Is the European Union democratic?

The European Union is often subject to criticism of its operations. The European
Union was not attracting sufficiently the Europeans residents and is now perceived by many
as undemocratic, as well as evidenced by the rise of the so-called political formations "euroskeptic" within the European area. The European elections are often synonymous with lack of
Europeans voters who "avoid" more these elections compared to their national elections.
Indeed, the European Union is seen by many as a supranational organization not
sufficiently taking into account the particularities of regional or local, imposing "its" own
vision to the nations and removing them from their prerogatives...
In sum, it is perceived as an entity "apart", independent and with little connection with
the daily life of the citizens of the EU or the inverse, as a democratic organization. In
February 2000, the text adopted at the Conference of the representatives of the Governments
of the member-states notes itself that it recognizes the need to improve and ensure the
democratic legitimacy and transparency of the Union and its institutions, in order to bring
closer the Union to the citizens of the member-states .
The question is therefore whether or not the European Union functions democratically
and determine first and foremost comes the sense of lack of democracy within the EU. To
meet this thesis, we agree in advance to analyze from where comes the lack of interest of
Europeans for the European Union, based initially in the feeling of an EU that would be
undemocratic or at least not enough. It will also be important to analyze to what extent this
feeling, associated with a certain de-politicization, and could make the bed of populism,
political method currently breaking on the countries of the EU. Then we move on to the actual
topic and try to analyze and interpret the process of decision-making within the EU. The
question of the role of the European Parliament compared to other European institutions
where members are not directly elected by the people must also be addressed, as well as the

question of the specific role of the European political parties. The end of the analysis shall,
after evaluation of the democratic nature of the institutions of the European Union, to develop
lines of thought for the improvement of this democratic character in order to make the closest
Europeans of the organization which is yet a fundamental place in their political life overall.

I.

The lack of interest or an opposition to the European project

The reasons for lack of interest

The conclusion is obvious: the majority of European citizens are not familiar with the
functioning of the EU and its institutions in large part because the life of the European
Parliament and the other institutions y related are not interested.
The first reason is not actually within the competence of the European institutions,
their function or their decision making, since it's the impact of national debates on the process
of the elections. This effect exists mainly because of the Organization of the elections for the
European Parliament. In fact, the organization on a national basis is not really explained to
citizens in order to properly understand the European issues. Often these elections are subject
to recovery by the politicians of the different countries of the EU who use it as a forum to
discuss national and even regional or local, sometimes even without links with the European
Union. Thus, certain European elections are actually a test for the majority in place who
will often find themselves in bad posture during a "vote sanction." Given this recurring assent
of the majority in these votes, the ruling parties were once in an urge, in order to mobilize
voters and to advertise for the elections of the European Parliament. In addition, it also
happens that other national elections take place in the same time as the European elections,
shadowing them de facto. This is particularly in the case of Belgium: the European elections
held on the same date as the regional elections. (Rozenberg, 2009)

Then, the debates in the European Parliament appear overall less attractive than the
national debates, not on the form. This is due to the different languages used in this
Parliament, therefore requiring a translation work important and bearing de facto the prejudice
to the liveliness of the exchanges between members, removing the spectacular aspect that
exists in the national Chambers. (Rozenberg, 2009)
The activity of MEPs also suffers from a lack of visibility on the part of the media.
This lack of media impact undoubtedly played against the MEPs and European instances seen
therefore as "remote" of citizens. This feeling is enhanced by the absence of strong divisions
between the different groups. There are indeed not really clear and clear-cut distinctions
between groups (left hand right...). However, this indifference nonetheless, allowing MEPs to
be more 'independent' towards their national constraints and can, therefore, be more in tune
with the logics of functioning of the EU and its institutions. (Schmidt, 2007)
Finally, the European agenda is not often modeled across different national priorities,
while strengthening the feeling of indifference among the European population. (Rozenberg,
2009)

Anti-democratic sentiment, de-politicization and populism

The growing disinterest of many Europeans for the EU project usually results in a form of
rejection or fear towards it. This is what the British political journalists of the 1980s were
translating and as still used today a form of "Euro-skepticism", a term which meant that the
basic conservative members disagreed with the policy of their party. Today, we see arising
everywhere in Europe, political groups designating themselves as Euro-skeptics, making the
rejection of the European Union their iron lance. The majority of these formations come from
conservative or radical right opposed to a European project perceived as "globalist" and
crushing cultures and national sovereignty (or even regional or local), then a minority comes

from the extreme left, which sees the EU as an ultraliberal instrument and head of bridge of
the advance of capitalism in Europe, social destroyer. According to Yves Surel, professor of
political science at the University of Paris II, there are in fact two forms of Euro-skepticism: a
hard form that rejects the outset of the European integration project (it is often extreme-right
wing parties) and a softer form criticizing only certain forms or political embodiments.
(Bouillaud, 2011) (Surel, 2011)
This growing disinterest brings a de-politicization of the Europeans citizens who made
the cradle of movements known as "populists". The populism, technical (and not ideology)
policy based on withdrawal and the formulation of simplistic solutions to often complex
problems, so take this lack of interest in European issues to castigate a Europe perceived as a
set of distant technocrats from the popular concerns. It is then interesting to ask the question
whether this populism emanates directly from the rejection of the European project or
whether, instead, how works the EU does not directly support populism access. Clearly the
supposed absence of democracy (or democratic control) and transparency of the EU
institutions is so important to create a vast movement of self-absorption and opposition to the
project itself? (Nivet, 2011)

What is the real amount of democracy in the EU?

Decision-making process of the EU
In order to well understand the real level of democracy that exists in the EU, we firstly
recall briefly and simply the classic decision-making process of the EU. The European
institution with which begins the legislative process is the European Commission. It is indeed
the EC who has the burden to issue the bills. The European Parliament and the Council of the
EU are the two European bodies that support the legislative process at the level of the
endorsement of the different bills submitted by the European Commission. The European

Parliament contains deputies elected by universal direct suffrage of different political

tendencies grouped within political European parties, representing each European state based
on its size. The EU Council is the representative body of national Governments and
participates in the publication of laws. In most cases, it takes the co-decision and between the
two it is the prevailing one. (Lagasse, 2010)
If the institutions of the European Union have the majority of the legislature, memberstates however have their own role regarding the issues of common security, relations with the
outside and social policy. This is then an intergovernmental decision taken unanimously by all
national governments of the EU member countries. This intergovernmental decision-making
is also visible in the joint management of the economic crisis of the euro zone'. (Lagasse,
2010)
At the executive level these are the European Council and the European Commission
which are in charge. Clearly, the European Council delegates to the Commission the
Executive. Indeed, since the single act, the European Council thus directly took part in the
execution of the laws passed by the Parliament and the Council of the EU but he delegated
these powers to the European Commission. In order to function effectively, the Commission
has an administration and specific assistances, which also rely on national institutions
responsible for implementing the European directives. The European Commission members
are chosen by the President of the Commission based on their skills and not their belonging to
some political family. However, the President is designated by the European Council on
political color. This means that it must automatically belong to the political family the most
represented in the European Parliament, which must approve before the designation is made
by the European Council. European Council, an additional executive power to the
Commission therefore, is constituted of the President of the Commission and heads of States

and Governments of the 27 countries of the Union. No member of the European Executive is
in fact directly elected by a popular consultation or election. (Lagasse, 2010)
Finally, the EU has a judicial body: the European Court of Justice, which is assisted by
its court. Its members must have previously been lawyers or judges in their respective
countries before to reside there as law officers. Its role is not only to ensure the proper
application and compliance with the standards European but also receive complaints of a state
member of the EU, the Commission or any citizen or association of citizens. It can also
receive notices of national courts. (Lagasse, 2010)
The EU has therefore, as well the Parliament elected by the European people,
associated to the EU Council that guarantees a representation of national interests. However,
the European Commission, both legislative and executive body, has no members elected by
universal suffrage, although its president has to belong to the family policy the most
represented.

European political parties

The European political parties have an important role to play in the exercise of
democracy in the EU. However, this role is limited by the national constraints that these
parties are also endorsing. Indeed, all too often, these are national themes which are carried by
these parties is yet wanting European. In reality, practical way, European political parties
are based more on a conglomeration of national parties than on a real organization that ties
within Europe have become national parties then of simple "branches" or national divisions of
the European head. (Bendjaballah, 2009)
Two major elements will however increase the power of the European political groups:
the European Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. These two documents place greater
emphasis on the role of European political parties, notably through the organization of the

reflection about the perfection of representative democracy within the EU and their
participation in the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament.
This manifest emphasis of the role of European political parties is therefore a significant
democratic advance. Indeed, as pointed out by several Europeans scholars in a study on
democracy within the EU: "no modern society cannot claim to representative democracy
without having a structure of political parties in order to assimilate and channel the subtle
political preferences of millions of voters in a given political system". (INSTITUT FUR
EUROPAISCHE POLITIK, NOTRE EUROPE and THE FEDERAL TRUST, 2009)

The power of the European Parliament

After taking account of democratic lack within the EU institutions, the various
European treaties signed since the Single Act will each time in the sense of a widening of the
powers of the European Parliament. However this democratization via the European
Parliament has been vulnerable, somewhat contradictorily, by popular referendum such as the
French and Dutch in 2005, who have both led to the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty
European while the latter expanded further the powers of the European Parliament.
(Rozenberg, 2009) (Verluise, 2004)
In fact, the European Parliament has passed from a body which was almost exclusively
advisory in 1957 to a legislative body very similar to national legislators. Its major difference
however lies in its inability to create laws and the remaining task in law creation devolved to
the European Commission. However, given the logic of cooperation, or even co-decision,
that exists with the European Council, he is now involved in the development of legal norms,
in the recommendations to the States members of the EU, in some international agreements...
(INSTITUT FUR EUROPAISCHE POLITIK, NOTRE EUROPE and THE FEDERAL
TRUST, 2009)

Moreover, the Parliament can now ask for a direct way of information about the
activities of the Commission and indirectly. It also has the possibility to be involved
throughout the process for the preparation of the budget, while it did have a purely advisory
role in the beginning. Finally, the European Parliament also participates in the designation of
the members of the European Commission. (INSTITUT FUR EUROPAISCHE POLITIK,
NOTRE EUROPE and THE FEDERAL TRUST, 2009)
The adoption of the Lisbon Treaty reinforces considerably the role of the European
Parliament on two major axes. First of all, it works now as a form of "political control" on the
European Commission, with which it now takes joint decisions in legislative matters. Then, it
requires the European Commission to take account of the results of national elections to
choose the President of the European Commission, although the President is not directly
chosen by Parliament. (Simon Hix and Sara Hageman, 2009)
The new reform package regarding the European Parliament proves that there is a real
willingness to democratization of the institutions at the European level, a real will for the
democratization of the institutions.

III. Democratic Europe

The European Union appears in fact as a system of representative democracy at a
supranational level with a complex governance system. It is mainly this complexity, combined
with a lack of visibility, which creates the anti-democratic feeling. However, this overall
knowledge of the European institutions by the citizens of the countries that makes up is solely
responsible for this feeling. Stating also that much progress have been made to refine this
democracy, including by granting more powers to the European Parliament. There was
therefore a real taking of conscience from the part of the "Eurocrats" in the importance of
democratization of Europe. In addition, the EU also has representative bodies of national

interests at the legislative and executive levels: the European Union Council and the European
Council. At the judicial level, there is also the capability to control the European institutions
and punishing them if they exceed their powers. Vivien Schmidt, Professor at Boston
University, noted in 2007 about the functioning of the EU "with a shared sovereignty, varying
boundaries, a composite identity, and complex governance, it is clear that one cannot expect
the Union to be a democracy of the same type as that of a nation-State. The European
supranational democracy is very different from the national democracy: It appears
fragmented [...] because in fact, at the level of the EU, the mechanisms of legitimation are
shared between the supranational and national levels. (Schmidt, 2007)
European democracy appears as special and complex; noting that it has a significant
impact on the democratic functioning of states which form part. Indeed, the disappearance of
public policy of the national sphere and the absence of direct decision-making on European
decisions leads inevitably to a de-politicization at national level. As a result also, given some
form of dissatisfaction with the EU, a rejection of national political elites in some European
citizens. However, the European Union also had positive effects on democracy and individual
freedoms and human rights in the states that compose the union. As such, good number of
former candidates, which today have become members of the EU, had to meet certain
conditions which have raised their level of democracy.
The European Union and its institutions therefore have a democratic functioning
although this European supranational democracy is still imperfect. In fact, it lacks a direct link
to its electorate because there is no real electoral political system at European level.

A European democracy to perfect or a communication to restore

We can conclude by saying that it will actually suffice a better communication or more
information on the part of the EU to reconcile European citizens with its institutions.

However, it is clear that a better understanding of the EU, its institutions, its powers, its
decision-making process and its project would greatly help the European citizens to bring
them closer to the European Union. To do this, better information for European political life
must be enabled, either through traditional media (radio, television and print media) or
through new technologies (blogging, internet etc.). It is first and foremost the responsibility of
national politicians who must explain what their elected representatives are doing in Brussels
and European elected representatives which must intervene more often for the same purpose.
A way of approach is also by developing the proximity of the European Journalism, which
means to help journalists make connections between what is happening in the EU-institutions
and local situations. Make public the European political debate would go also in this sense.
Other more "participatory" initiatives may also be undertaken: establishment of "education for
Europe" courses in the schools of the countries of the EU, ensure better visibility to major
European events...
If the communication of Europe is perhaps to review, this improvement will however
provide no response as to the feeling of a lack of democracy Europe. It's also dishonest to
treat the problem as only pedagogy because the lack of democracy within the EU is one of its
main concerns since the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. This is therefore not giving reason to
the populists in simplistic solutions and folds identity they offer but to respond effectively to
the issues that they rise precisely. In fact the solution is to fill this gap, between the places
where the European decisions are taken and the places where they are applied.
This gap can be filled only by a significant increase of democracy within the EU.
The best vector in this matter is the European Parliament which should be increasing the
prerogatives. With regard to referendums for ratifications of the European treaties, like those
that took place in the Netherlands or France, should let some countries organize because they
increase the risk of being rejected in the popular consultation, not because of the treaties

themselves but because of the national situation had little to do with the European Union. It is
however not to reject the referendums, the ideal being put in place in the future referendum
unique Europe-wide, followed by then ratification by Member States. The EU would
therefore gain in transparency, clarity, efficiency, but also in a democracy. Also situations
local "overflowing" on the institutions of the EU, it should be noted the urgency of European
programs defined for national and European political parties. EU must also work for the
establishment of political parties which are truly trans-European. In the future, EU should put
an end to the monopoly of the national parties on the European election because the
derivatives described at the beginning of this analysis. These trans-European parties should
become a privileged place of reflection between national parties to set an ideal and a
European program clear, to relay popular aspirations to European policies.
The case of the European Commission is actually trickier. Its effectiveness depends on
its degree of politicization. A more "politicized" Commission risk - not to be at the expense of
the powers of the Commissioners? Similarly, will the election of the President of the
Commission by the European political parties not to add to the ambient complexity?
In reality, many accusations against the EU deliberately play map of criticism by
lending powers it has not. It is therefore a fear of imposed change from the outside that
irritates a significant part of the Europeans. However, it becomes increasingly important that
the EU reaffirms its project and comes closer to the people who perceive it as too remote
from the real concerns of the peoples.
Facing these democratic shortcomings, it is becoming increasingly urgent that the
European Union becomes aware of the challenges that lie ahead. In the future, it will have to
reconsider his project as a truly political project. More great democratic advances can bridge
the gap between the EU institutions, their lives and their operation, and the European citizen.
It is only in this way that Europe can assert itself as a supranational democracy respectful of

national, regional or local particularities, complete and that it will then cut the grass under the
feet of the populist political parties. This democratization will, finally, make more easily
acceptable political unions between States, particularly in the current case of controls of the
budgetary and socio-economic policies following the crisis. No political union is possible
without prior democratic union.

Bibliography
Bendjaballah, S. (2009). Politisation du Parlement Europen et. Politique europenne, pp. 103-127.
Bouillaud, C. (2011). Leuroscepticisme nest-il quun mot ? Politique europenne, pp. 243-254.
INSTITUT FUR EUROPAISCHE POLITIK, NOTRE EUROPE and THE FEDERAL TRUST. (2009).
La dmocratie au sein de lUE et le rle du Parlement europen.
Lagasse, C.-E. (2010). Les institutions europennes aprs le trait de Lisbonne. ERASME
EDITIONS.
Nivet, B. (2011). L'Union europenne : une dpolitisation propice au populisme. Revue internationale
et stratgique, pp. 16-27.
Rozenberg, O. (2009). Linfluence du Parlement europen et lindiffrence de ses lecteurs : une
corrlation fallacieuse ? Politique europenne, pp. 7-36.
Schmidt, V. (2007). LUnion europenne: cre-t-elle ou dtruit-elle la dmocratie? Politique trangre,
pp. 517-528.
Simon Hix and Sara Hageman. (2009). Could changing the electoral rules fix European parliament
elections? Politique Europenne, pp. 37-52.
Surel, Y. (2011). lUnion europenne face aux populismes. Les brefs de notre Europe.

Verluise, P. (2004, January). LUnion europenne, une dmocratie paradoxale? Retrieved May 15,
2013, from Diploweb: www.diploweb.com