Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:09:54.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Alternative Approach to European Union Democratization: Re-Examining the Direct Election of the Commission President

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Frank Decker  and
Jared Sonnicksen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A successful reform of any system of governance must be well informed of the system's own functional logic. In the context of its democratization, this article explores whether the institutional arrangement of the European Union has developed or behaves more like a presidential than a parliamentary system. Building on that, the authors re-examine the opportunities and feasibility of realizing that model as a step towards more democracy in European governance.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , 2011 , pp. 168 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2011.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Lord, Christopher, ‘Assessing Democracy in a Contested Polity’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39: 4 (2001), pp. 641–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Hix, Simon, ‘The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics’, West European Politics, 17: 1 (1994), pp. 1–30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jordan, Andrew, ‘“Overcoming the Divide” Between Comparative Politics and International Relations Approaches to the EC: What Role for “Post-Decisional Politics?”’, West European Politics, 20: 4 (1997), pp. 43–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For a mere slice of the wealth of literature on issues of democracy and legitimacy in the European Union, see e.g. Coultrap, John, ‘From Parliamentarism to Pluralism: Models of Democracy and the European Union's “Democratic Deficit”’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11: 1 (1999), pp. 107–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Føllesdal, Andreas and Hix, Simon, ‘Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44: 3 (2006), pp. 533–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katz, Richard, ‘Models of Democracy’, European Union Politics, 2: 1 (2001), pp. 53–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beate Kohler-Koch and Berthold Rittberger, Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union, Plymouth, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 2007; Lord, Christopher and Magnette, Paul, ‘E Pluribus Unum? Creative Disagreement about Legitimacy in the EU’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42: 1 (2004), pp. 183–202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Giandomenico Majone, Dilemmas of European Integration: The Ambiguities and Pitfalls of Integration by Stealth, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005; Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Is There a “Democratic Deficit” in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis’, Government and Opposition, 39: 2 (2004), pp. 336–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Papadopoulos, Yannis, ‘Cooperative Forms of Governance: Problems of Democratic Accountability in Complex Environments’, European Journal of Political Research, 42: 4 (2003), pp. 473–501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Walter Bagehot (first published 1867), The English Constitution. With an Introduction by Gavin Phillipson, Brighton, Sussex Academic Press, 1997.

6 Winfried Steffani, ‘Parlamentarisches und präsidentielles Regierungssystem’, in M. G. Schmidt (ed.), Die westlichen Länder, Lexikon der Politik Vol. 3, Munich, Beck, 1992, pp. 288–95.

7 E.g. Shugart, Matthew Soberg and Carey, John M., Presidents and Assemblies. Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Duverger, Maurice, ‘A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidential Government’, European Journal of Political Research, 8: 2 (1980), pp. 165–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Cf. Robert Elgie (ed.), Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999.

10 Siaroff, Alan, ‘Varieties of Parliamentarianism in the Advanced Industrial Democracies’, International Political Science Review, 24: 4 (2003), pp. 445–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Giandomenico Majone, ‘Independence versus Accountability? Non-Majoritarian Institutions and Democratic Government in Europe’, in J. J. Hesse and T. Toonen (eds), The European Yearbook of Comparative Government and Public Administration, Vol. I, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1994, pp. 117–40, at p. 117f.

12 Alberta Sbragia, ‘The Dilemma of Governance with Government’, Jean Monnet Working Paper 3/02, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University, 2002, pp. 2ff.

13 The Treaty on European Union will be abbreviated throughout the text as TEU. In the case of the Lisbon Treaty, there is, in addition to the amended TEU, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly the Treaty Establishing the European Community), which will be abbreviated as TFEU.

14 Hix, Simon, ‘Constitutional Agenda-Setting Through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament Won at Amsterdam’, British Journal of Political Science, 32: 2 (2002), pp. 259–80, at p. 264fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Marcus Höreth and Jared Sonnicksen, ‘Making and Breaking Promises. The European Union Under the Treaty of Lisbon’, ZEI Discussion Paper, C 181, Bonn, Centre for European Integration Studies, 2008, pp. 19–25.

16 Wolfgang Ismayr, ‘Die politischen Systeme Westeuropas im Vergleich’, in W. Ismayr (ed.), Die politischen Systeme Westeuropas, 3rd edn, Wiesbaden, VS-Verlag, 2006, pp. 9–52, at pp. 18–20.

17 It was planned that for each Commission position the Commission president would be allowed to choose one of three nominees proposed by the member states. This arrangement was later dropped by the heads of state and government. See Höreth, Marcus, ‘Kontinuität oder Pfadsprung? Das institutionelle Dreieck in Europa nach dem Verfassungsvertrag’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 14: 4 (2004), pp. 1257–96, at p. 1267Google Scholar.

18 Koen Lenaerts and Amaryllis Verhoeven, ‘Institutional Balance as a Guarantee for Democracy in EU Governance’, in C. Joerges and R. Dehousse (eds), Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Market, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 89–108.

19 Judge, David and Earnshaw, David, ‘The European Parliament and the Commission Crisis: A New Assertiveness?’, Governance, 15: 3 (2002), pp. 345–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 A push in this direction was taken recently by MEPs via an interinstitutional agreement in the course of the confirmation hearings of the Barroso II Commission. See Honor Mahony and Valentina Pop, ‘Centre-Right MEPs Threaten to Delay Commission Vote’, EU Observer, 14 January 2010, available at http://euobserver.com/9/29263

21 For precisely this reason, the principle of ministerial responsibility has become widely obsolete in the political practice of parliamentary systems. The political vote of no confidence endows the parliament with sufficient pressuring capability to bring about the dismissal of individual ministers.

22 The English treaty text uses ‘motion of censure’; the term is synonymous with a vote of no confidence in a number of EU countries (e.g. France motion de censure, Spain moción de censura, Dutch Motie van Afkeuring) and is used as such in the respective versions of the treaty. The same applies, for instance, to the German version Misstrauensantrag or Swedish Misstroendevotum, literally ‘vote of no confidence’.

23 Gloria Gaupmann, Präsidentialismus als Leitmotiv für Europa? Eine neue Perspektive für die institutionelle Weiterentwicklung der Europäischen Union, Marburg, Tectum, 2008, p. 245f.

24 An alternative option for upgrading the EP would be to have an extension of the right to request legislative proposals from the Commission (Article 225 TFEU) and, for example, making such requests binding for the Commission. Through a recent interinstitutional agreement, the EP was able to secure an enhancement of this right to request initiatives. In the future, the Commission will consequently have to respond to a request of the EP within three months and come forward with a proposal after one year at the latest (or provide reasons to the EP if it fails to do so).

25 Decker, Frank, ‘Institutionelle Entwicklungspfade im europäischen Integrationsprozess. Eine Antwort auf Katharina Holzinger und Christoph Knill’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 12: 2 (2002), pp. 611–36, at p. 614fGoogle Scholar.

26 Schout, Adriaan and van Schaik, Louise, ‘Reforming the EU Presidency?’, Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 6: 1 (2008), pp. 36–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Sebastian Kurpas et al., The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations, Brussels, Egmont, European Policy Centre and Centre for European Policy Studies, 2007.

28 For an overview of the debate, see Frank Decker and Jared Sonnicksen, ‘The Direct Election of the Commission President. A Presidential Approach to Democratising the European Union’, ZEI Discussion Paper C 192, Bonn, Centre for European Integration Studies, 2009, pp. 4–9.

29 E.g. Kohler-Koch and Rittberger, Debating the Democratic Legitimacy.

30 Bogdanor, Vernon, ‘The Future of the European Community: Two Models of Democracy’, Government and Opposition, 21: 2 (1986), pp. 161–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Hix, Simon, ‘Elections, Parties, and Institutional Design. A Comparative Perspective on European Union Democracy’, West European Politics, 21: 3 (1998), pp. 19–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Decker, Frank, ‘Governance Beyond the Nation-State: Reflections on the Democratic Deficit of the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9: 2 (2002), pp. 256–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michael Gallagher, Michael Laver, Michael Marsh, Robert Singh and Ben Tonra, ‘Electing the President of the European Commission’, Trinity Blue Papers in Public Policy, 1, Dublin, Trinity College, 1995.

33 Joschka Fischer, ‘Vom Staatenbund zur Föderation. Rede am 12. Mai 2000 in der Humboldt-Universität in Berlin am 12. Mai 2000’, in C. Joerges, Y. Mény and J. H. H. Weiler (eds), What Kind of Constitution for What Kind of Polity? Responses to Joschka Fischer, Cambridge, MA, Harvard Law School, 2000, pp. 5–17.

34 John Bruton, ‘A Proposal for the Appointment of the President of the Commission as Provided for in Article 18.bis of the Draft Constitutional Treaty. Contribution from John Bruton T.D., Member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, for Consideration by the Convention, January 6th, 2003’, CONV 476/03.

35 Vernon Bogdanor, ‘Legitimacy, Accountability and Democracy in the European Union’, A Federal Trust Report, London, 2007.

36 The argument might be put forward for the introduction of a constitutional provision that allows the dissolution of parliament (non-existent in the EU system) and the calling of early elections, in place in all parliamentary systems except Norway. Bogdanor, however, does not address this point.

37 Holzinger, Katharina and Knill, Christoph, ‘Institutionelle Entwicklungspfade im Europäischen Integrationsprozess: Eine konstruktive Kritik an Joschka Fischers Reformvorschlägen’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 11: 3 (2001), pp. 987–1010, at p. 1006fGoogle Scholar.

38 Karl Magnus Johansson and Peter Zervakis, ‘Historical-Institutional Framework’, in K. Johansson and P. Zervakis (eds), European Political Parties, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2002, pp. 11–28.

39 Thus, the terms ‘parliamentary’ and ‘presidential’ on their own say nothing about the actual distribution of power between the branches of government. The notion that in the former the parliament and in the latter the president constitute the more influential institutions in the respective systems – a logical conclusion based on the terms – overlooks the political reality of both system types.

40 Cf. Wright, Tony, ‘Prospects for Parliamentary Reform’, Parliamentary Affairs, 57: 4 (2004), pp. 867–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 See e.g. Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul and Roland, Gerard, ‘Power to the Parties: Cohesion and Competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001’, British Journal of Political Science, 35: 2 (2005), pp. 209–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Marcus Höreth, Die Europäische Union im Legitimationstrilemma. Zur Rechtfertigung des Regierens jenseits der Staatlichkeit, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1999, p. 206f.

43 Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven, CT, and London, Yale University Press, 1999.

44 Simon Hix, ‘Why the EU Should Have a Single President, and How she Should Be Elected’, paper for the Working Group on Democracy in the EU for the UK Cabinet Office, London, 2002, at p. 7.

45 Of course, the democratic effects described above could also result from linking the Commission appointment to the EP elections, as proposed in the parliamentary approach. But one may doubt whether this approach would have those effects to the same degree. First of all, in order to make EP elections just as much elections about a choice between political alternatives in the ‘government’, the smaller European parties would need to rally behind one of the candidates of the larger parties, thus necessitating pre-election coalitions. In all likelihood, only the social democrat and conservative/Christian-democrat party groups would be capable of garnering majority (or plurality) support. The fragmentation of the European party system, however, raises substantial doubts over the probability of that happening. In consequence, the link between EP elections and appointing the government would hardly be strong enough to give citizens the impression of having determined the political direction of the EU with their vote.

46 Jean Blondel, Richard Sinnott and Palle Svensson, People and Parliament in the European Union: Participation, Democracy, and Legitimacy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998.