Introduction
The EU shows that elites from diverse natural states with distinct histories and political systems can govern together. The EU was created after European civil wars and World Wars to foster peace, prosperity, and Democracy. EU’s democratic inadequacies and weaknesses have been questioned throughout its evolution (Kriesi, 2020). Does it represent the people, or is it closed and undemocratic? This paper recommends that EU institutional reforms address the democratic deficit. Many EU supporters say counting is a democracy-promoting institutional value. The EP, the largest EU institution directly elected by millions of EU people, plays a crucial role in EU decision-making (Mavrouli & Van Waeyenberge, 2023). Systematic EU elections legitimized EU decision-making. The parliament stands out as a representative of European citizens’ views due to its co-decision-making on critical policies. The ECJ supports EU fundamental values and ideals. The ECJ enforces EU law and ensures that member states and institutions follow the Charter of Fundamental Rights. When people fight for rights and challenge legal norms, the EU’s institutions must be democratized for democratic viability.
Critics of EU democracy list flaws and a democratic deficiency. EU citizens are criticized for facilitating supranational governance. It has direct citizen voting, but EP ambiguity in specific policy areas affects EU policies and citizens. EU institutions’ complicated design of many decision-making bodies, multilateral talks, and bureaucratic processes can sometimes erase people’s responses (Bellamy & Kröger, 2021). Many committees and groups have asked citizens to give EU institutions mandatory duty, raising the issue of openness. With these discussions and their issues, EU democracy should improve. This article will discuss improving EU democratic governance by consolidating the European Parliament, increasing the transparency of EU institutions, boosting civic engagement, and finding a fair balance between EU supremacy and sovereign statehood.
Arguments for EU Democracy
The author reassures that EU democracy provides legality and representation. Some significant arguments favor EU democracy. Some significant arguments favor EU democracy. Direct EU Parliamentary Elections: EP elections are essential to EU democracy since it has long had the power to originate and ratify legislative acts, oversee their implementation, approve the EU Budget, and, in extreme instances, call for legislative act modifications or Council resignation. EU citizens democratically elect MEPs every five years. The Lisbon Treaty empowered the European Parliament with plenipotentiary powers, strengthening the link between citizens and EU decision-making and legitimizing EU laws. EU Budget, internal market law, environmental standards, and consumer rights constitute lawmaking. This procedure has allowed the EP to work more closely with European citizens to establish the EU’s political agenda based on their priorities, strengthening its democratic mandate. The EU’s core ideals include free speech, assembly, and legal equality. The ECJ ensures that the Court, EU member states, and EU institutions follow the law to preserve rights. As a sign of EU democracy, this pledge safeguards citizens’ legal rights and holds governments accountable. As European institutions, national governments, and regional authorities represent a delegation at the EU level, democratic representation becomes multi-tiered. Subsidiarity ensures local or national decisions. By keeping citizens nearby, subsidiarity enhances Democracy.
EU economic and social cohesion boosts jobs, solidarity, and Democracy. The EU was created to ensure member-state cooperation. Its main goal is to unite and flourish a continent devastated by two world wars. By raising economic standards, facilitating free trade, and creating harmonized systems, the EU aims to improve citizens’ quality of life and create a stable European democracy through economic equality, social inclusion, and democratic consolidation. EU democracy is anchored on direct elections, more EP legislative powers, EU fundamental rights and law of the state, multi-layered governance, subsidiarity, and solidarity at economic and social levels. This shows that the EU protects and represents all its citizens with democratic values.
Arguments for EU Democratic Deficit
One of the most important reasons for the legitimate problem of democratic deficit in the EU is that Europeans perceive they are out of supranational practice, which may only be shaped in Brussels. The “EP” has been directly elected by the citizens; however, critics still think it is weak concerning the powers compared to national parliaments, so there is a very low likelihood of an authentic democratic representation (Bellamy & Kröger, 2021). The decision-making process in the EU is complex to understand because of various legal systems, international negotiations among member states, and tedious bureaucracy, potentially making it look unfair and undemocratic. EU programs and laws are scrutinized for being democratic because the voters do not believe in any closer relation between rulings and their daily lives. One angle of criticism advanced by the opponents is that the EU trajectory of dynamic development in economic and market issues over time in the face of preference for technocratic decision-making instead of the democratic discourse progressively aggravates the already existing democratic gap. Accordingly, the EU has to open up to citizens, hold them accountable, and embrace citizen participation to reach democratic standards.
Ways to Improve Democracy in the EU
Accomplishing democratization in the EU means a wide range of actions to be taken to overcome the strength of the democratic deficit and to raise people’s commitment to the electoral process. Strengthening parliamentary powers – providing EP with more legislative and supervisory powers constitutes one more concrete measure. These involve the EP, which will participate in the budgetary decisions and trade agreements to make European policies that can be implemented with the elected representatives’ will.
The EU should also give a lot more transparent and accountable concerns. An open process available to the public and provides access to records and discussions increases confidence and trust in the authority (Maurice, 2020). Using citizen consultations, public hearings, and participatory initiatives could guarantee that more communicative democratic contributions from the people are implemented. Regardless of EU institutions, media independence is the primary condition for responsible authorities and the information requirements for citizenship (Kriesi, 2020). Finally, the civil society organizations’ waving structure and increasing citizen involvement and civic education may enrich citizens’ participation in Europeovernance, creating an atherebyocratic society. If Democracy is to be strengthened in the EU and Democracy is to be strengthened in the EU, the development of EU institutions, more transparency, involvement of the public, and the empowerment of citizens will be needed.
Conclusion
As a thought-provoking supra-national management experiment, the EU uniquely brings together a diverse group of countries under a single roof of peace, prosperity, and partnership. Since its inception, the EU has become a highly complicated democratic institution with dominating democratic legitimacy effects. The essay’s primary focus is to look at both the pros and cons of Democracy as formulated in the EU discourse. The question is whether the EU genuinely considers the needs of the people and includes them in the decision-making/governance process. The proponent’s possession that the European Parliament (EP) is a directly elected Parliament and the European Court’s bastion for human rights can be regarded as democratically sustainable EU institutions. These characteristics are the prerequisite for good governance, both democratic and accountable.
The skeptics, who argue that the EU is a new type of European anti-democracy, hold the following views. Firstly, the EU has no transparent operation processes. The second drawback is the existence of complicated decision-making. Last but not least, citizens need such rights to control governing bodies. These worries are seeding doubts on the look of Democracy in EU Policies and the EU institutions for their lack of responsiveness to the divergent needs of the European citizens. This complex background results in a detailed knowledge of the EU’s democratic strengths, weeks, and other ways of improving democratic governance. This article critically dissects this group of qualities to see the problems confronting the EU democracy and understand its scope.
References
Mavrouli, R., & Van Waeyenberge, A. (2023). EU Responses to the Democratic Deficit and the Rule of Law Crisis: Is It Time for a (New) European Exceptionalism? Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 15(3), 405-439.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40803-023-00198-w
Bellamy, R., & Kröger, S. (2021). Countering democratic backsliding by EU Member States: Constitutional pluralism and ‘value’differentiated integration. Swiss Political Science Review, 27(3), 619-636.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/spsr.12448
Malinov, S. (2021). The democratic deficit of the EU: Breaking the spell of a false analogy. European View, 20(2), 226–233.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17816858211069701
Maurice, E. (2020). European Democracy is a fundamental system to be protected. European Issue, (578). https://old.robert-schuman.eu//en/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-578-en.pdf
Kriesi, H. (2020). Is there a crisis of Democracy in Europe? Politische vierteljahresschrift, 61(2), 237-260. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11615-020-00231
write