative Process." European Union Politics 5, no. 1 (2004): 25–46.