Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Liberal Representative Democracy and EU Legitimacy

  • Chapter
Legitimating the European Union

  • 93 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter is the first of two that discuss the connections between democracy and political legitimacy. The chapter examines the prospects that the liberal representative norm has for legitimating the EU, by adapting its traditional trappings to the supranational context. To do this, it first identifies the accessories and then considers their impact upon EU political legitimacy. The chapter makes the point that, although the application of liberal representative democracy to date has not conclusively achieved political legitimacy for the EU, other ingredients derived from the liberal democratic culture are worth examining. The chapter therefore looks at these possibilities, drawing from the Commission’s White Paper on Governance,1 and the Constitution for Europe, signed 2004,2 and their potential impact upon the EU’s governmental system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. European Commission (2001b), European Governance: A White Paper (Brussels, COM (2001) 428 final).

    Google Scholar 

  2. European Council (2004), Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (Brussels, GIG 87/1/04 REV1). Its future is, however, doubtful.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Macpherson, C.B. (1966), The Real World ofDemocracy (Oxford, Clarendon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Townshend, J. (2000), ‘C.B. Macpherson and contemporary democratic theory: ethics, ontology and capitalism’ (London, Paper for the Political Studies Association–UK 50th Annual Conference).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Michels, R. ([1915] 1962), Political Parties (London, Collier-Macmillan), pp. 109, 122, 370.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zweifel, T. (2002), ‘… Who is without sin cast the first stone: the EU’s democratic deficit in comparison’ (Journal of European Public Policy 9:5), p. 812.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sbragia, A. (2002), ‘The dilemma of governance with government’ (Jean Monnet Working Paper 3/02).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Decker, F. (2002), ‘Governance beyond the nation-state. Reflections on the democratic deficit of the European Union’ (Journal of European Public Policy 9:2), pp. 265–7 passim.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Scully, R. and Farrell, D. (2003), ‘MEPs as Representatives: Individual and Institutional Roles’ (Journal of Common Market Studies 41:2), p. 272.

    Google Scholar 

  10. MORI (2004), ‘UK on Europe: low on knowledge; low on trust’ (http://www.mori.com/polls/2004/ifc.shtml).

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Mather, J. (2001), ‘The European Parliament: a model of representative democracy?’ (West European Politics 24:1).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schmitt, H. and Thomassen, J. (1999), ‘Introduction’ in Schmitt, H. and Thomassen, J. (eds), Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union (Oxford, Oxford University Press).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Crombez, C. (2003), ‘The democratic deficit in the European Union: Much ado about nothing?’ (European Union Politics 4:1), pp. 105, 111.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Franklin, M. (2001), ‘European Elections and the European Voter’ in Richardson, J. (ed.), European Union, Power and Policy-Making, 2nd edition (London, Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Blondel, J., Sinnott, R. and Svensson, P. (1998), People and Parliament in the European Union (Oxford, Clarendon Press), pp. 199–236 passim.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. There is a whole set of arguments related to the effectiveness or otherwise of interest group activity. See, for example, Olson, M. (1971), The Logic of Collective Action (Boston, Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Churchill, W. (1947). Churchill was speaking as Leader of the Opposition in a speech before the House of Commons. The occasion was the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill, proposing to reduce the delaying period of the House of Lords on non-finance bills from two years to one (Hansard, 11 November 1947). It should be appreciated, however, that Churchill was speaking in favour of liberal representative democracy at the time–he was opposing a weakening of the rights of the House of Lords, not attempting to defend popular democracy as such.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fukuyama, F. (1992), The End of History and the Last Man (New York, Avon Books). Fukuyama argued that the legitimacy of liberal democracy had achieved consensus, and had outlasted rival ideologies such as hereditary monarchy, fascism and communism. The point of dispute with this thesis arises from Fukuyama’s failure to appreciate the impact of the growth of newer ideologies, such as Islamic fundamentalism, environmentalism and feminism.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Moravcsik, A. (2002), ‘Reassessing legitimacy in the European Union’ (Journal of Common Market Studies 40:4), p. 605.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Scharpf, F. (1988), ‘The Joint Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration’ (Public Administration 66), p. 165.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kohler-Koch, B. (2001), ‘The Commission White Paper and the Improvement of European Governance’ (contribution to the Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 6/01 Symposium: Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Closa, C. (1998), ‘EU citizenship and supranational democracy’ in Weale, A. and Nentwich, M. (eds), Political Theory and the European Union: Legitimacy, Constitutional Choice and Citizenship (London, Routledge), p. 173.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Weiler, J. (2003), ‘A Constitution for Europe: some hard choices’ in Weiler, J., Begg, I. and Peterson, J. (eds): Integration in an Expanding European Union: Reassessing the Fundamentals (Oxford, Blackwell), p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Buonanno, L. and Deakin, A. (2004), ‘European Identity’ in Nugent, N. (ed.), European Enlargement (Basingstoke, Palgrave), p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lacroix, J. (2002), ‘For a European Constitutional Patriotism’ (Political Studies 50:5), p. 944.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Faist, T. (2001), ‘Social Citizenship in the European Union: Nested Membership’ (Journal of Common Market Studies 39:1), p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  27. European Commission, Directorate General (Press and Communications) (2004c), Standard EuroBarometer 61 (Brussels, Commission of the European Communities).

    Google Scholar 

  28. European Commission, Directorate General (Press and Communications) (2004d), Standard EuroBarometer 62 (Brussels, Commission of the European Communities).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pogany, I. (2005), ‘Post-Communist Legal Orders and the Roma: Some implications for EU enlargement’ in Sadurski, W., Czarnota A. and Krygier, M. (eds), Spreading Democracy and the Rule of Law? Implications of EU Enlargement for the Rule of Law, Democracy and Constitutionalism in Post-Communist Legal Orders (Dordrecht, Springer Science).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Batt, J. (2001), ‘“Fuzzy Statehood” and European integration in central and eastern Europe’ (Birmingham: Centre for Russian and East European Studies, http://www.crees.bham.ac.uk/research/statehood/index.htm).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Marx, K. ([1848] 1988), The Communist Manifesto (New York and London, W.W. Norton and Company), p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Armstrong, K. (2001a), ‘The White Paper and the rediscovery of civil society’ in ‘EUSA Review Forum: The Commission White Paper and European Governance’ (EUSA Review 14:4).

    Google Scholar 

  33. For example, Magnette, P., Lequesne, C., Jabko, N. and Costa, O. (2003), ‘Conclusion: diffuse democracy in the European Union: the pathologies of delegation’ (Journal of European Public Policy 10:5).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Manners, I. and Whitman, R. (2003), ‘The “difference engine”: constructing and representing the international identity of the European Union’ (Journal of European Public Policy 10:3), pp. 391–2.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kagan, R. (2002), ‘Power and Weakness’ (Policy Review 113:3), http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cox, M. (2003a), ‘Martians and Venutians in the New World Order’ review of Kagan (2003), Paradise and Power, America and Europe in the New World Order (London, New Atlantic Books) (International Affairs 2003 79:3 523–32), pp. 530, 531.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chirac, J. (2004), NATO summit press briefing, Istanbul 2004, http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/anglais/speeches_of_president_chirac/2004

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kohler-Koch, B. (2000), ‘Framing: the bottleneck of constructing legitimate institutions’ (Journal of European Public Policy 7:4), p. 514.

    Google Scholar 

  39. European Council (1991), Conclusions of the Presidency (Maastricht).

    Google Scholar 

  40. European Council (1992a), Conclusions of the Presidency (Lisbon)

    Google Scholar 

  41. European Council (1992b); Conclusions of the Presidency (Edinburgh)

    Google Scholar 

  42. European Council (1993); Conclusions of the Presidency (Brussels); Doc 93/730/EC, OJ L 340

    Google Scholar 

  43. European Council (1998), Conclusions of the Presidency (Cardiff).

    Google Scholar 

  44. European Council (1999a), Conclusions of the Presidency (Cologne).

    Google Scholar 

  45. European Council (2000), Treaty of Nice: Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts (Brussels, OJ 2001/C 80) Declaration 23.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Settembri, P. (2005), ‘Transparency and the EU legislator’ (Journal of Common Market Studies 43:3), pp. 646–7.

    Google Scholar 

  47. European Council (2001), Conclusions of the Presidency–the Laecken Declaration (Laecken).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Follesdal, A. (2003), ‘The political theory of The White Paper on governance: hidden and fascinating’ (European Public Law 9:1).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Curtin, D. (2001), ‘The European Commission’s White Paper on governance: A vista of unbearable democratic lightness in the EU?’ (Statewatch 11:6).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Eriksen, E. (2001), ‘Democratic or technocratic governance?’ (contribution to the Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 6/01, Symposium: Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance).

    Google Scholar 

  51. MacCormick, N. (2001), ‘A comment on the Governance Paper’ (contribution to the Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 6/01 Symposium: Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Steinberg, P. (2001), ‘Agencies, Co-Regulation and Comitology–and what about politics? A critical appraisal of the Commission’s White Paper on governance’ (contribution to the Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 6/01, Symposium: Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wincott, D. (2001), ‘The White Paper, the Commission and the “Future of Europe”’ in ‘EUSA Review Forum: The Commission White Paper and European Governance’ (EUSA Review 14:4).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Héritier, A. (2001), ‘The White Paper on European Governance: A response to shifting weights in inter-institutional decision-making’ (contribution to the Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 6/01 Symposium: Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance).

    Google Scholar 

  55. See Walker, N. (2001), ‘The White Paper in Constitutional Context’ (contribution to the Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 6/01 Symposium: Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance) Kohler-Koch (2001); Wincott (2001); Héritier (2001); Eriksen (2001); Wind (2001) for example.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Skach, C. (2005), ‘Constitutionalizing the European Union’ (Journal of Common Market Studies 43:1).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Brunckhorst, H. (2003), A. Polity without a State? European Constitutionalism between evolution and Revolution, in Eriksen, E.O., Fossum, J.E. and Menéndez, A.J. (eds), Developing a Constitution for Europe (London, Routledge); Skach 2005, pp. 152–9 passim.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Fossum, J. and Menéndez, A. (2005), ‘The Constitution’s Gift? A deliberative democratic analysis of constitution-making in the European Union’ (Oslo, Arena Centre for European Studies, Working Paper 05/13).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Pollak, J. and Slominski, P. (2004), ‘The representative quality of EU treaty reform: a comparison between the IGC and the convention’ (Journal of European Integration 26:3).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Closa, C. (2003), ‘Improving EU Constitutional Politics? A Preliminary Assessment of the Convention’ (Constitutionalism Web-Papers, ConWEB No. 1/2003 http://les1.man.ac.uk/conweb/).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Maurer, A. (2005), ‘The Convention and the national parliamentary dimension’ (Oslo, Arena Centre for European Studies, Working Paper 05/01).

    Google Scholar 

  62. See Lequesne, C. and Rivaud, P. (2003), ‘The Committees of Independent Experts: expertise in the service of democracy?’ (Journal of European Public Policy 10:5). Their article points out that even the Committees of Independent Experts used by the EP risk the possibility of capture by the EP, and, thereby a reduction of supranational legitimacy.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See Höreth, M. (1999), ‘No way out for the beast? The unsolved legitimacy problem of European governance’ (Journal of European Public Policy 6:2) for a more detailed discussion of this dilemma.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics and Philosophy, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

    Janet Mather (Senior Lecturer)

Authors
  1. Janet Mather
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2006 Janet Mather

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mather, J. (2006). Liberal Representative Democracy and EU Legitimacy. In: Legitimating the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625624_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation