Political Science

0. Abstract
The question on whether the European Union (EU) is democratically deficit has led to huge debates among many scholars. European Union is the most developed international organization that provides a laboratory for observing the development of the democratic structures both within and without its member states. It is therefore imperative to note that the democratic deficit has wider implications that reach beyond the European Union and affects the critical issues of future developments within the democratic theory. This paper seeks to understand the basis of the arguments about the European Unions democratic deficit and the effects of the European integration process. It distinguishes between three types of legitimacy, and the authors are discussed according to which type of legitimacy that underlines their analysis of the democratic deficit. It concludes that, in order to further the debate, Scholars on the democratic deficit and legitimacy debates in the EU must be able to transcend old barriers and should be able to fully develop proper models of supranational democracy and legitimacy within the EU.

1.  Introduction
Democratic deficit can be considered as occurring when a democratic organization or institutions or even the government is deemed as falling short of fulfilling the principles of the parliamentary democracy in their day to day operations (Barry, 1991). European Union is the most developed international organization that provides a laboratory for observing the development of the democratic structures both within and without its member states. It is therefore imperative to note that the democratic deficit has wider implications that reach beyond the European Union and affects the critical issues of future developments within the democratic theory (Elster, 1998).

The question whether the European Union is democratically deficit has been debated a lot by a number of scholars, however, due to the nature of the definition of democracy, in relation to democratic countries, the European Union can be said to be democratically deficit (Thomas, 2009). The democratic character and the effectiveness of the European Union has been questioned by a number of scholars including politicians, researchers and even journalists who have always characterized the European Union as suffering from democratic deficit or lack of democratic accountability. A number of claims have been made that the European Union have diverted a lot from the ideals of democracy.

In relation to this, it is essential to give due attention and importance in studying the various arguments about the democratic deficit of the European Union because the practice of democracy within this international organization has a huge influence in the lives of the people within the European continent. In addition, the way democracy is practiced and applied in the European Union also has an effect with other countries in the world, especially for those states wherein this international organization has established diplomatic relations with. Moreover, since the European Union is one of the most successful international organizations in the world, it is pivotal to identify whether there is indeed a democratic deficit in its processes. It cannot be prevented that other international organizations will use the European Union as a model, especially when it comes to governance that involves supranational characteristics. As such, it is important to identify whether there is democratic deficit in the European Union in order for other international organizations to properly address this issue. Lastly, the situation of democracy in the European Union is an important issue of study because the concept of democratic governance is vital in the lives of people, especially in terms of ensuring that their rights are being protected.

The objective of this paper is to understand the basis of the arguments about the European Unions democratic deficit and the effects of the European integration process. The assumptions and arguments on the economic integration could have led to the political integrations which have a tendency to apply to the European institutions standards of legitimacy and democracy. This has been derived from the theory and practices of parliamentary democracies.

2.  The Democratic Deficit
Democratic deficit has been defined as the gap between the powers transferred to the community level and the control of the elected parliament over them (Williams, 1991162). On an abstract level, democratic deficit is reflected on the scientific models of democracy that has been considered to be appropriate for the international organization, i.e. European Union, United Nation NATO, etc (Hix, 1999). Therefore, if an international organization diverges from these specific models of democracy, the international organization, in this case specifically the European Union is considered to be democratically deficit.

Democratic deficit has been a popular term among the critics of the European Union, the lack of functioning democracy reflects largely on the failings of the European parliament to give the Europeans people their rightful say in the Unions affairs (Beetham,  Lord, 1998). The failure of the European parliament to give European Union citizens their right say in the Unions affair has been considered to be deficiency of democracy in the European Union. More often, as the size of the polity increases, there could be a decrease in the effective citizen participation therefore increasing democratic deficit within the organization. In large organizations like the European Union, delegation of authorities is almost inevitable and this has brought forth a bargain among the political and bureaucratic elites (Thomas, 2009). The need for the delegation of authorities and responsibilities within the European Union has become more pronounced as a result of the increase in scale from the individual nation-state to international organization. Though delegation in large scale organizations like the European Union is of dire importance, it has caused a diminishing effect on the effectiveness of citizen participation. According to the ideals of democracy within the European Union, maximum participation of entities from all quarters is of high significance as it promotes democracy (Thomas, 2009). However, this has not been the case in the European Union. Due to its large scale representative structures, the European Union has fallen short of the ideals especially in comparison with those of smaller counterparts and those of democratic countries (Elster, 1998).

A number of scholars have debated greatly on the way the European Union is democratically deficit. According to Dahl, it is claimed that the international organizations more specifically the European Union, should be subject to popular control for it to claim to be having democracy within itself. However, with regards to the European Union, Dahl claims that the organization is only subject to unlimited control among the few political and bureaucratic entities and this has led to the democratic deficit in the European Union. On comparing the European Union with democratic countries, it clearly indicates that the international organization requires the development of the institutions within itself in order for it to be able to provide opportunities from the political participation, influence and control that is equal to the effectiveness of the democratic countries. Dahl argued that the democratic deficit within the European Union might lead to the possibility of the emergence of guardianship by the European Union. It is therefore clear that the democratic structures at the nation level have not been properly implemented at the supranational level (Dahl, 1999).

In order for an international organization to be democratic, first, it has to consider the output of the political process. It entails the consideration of getting to know what the people want, the policies that constitute the democratic reflection of the voters preference and the certainty of the legislative process to lead to the implementations of these policies. All these issues lie at the heart of democracy.

3. Legitimacy Problem within the European Union
There is a large overlap between the literature dealing with democratic deficit and problems of legitimacy within the European Union. A number of scholars have agreed on the democratic deficit, others have gone beyond and claimed that the models of pluralism have failed to address the issues of democratic legitimacy in the European Union (Beetham,  Lord, 1998). The legitimacy problems have been attributed to the asymmetric relationship between the constitutional and the popular element of democratic ideals (Kartz, 2001). Katz (2001) argued that the compositional element of the European Union has become dominant at the European Union level and therefore the democratic deficit is in essence a democratic overload that has been caused by the insufficient of the possibilities for the majority to actually exercise their constitutional powers. The legitimacy problems in the European Union can therefore be categorized into three procedural, efficiency and social legitimacy (Hix, 1999).

3.1 Procedural legitimacy
The procedural legitimacy within the European Union can be further subdivided into two the electoral approach and the governance approach. According to the electoral approach, scholars have claimed that the legitimacy problems lies on the fact that there is a fundamental lack of proper electoral institution at the European level and hence the European Union can be considered as having legitimacy issues with regards to the electoral realms (Barry, 1991). According to scholar, the international institution has led to the hollowing of the national democracies because it has deviated from the ideal of promoting democracies in all the member states and instead, due to lack of the proper electoral approach, it has diminished national democracies (Hix, 1999). Other scholars like Decker (1990) have also attributed the democratic deficit and legitimacy problems to the institutional deficiencies of the electoral, party system and the lack of European demonstration. Due to the transfer of competence to the European level, the European Union supranational characteristic have found less response at its social base among the parties and the voters therefore producing democratic deficits and problems relating to legitimacy (Barry, 1991). Hix (1999) also argued that the lack of European wide party system and the absence of a clearly recognizable parliamentary opposition have been a major hindrance to the development of the democracy and legitimacy in the European Union.

The governance issues also affect the procedural legitimacy with regards to networks and deliberation of authorities and responsibilities (Beetham,  Lord, 1998). The presence of the strong entities and personalities within the European Union has also provided legitimacy problems within the organization. In contrast with the general public, the strong publics within the EU has been considered to be a sphere of institutionalized deliberation of responsibilities and the process of decision making within the  European Union (Barry, 1991).

3.2 Efficiency legitimacy
The output or efficiency legitimacy as view by scholars focuses on the normative issues of proving that there is no democratic deficit that is considered to be specific to the EU but rather focuses on the question of the quality of the democracy in the European Union (Thomas, 2009). The EU has been viewed by scholars as a polity that is concerned with handling the issues of the European Unions member states. However, it has been argued by scholars that the European Union as the polity that handles these issues  have not been able to handle them properly therefore producing legitimacy issues relating to its efficiency. According to Katz (2001), the complicated system of checks and balances within the European Union has led to the conception of legitimacy problems and being a pluralist model that is coupled with the protection of minorities at the expense of the majoritys ideals.

3.3 Social legitimacy
According to Shapiro and Hacker-Cordon (1997), a more fundamental issue is the possibility of democratizing the European Union with regards to the citizens of the member states. The lack of democratization at the European level depicts that there is limited participation of the citizens of the European Unions member states. The lack of effective citizen participation depicts that there is poor relationship between the European Union and the citizens and therefore leading to the problems of social legitimacy (Thomas, 2009).

3.4 Multiple Points of Legitimacy
Different kinds of legitimacy entails that they may either reinforce or exclude each other. According to Lord and Magnette (2004), there are four vectors of legitimacy that coincides with the Heretiers five elements. The five elements of Heretier are indirect, parliamentary, technocratic and procedural legitimacy. First, the indirect legitimacy pertains to the principle of the European Union, which states that the legitimacy of this international organization is grounded on its member states legitimacy as well as its respect to their sovereignty. Second, the parliamentary legitimacy vector describes the perspective that the European Union is the main source of legitimacy because it is a combination of directly elected parliamentary body and representatives coming from the member states. Third, technocratic legitimacy is based on the regulatory approach, which is proposed by Majone. Lastly, procedural legitimacy pertains to transparency, proportionality, legal certainty and the consultation of stakeholders in the decision-making process (Jensen, 2009, p. 6)

4.  Reasons for democratic deficit in the European Union
The European integration has led to the increase in the powers of the executive and a decrease in the national parliamentary control (Follesdal,  Hix, 2006). At the national level in Europe, the central structure of the representative governments in all the member states of the European Union is the fact that the government is accountable to the voters through the parliaments and therefore the parliament can hire or fire the cabinet. The parliaments also scrutinize the behavior of the of the governments ministers.  Fundamentally, scholars have argued that there seems to be an exchange in the democratic system between giving the majority its way and protecting the rights of the minorities, at the European Union level it have been seen to be dominated by executive actors, national ministers and the government appointees in the commission (Barry, 1991). This is not the reason for the democratic deficit in the European Union but rather the actions of these executives agents at the European level have gone beyond the control of the national parliaments. Despite the establishment of the European Affairs Committees in all the parliaments, the policies of the European Union have been depicted as being isolated from the national parliamentary domestic policy-making process. The European integration on the other hand has led to a decrease in power of the national parliaments and an increase in power of the executives (Thomas, 2009).

4.1 Arguments Proving the Democratic Deficit in the European Union
According to Schimitter, an issue that has led to the democratic deficit in the European Union has been attributed by the permissive consensus and more specifically the disappearance of this consensus. His claims is based on the fact that there has been some compelling evidence that the citizens in the European Union member states have become increasingly aware of the impacts of the European Union legislation on their day to day lives (Dahl, 1999). Therefore, these citizens have considered the European Union as a secretive, remote, unintelligible and unaccountable. Most scholars and analysts of the democratic deficit within the European Union have argued that there is a weakness in the European parliaments. There has been a tradeoff between the powers of the European parliaments and that of the national parliaments. The increase in the powers of the European parliament have led to the decrease in the powers of the national parliaments therefore leaving more powers within the European Union which has led to the democratic deficit and problems of democratic legitimacy (Follesdal,  Hix, 2006). The other factor that has led to the democratic deficit in the European Union is the successive reforms of the European Union treaties in the mid 1980s. These treaties led to the dramatic increase in the powers of the European parliament though other scholars claimed that the governments in the Council within the European Union have more powers than the European parliament. Though under the co-decision procedure, the European parliament has equal legislative powers with the council the European Union legislation is still passed under the consultation procedure and this means that the parliament has limited power of delay therefore causing democratic deficit and problems of legitimacy within the European Union (Follesdal,  Hix, 2006).

Another factor that has increased the democratic deficit and problems of legitimacy in the European Union is the fact that there are no elections (Follesdal,  Hix, 2006). The citizens of the European Union member states elect their governments these governments sits in the council and nominate the commissioners of the European Union. Therefore, the facts that the commissioners are nominated have deviated from the ideals of democracy.  On the other hand, the European Union citizen elects the European parliament (Follesdal,  Hix, 2006). However, both the national elections and the European parliamentary elections do not focus on the entire Europeans elections. This is because the election at the European level is not about personalities or parties or the direction of the European policy agenda. This therefore depicts that the national elections are fought on the basis of domestic level rather than the European issues. According to Hix (2008), the parties within the integrated Europe collude to keep the issues of Europe off their political domestic agenda and therefore a number of citizens have not been represented by the European Union. This has led to the increase in democratic deficit and problems of legitimacy within the European Union (Garry, et al., 2004). Moreover, the European parliamentary elections are not about the entire Europe because the parties and even the media within the European national level consider these elections as the mid-term national contests. This has led to a huge decline in the participation of the citizens in the issues of European Union (Follesdal,  Hix, 2006). Due to the attitude of the individual citizens towards the European Union, effective participation has declined dramatically as most citizens in the European level considers themselves as not part of the international organization. According to Hix, the absence of the European element in both the national and European elections depicts that the preference of the European Union citizen does not have a direct influence on the outcomes of the European Union policy agenda (Garry, et al 2004).

Shapiro and Hacker-Cordon (1997) argued that even if the power of the European parliaments was increased and genuine European elections were held, there could still be another problem of the proximity of the parliament and the voters. The European Union could still be too distant from the voters and that the European Union is too different from the domestic democratic institutions that the individual citizen within the national level is used to. This has led to the citizens not being able to understand the European Union and therefore they will not be able to assess or even regard it as a democratic institution identifying with it notwithstanding. Another factor that has led to the democratic deficit within the European Union is the fact that the citizens, scholars and even the media see the commission as neither a government nor a bureaucracy (Katz, 2001). This is because the commissioners are appointed through an obscure procedure rather than elections by an electorate directly or indirectly. The secrecy of the council in the European Union has also been seen as a reason from the democratic deficit with in the international organization (Shapiro,  Hacker-Cordon 1997). The council is part legislature and partly executive. According to Katz (2001), the European Union is acting as a legislature it makes its decision in secret therefore undermining the ideals of democratic process of decision making. Blondel, et al (1998) considered the European parliament as not a properly deliberative assembly due to the multi-lingual nature of the debates between the committees and the plenary of the absence of the political back drop culture and the policy process has become fundamentally technocratic rather than political (Blondel, et al 1998).

The European integration has also become a contributing factor to the democratic deficit in the European Union as well. This is because it has drifted from the ideals of the voters policy preference. As a result of these reasons, the European Union has been adopting policies that are not supported by the majority of the individual citizens in the European national level and most member states (Decker, 1990). The governments therefore can be able to undertake policies at the European level that they cannot pursue in the domestic level and hence producing the problems of democratic legitimacy (Katz, 2001).

5.   Defense of the European Union democracy
Though many scholars like Hix, Scharpf, Bartollini, Decker, Katz, and Cultrap Cultrap argued that there is a democratic deficit in the EU, other scholars like Majone and Moravcsik have totally disagreed with their position. The two have being the most prominent scholars disapproving other scholars argument that EU suffered from democratic deficit.

5.1 Arguments that Disapprove Democratic Deficit in the European Union
According to Giandomenico Majone (2005), there is tendency to use the wrong ideal model (normative principle) for what the EU should be. Majones argument is essentially attributed to his claims that the European Union is a regulatory body (Majone, 1996). According to him, regulation is about addressing the market issues within the European level therefore, by the definition the regulatory function of the European Union is concerned with the production of policies that are Pareto-efficient but not re-distributive or value allocative (Follesdal,  Hix, 2006). Majone argued that the European Union government has delegated regulatory policy competence to the European level. This can be seen in the creation of a single market for the member states, harmonization of products standards, health and safety rules. This can also be seen in the introduction of the monitory policy by the European Central Bank. Therefore, these regulatory standards directly isolate these policies from the domestic and majoritarian governments. From these reasons therefore, the European Union is a glorified regulatory body, as argued by Majone. From this interpretation, it can therefore be asserted that the European Union policy making should not be democratized and therefore, the arguments that the international organization, i.e. European Union is democratically deficient does not hold (Follesdal,  Hix, 2006).  Majone further claimed that if the European Union is dominated by the European parliament or directly elected commissioners, there would be politicization of the regulatory policy making and therefore undermining the entire process of decision making rather than legitimizing the processes of the European Union. This politicization would eventually lead to redistribution rather than efficient outcomes. Majone claim is that the European Union does not suffer from democratic deficit (Eijk,  Franklin, 1996). According to Majone (2005), the problem in the European Union is not the process of democratizing but rather the credibility crisis within the organization. He further argue what the European Union needs is a more transparent decision making process, greater professionalism, technical expertise and rights that protect the rights of both the minority and the majority. He further added that a better scrutiny by private actors like the media and scholars would be of dire importance.

Andrew Moravcsik (2002) agreed with Majone but further went beyond in his criticism. He presented an extensive argument of a number of democratic deficit claims. He argued that there is no democratic deficit problem in the EU and the reason people claimed that there is a democratic deficit is because there is a tendency to compare how the EU is working   not with how national democratic systems actually work, but with an ideal model of democracy. Moravcsik disagree with the argument of the shift in power and points out that national governments should be the most directly accountable in the entire Europe. He further argued that if European elections were the only way of democratic accountability to which the European Union was the subject, then skepticism would surely be warranted. A more significant issue also lies in the democratically elected governments of the European Union member states which largely dominate the intergovernmental structures of the European Union (Garry, et al 2004).

Moravcsiks second argument was against the critique that the executive have gone beyond the control of the representative institutions and therefore the European parliaments needs to be strengthened. He points out that the most significant institutional development in the European Union has been the increased powers of the European parliament in the legislative processes and the process appointing the commissioners. On the issues of proximity of the European Union to the citizens of the member states, he argued that the policy making processes have become more transparent than most domestic systems of government (Moravcsik, 2002).

According to Moravcsik, the growing paranoia within the European Union institutions regarding the isolation from the citizens of the member states and the implementation of the internal rules have improved the democratic processes and legitimacy issues within the European Union . This has made it easier and possible for the interest groups, media and even citizens to access information about the European Union policy making processes, therefore arguing that the decision making process within the European Union is done secretly does not hold and therefore the international organization is neither democratic deficit nor having legitimacy problems Moreover, he further argued that the European Union policies are not systematically biased against the maiden voter. He claimed that the European Union systems of checks and balances ensure that an overwhelming consensus is required for any policies to be agreed and there for the social legitimacy problem within the European Union does not hold. On the other hand, the process of having an overwhelming consensus clearly depicts that the European Union is not democratically deficit (Moravcsik, 2002).

6.  Solution to the Issue of Democratic Deficit in the European Union
On the previous section, the issue with regards to the democracy is laid. The problems of democracy seem to be very subjective in the interpretation of different authors as well as the various types of theories which they had utilized. Upon viewing the situation, it was mentioned that the issue at hand states that Europe is having a democratic deficit which was caused by the vague and modern perspective of governance. The European Union as mentioned in the earlier paragraphs that it is one of the most important organizations for it handles almost the whole part of Europe. Further, the problem of as mentioned is due to the issue of the new ruling of European Union which hinders the relationship of an individual to its state.

On the other hand, other authors mentioned that democratic deficit is not an issue for all these reactions from the people is not caused by democratic deficit. Hence, the results of the actions which had been taken were all interpreted as a positive aspect of life. Therefore the problem is still not addressed.

In order to address the concern, it is important to remember that the European Union is an organization which is promoting the wellness and development of the people within the area. Through the European Union, the success of one state is assured due to the oneness of the whole continent. Based on the arguments provided, the much clearer argument is presented by different authors who proclaim that there is an issue of democratic deficit in the continent.

In reflection people in the European Union are given all the needs that they have. The organization is addressing all the peoples needs and also opening itself to various individualities that have the capability to understand the actions of the government through check and balance. Therefore, the argument which had been posted by Moravcsik is simply shadowing the reality. The reality is that issue of democracy is an issue towards the people. Thus, the people must be able to respond, in anyway, through various types of activities such as check and balance.

To provide a solution to the problem, check and balances must be very published and full fronted in the media. The modernity of times is one of the most beneficial aspects of growth. Thus, the government must use such in order to connect with people and their daily lives. As an organization, the European Union must act according to the needs of the people in different parts of the continent while also nourishing the development of the country. Through different programs, people are able to enhance their connection with their government. Hence, through these, the needs of the people are addressed and heard equally and accordingly. Further, another solution to the problem is lessening the direct activity of the parliament to a much individualistic methodology.  Therefore, people will exercise their right directly towards the government will also addressing the democratic deficit which is currently happening Europe

7.  Conclusion and Summary
The European Union suffers from a severe democracy deficit because the cumbersome twenty seven members Council and Commission and their presidents only imperfectly control the 24,000 or so civil servants of the European Union (Hix, et al, 200726 29). More important, the people of Europe do not get to vote directly either for the members of the Council or for the President of the Commission, so they rightly feel that they have little saying in EU policymaking. This leads to low turnout in elections to the EU Parliament, and the splintering effects of proportional representation and a closed ballot further delegitimize that body.

However, literature on the European Unions democratic deficit has been multifaceted as well as engaging (Thomas, 2009). The  ongoing debates between the various positions  depicts that there seems to be some locked in stalemates that determines the scholars perception of the competing sources of democracy and legitimacy issues. Moravscik and Majone think there are no democratic deficit and legitimacy problems (see Moravscik, 2002  Majone, 2005). Other scholars admit that there is a problem of democracy and legitimacy within the European Union and should be solved (See Follesdal,  Hix, 2006 Hix 2008), it has become increasingly clear that there is no obvious solution to these issues (Scharpf, 2009a  Bartolini, 2006). Nevertheless, the literature on the democratic deficit and legitimacy must be able to transcend old barriers and should be able to fully develop proper models of supranational democracy and legitimacy (Thomas, 2009). The new debate (see Follesdal, 2004 Lord,  Magnette, 2004184 Bellamy,  Castiglione 200328-29), emphasizing multiple points and vectors of legitimacy is a refreshing in this regard. It opens up the possibility of advanced normative models of democratic legitimacy not taking their points of departure in democracy as we know it in contemporary nation-states, but in the combination of different sources of legitimacy in the EUs institutional setup. Whether these possibilities will ultimately bear fruit, remains to be seen but these are right steps in the right direction.