Political Science

The meeting held by the member states of the European Union in the capital city of Portugal, Lisbon resulted in the signing of a treaty.  There was a feeling among the delegates that European Union required to address its democratic deficit allowing decision making that was more flexible. However, it is interesting to note that the Lisbon treaty came into force in December 1, 2009, eight years after the time the idea was conceived. Between the period of signing and coming into force of the treaty, many ideas have been brought forward with some people arguing that the treaty is in a position to address the European democratic deficit while others have stated that it makes the democratic deficit of Europe even more worse. This research paper is aimed at showing the contribution that the Lisbon Treaty would make towards addressing the European Union democratic deficit.

Background Information
The Lisbon treaty which was initially referred to as the reform treaty was signed by the member states of the European Union on December 13 2007. It however became operational later in December 2009. The treaty of Lisbon alters the Treaty on European Union which had been signed in 1992 as well as the Treaty of Establishing the European Community that had been signed in 1957 in Rome Italy. Some of the major changes that were included in the treaty includes majority voting that is more qualified in the council of ministers, more  European parliament involvement in the process of legislature, creation of the post of European Council President (long term) and finally the removal of the pillar system.  It is the Lisbon treaty that made the Charter of fundamental rights (human rights charter) legally binding.

European Democratic Deficit
The democratic deficit can be described as the concept that has been used basically to raise the idea that the European Union and various bodies that compose it lack democracy and seem inaccessible to the ordinary citizen because their method of operating is so complex. Many are of the view that the community institutional set up has always been controlled by the Council of the European Union as well as the European commission, both of which have been accused of lacking democratic legitimacy (Europa 2010, par 1 -4). Whenever a stage reaches for the integration process of Europe, the democratic legitimacy as a question has always arisen. Treaties such as the Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam have all triggered the introduction of democratic legitimacy principle in the institutional system, which is done by increasing the parliament powers in connection to the control and appointment of the Commission. The Nice European Council met in December 2002 prompting a public debate on the European Union future whereby the citizens would be involved in decision making. A European convention was tasked with examining the different ways of making better the democratic legitimacy. There have been different opinions on how the perceived deficit can be remedied with some arguing that the deficit is more structural and thus it is not possible to resolve it without first altering the European Unions nature.
         
This term was for the first time used by David Marquand in the year 1979 while referring to the European Economic Community, which latter became the European Union. In the European Union context, this term has been used to refer to what many believe is inability by an ordinary citizen to access the Union or poor representation of a common citizen as well as minimal accountability of the institutions that constitute the European Union (Mallat 2009). The reason why the democratic deficit has been referred as structural is because it is intrinsic in the EU construction as a supranational union which is neither a federal state (true) nor an intergovernmental organization.  The constitutional court of Germany for example states that the European Unions processes of decision-making are to a great extent of an international body and based on equality of all states. In a union that is supranational, this is often a challenge in reconciling the equality principle among the different states as well as the equality principle among the citizens.

There exists heterogeneity in the literature that pertains to European Unions democratic deficit. The main question that exists is whether there is democratic deficit in the European Union. Possible solutions to the problem are different in scope and range. To define the term democratic deficit, it is important perhaps for one to consider the particular model of democracy that he or she considers to be the best for the European Union. If the European Union deviates from this ideal, democratic deficit will be considered more pronounced. In large polities, it is obvious that delegation will be more obvious contrary to small polities where direct citizen representation is inevitable. From individual states to international bodies, there arises the need for delegation. However if delegation is to be considered, it is important for the right of the small groups to be considered otherwise they would be lost in the population (Jensen 2009).

Some have claimed that an international organization such as the EU must be subjected to popular control in order to be seen as democratic. This calls for the institutions to be developed to a point that can guarantee chances for political influence, participation as well as control. In addition, the political elite ought to have willingness to participate in public debate with political competition being created (Jensen 2009). Moreover, the representatives (elected) must be able to control international bureaucracies effectively. All these factors make some feel that the European Union, just like many international organizations manifests democratic deficit.  The European Union not being a nation state or a federation may not offer decision making venues beyond nation states. The European Unions supranational nature raises questions about the relationship between democratic processes at member-state level and decision-making at supranational level.

Some of the factors that are cited as contributing to the rise of democratic deficit in the EU include the taking of powers to the EU from the member states, lack of strength of the EU parliament as well as lack of European wide elections. There is also the question of the distance between the EU and the citizens. Others have stated that there is need to utilize the pluralist democracy. This is because (as they claim) EU has parliamentary democratic deficit. This shows that the debate on the European democratic deficit comes in different understandings, depending on the ideal model that has been chosen.

Literature regarding the European Unions democratic deficit can be termed as multi-faceted in addition to being engaging, a fact that makes it sometimes confusing. Its debates in different literatures sometimes look disagreeable, with their routes determined by the perceptions of the scholars based on the contending sources of legitimacy. Such debates have created many responses with a feeling that there can never be progress once the different sets of positions and arguments have been stated, contested and restated.

Before the signing of the Lisbon treaty, the term European Union democratic deficit was used to describe some factors within the Union. First, there was an argument that it was only the European Parliament members who were elected directly by the people. To make the situation even more complicated, the members of parliament were elected in countries that have different electoral laws. The second factor is that the twenty commissioners who have the obligation of overseeing the policies of the European Union were national appointees. This was despite the demands made by the EU parliament that the Commissions president (at least) should be elected directly. The third factor is that the EU parliament lacked authority to make eventual decisions. The council of ministers, who are representatives of governments of states composing EU were the holders of the real power. Criticism was based on the fact that power and decision making role was vested on institutions that were not elected directly by the people.
     
However, there are those who have argued that there is no basis in the claim that executive dominance in Europe is exaggerated as it is just a real picture of the situation (informal) at the national level. It has been stated that there is executive dominance at local level since only less than fifteen percent (on average) of the legislative initiatives that originate from the members of parliament become law if they are not supported by the executive. On the contrary, proposals that originate from the executives usually become law without any amendment. Furthermore, though the decisions are made at the European Union level, the implementation is primarily done by member nations. There are some who have argued that the European Union does not have a democratic deficit that is formal but rather an informal one because of a social deficit. Others have claimed that the reason that make people believe that there is deficit is because they do not want to vote and so generate the democratic deficit just by thinking that it exists,  a situation that cannot be solved easily by formal reform.

How the Lisbon treaty addresses the European Unions democratic deficit
Article two of the treaty of EU which was altered by the Lisbon treaty stresses that the EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The principle of democracy that expands its reach horizontally (EU institutions) and vertically- towards member countries- is confirmed in the Unions various human rights codifications. This is seen as a great step towards reducing the democratic deficit in EU though some problems such as equality of the EU citizens still stands, with some people feeling that citizens of larger countries are being favoured in the representation.

Many people have contributed different ideas on whether the treaty of Lisbon would bring about increased democracy among the members states of the European Union or not. Jerzy Buzek, the president of European parliament was quoted in Spiegel Online stating that the treaty is A Change for the better Europe. He argues that the Lisbon treaty is a representation of era of enhanced democracy among the members of the European Union as it gives more powers to the European Union parliament. In addition the budgetary and the legislative powers of the parliament have been doubled. Buzek also stated that the parliament would now liaise with the national ministers in deciding significant areas of justice and other issues such as asylum and immigration that include the applicants reception and finally the international trade policy.

Jerzy also argues that Lisbon treaty would contribute to improved governance, which is a recipe of democracy. This he says would be as a result of the increase of the powers of the parliament which would make decisions jointly with the Council of Ministers in different fields such as European Unions single market as well as policy on transport, environment, development and employment. He states that the treaty of Lisbon will change the way Europe is governed which will enhance the influence of the national parliament and citizens on how the European Union operates. He adds that the citizens of Europe will have more say in decision making. The treaty has facilitated the creation of the citizens initiative that allows one million people, members of the European states, to petition the European commission directly, bringing any legislative proposals that they feel would make the European Union more competent. The direct participation is seen to increase engagement with the European institutions that are influential.

The European Union has about five hundred million people. Many are of the belief that the Lisbon treaty will bring about a system rich in democratic accountability. This is due to the fact that all legislations will have to undergo thorough scrutiny from the council of ministers and the national parliaments as well as the European Union parliament. All the members of these institutions are all peoples representatives who have been elected. Others have stated that such kind of scrutiny is equal to none and is not found in any other international structures. Such scrutiny is vital as it makes the European Union more accountable and transparent to European people.

In support of the implementation of the treaty of Lisbon, Volkery Carsten, a Business Week author claims that the Lisbon treaty will bring more efficiency and democracy. He states that despite the increase in scepticism, this treaty will see several sensible changes being introduced. One of the examples that the writer gives is the dropping of the condition of unanimity in several areas. He discusses the fact that by the year 2014, a measure will only pass if it has been approved by not less than fifty five percent of the member states, which will have in addition compose not less than sixty percent of the total population of the European Union.

Such reforms will make the European Union more efficient in addition to being more democratic. He argues that this will be so because the European parliaments will possess increased powers in decision making. In addition all the national parliaments of the member states will get information on the European Union earlier so that they can have enough time to express their reactions and if the need be show their reservations instead of just sitting back and receive the faint accompli. However, national vetoes will still be applicable in areas as social, tax and foreign policy.

The proponents of the treaty have it that the treaty has significant measures that will bring the operations of the European Union near the member states making them more accessible. In addition to the citizens initiatives, new proposals have been made where permanent structures should be established to involve the churches and the civil society in the dialogue. There is a provision that a legislative proposal can be reviewed if a third of the national parliaments agree to it. In addition, a legislative proposal may be withdrawn or amended if half of the national parliaments show their discontentment.  Moreover, a national parliament may appeal to the European Court of Justice if it is discontented with a legislative proposal.

According to the report by the European parliament, the treaty of Lisbon would make the national and the European parliaments have a larger role when decisions are being made, and will increase the democratic profile of the European Union. The European parliament and the Council of ministers will in fact have equal footing in their capacities as lawmakers particularly in home affairs, justice and budgetary procedure. Any national parliament will have the right of objecting to proposals when it feels that a principle has not been respected. The parliament will be vested with powers to politically scrutinize especially through electing the Commissions president. Decisions that had previously been left to the Council must now get approval from the parliament.

The Europeans parliament will also have the right to choose the European Commission that includes its president and the European Union foreign minister (Leinen 2007, par. 3. The national parliaments will have the power to even make the commission change the draft legislation. When any initiative has gotten a million signatures from the EU members, the Commission will be obligated to consider putting that proposal on its agenda. This is a big step towards democracy as the European citizens will have more and direct influence on the politics of the European Union. In addition, majority voting that is qualified will be expanded to many policy areas doing away with the unanimous decision making.

In general, the Lisbon treaty that started being executed in 1st December 2009 has revised some important elements that had been associated with democratic deficit in Europe. They include the establishment of co-decision which has been adopted as the standard procedure of legislature. This has seen the increase of parliament powers to propose and shape legislation (Mulvey 2003). Next, the Lisbon treaty has placed a requirement that the council which is composed of the national governments to have their sessions publicly during their formal meetings. Thirdly, the national parliaments must each be given draft legislation by the commission earlier. In addition, the treaty of Lisbon revisits the so called Principle of subsidiary as essential to the European Union. It has also allowed for the creation of the citizens right of initiative that forces the Commission to fix a proposal for legislation in its agenda as long as it has been signed by one million citizens from the European Union member states.

This Lisbon treaty is significant to the addressing European Union democratic deficit as it has measures that can bring the EU workings nearer to the member nations as well as making them accessible. Proposals have been included that will see the churches as well as the civil society in dialogue. This is in addition to the Citizen initiative that allows one million citizens from at least fifteen members states to instigate a policy. The most important inclusion is the clause that increases the power of the national parliaments to debate on a proposal that is also being debated by the EU parliaments as well as the Council. This makes the European council to be more accountable to their parliaments and people at large.

Critics of the ability of the Lisbon Treaty to deal with the EU democracy deficit
Despite being of the view that the treaty is very significant in addressing the European Unions democratic deficit, others are of a different view. Anthony Coughlin who is the director of the national platform EU research and information centre based in Dublin has claimed that in fact the Lisbon treaty has made the European Unions democratic deficit far worse. He argues that the treaty establishes a European Union that will be separate (constitutionally) from its constituent states. According to him, this will lead to the twenty seven European Union members losing their sovereignty and thus end up being regional states in a federation. He argues that many European citizens have no knowledge of these changes because they have not been given a chance to debate and express their views through referendum (in exception of Irish citizens).

There are some who have claimed that the Lisbon treaty carries power politics rather than of co-determination. The evidence that has been given to support the allegation is that in twenty six European Union countries, the ordinary citizens do not vote on the treaty directly though a large numbers of people in those countries preferred a popular vote. This is seen as an abuse of democracy since it is only Ireland that conducted a national referendum. Others have indicated that the haste that has been applied in the enforcement of the treaty will in fact be a means to kill democracy. They argue that the enforcement of the treaty should take time allowing the people at the grassroots to air their views. The Lisbon treaty has also been accused of undermining democratic principles which include the separation of powers, direct democracy as well as the democratic relocation of rights (sovereign). It also has some issues that many of the people in member countries vividly reject.

Conclusion
The signing of the Lisbon treaty was a new dawn to the future of the European Union. For several years now, the term democratic deficit has been used to bring out the idea that the European Union lack or has minimal democracy with clear indications that it was not easy for the ordinary citizens to access it.  Many had felt that it was controlled by the Council and the Commission. However, with the signing of the Lisbon treaty there are high hopes that the democratic deficit of the EU will be addressed. This has been evident will several steps being taken to tackle the deficit. Such include the empowerment of parliaments as well as giving the ordinary citizens more say in the decision making process of the EU. Such changes will be important as they will be instrumental in reducing the democracy deficit in the European Union. The decision making process of the European Union will be brought closer to the people through their national parliaments, European Union parliament as well as well through citizen initiative. Such a step will be make the European Union become more citizen-friendly and it will become more embraced by the European citizens. However, for democracy to be enhanced, it may be important to have a system whereby the commission officials such as the president are elected directly just as it happens in the United States of America. To reach such a point however, it may mean that the EU has either been transformed into a state-nation or a federation, a step that may not be supported by many. Though there are some challenges, it is a fact that positive steps have been taken.