The governmental structure of the European Union is largely democratic but it contains one huge flaw - the European Commission

The EU and the rise of Euroscepticism

In the last number of years, mistrust of the European Union, known as Euroscepticism, has risen to an historic high across many countries. Right wing populist parties have never been more successful, and in June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. There are a wide variety of factors leading up to these uncertain times, but what we’ll be concentrating on in this piece is the perception that the EU is an undemocratic institution.

Much of the debate regarding the EU’s role, especially in the UK, has centered around the claim that much of the EU’s power is wielded by unelected bureaucrats who would have no legitimacy in a national government. There was a lot of back and forth on this issue in the runup to the referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU. Ultimately, the UK electorate chose to leave the EU with a 52% majority, and negotiations are now underway to meet the conditions required for the UK to leave the EU. In this piece, we’ll examine the EU’s governmental structure, and how people have come to view the EU as undemocratic. We will focus particularly on the European Commission and the criticisms leveled at it. Finally, we will examine the changes can be made to improve the EU’s “democratic deficit”.

The structure of government in the EU

The EU’s governmental structure is made up of four main institutions: the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Parliament, and the European Commission. For the purpose of this piece, we will focus on the Commission, which has been singled out for criticism and faces questions about its legitimacy, given that it is an unelected institution that in essence, serves as the executive and cabinet of the EU.

The Commission is made up of one commissioner per member state. The President of the Commission is appointed by the European Council and is confirmed by the European Parliament. The Commission implements the EU’s internal agenda, which is set by the European Council. It de facto serves as both the cabinet and the executive of the government.

The Commission is made up of one commissioner per member state. The President of the Commission is appointed by the European Council and is confirmed by the European Parliament. The Commission implements the EU’s internal agenda, which is set by the European Council. It de facto serves as both the cabinet and the executive of the government. The Commission drafts and proposes legislation which is then debated and voted on by the Parliament, and is also tasked with enforcing laws once they are passed. It does this by taking member states to court at the European Court of Justice. Each commissioner performs a specific role, including health, defence, transport etc. The President controls the overall policy of the Commission, and by extension, the EU. The President also plays a role in representing the EU internationally.

President of the European Commission - Mr.Jean-Claude Juncker.

Why should we be worried about the European Commission?

The European Commission is the most influential and powerful arm of the EU government. What is concerning about this fact is that the Commission is unelected, and holds no mandate from the citizens of the EU. The College of Commissioners is not accountable to the member states, and they are given a lot of freedom to run the EU as they please. As well as this, some of the members of the Commission have questionable political pasts in their home country, which puts into serious question the Commission’s legitimacy and integrity.

Take, for example, some current and former Commissioners from my own country of Ireland. Charlie McCreevey, former Commissioner and Finance Minister of Ireland, is a reviled figure in Irish politics. His tenure as Finance Minister between 1997 and 2004 oversaw extravagant spending and privatisation by the government, which would eventually result in the country’s financial collapse in 2009. He is regarded as being the chief architect of Ireland’s financial collapse, and when questioned by the Banking Inquiry of Ireland, he conceded that he knew that there was a housing bubble as far back as 2003, and failed to act to manage it.

Phil Hogan is also held in disdain in Ireland. From 2011 to 2014, he held the position of Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government from. During this period, Hogan oversaw spending cuts, tax hikes, and the establishment of the hugely unpopular and controversial state utility company, Irish Water. Following dismal local election results in 2014, the Irish government underwent a cabinet reshuffle, resulting in Phil Hogan taking a back seat. Shortly after this, he was nominated to the European Commission, which no doubt solved a headache for then Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Enda Kenny.

Even Germany, arguably the the most powerful and influential of the EU member states, is guilty of treating the Commission as a place where one can throw away unwanted politicians. Günther Oettinger was a high-ranking German politician, and served as the head of government in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. After being appointed Germany’s commissioner, Oettinger made a series of gaffes, including suggesting that EU states in debt should fly their flags at half mast, and defending a Nazi-era judge in his eulogy. Oettinger was nevertheless appointed a second term, and has continued to cause outrage, with one standout example being his recent scandal involving making racist remarks about Chinese people.

From the examples given above, we can conclude that the Commission is often made up of politicians rejected at home, only to be given a great deal of power and influence at EU level. This gives validity to the claim that much of the EU’s power lies in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who, after failing at home, found refuge in the European Commission.

Even if we disregard the events of the last few years, the debate regarding the “democratic deficit” in the EU has been ongoing for decades. To be fair, real efforts have been made to rectify this. The European Parliament was established in its current form in 1978, originally as a consultative assembly. In other words,it held zero legal or political power. The Nice and Lisbon Treaties gave the Parliament much more power to pass bills and confirm the appointment of Commissioners. Indeed, the Parliament exercised its new powers for the first time in 2004, when it rejected the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione to the Commission over his views on homosexuality. It’s not enough though, and the Commission in its current form cannot continue to hold this level of power and influence if the EU wants to convince its citizens that it is a democratic institution.

What can be done to reduce the Commission’s influence?

So what options are available if the EU seeks to improve its democratic deficit? First, it’s important to reiterate that the EU has become more democratic in recent decades, so while the easy path for eurosceptics is to withdraw their country from the EU entirely, there are longer term solutions that can work for all EU citizens without the need for withdrawal. The first potential solution is to reduce the Commission’s powers, and transfer them to the Parliament. This would turn the EU’s governmental structure from a presidential one, like the US, to one of “parliamentary supremacy”, like the UK, Canada, or Ireland. The most important power to be transferred would be that of “legislative initiative”. This would allow members of the European Parliament (or MEPs) to propose a bill to be debated and eventually voted on, much like a parliamentary system. This would give EU citizens a greater voice in determining the EU’s course, and enable MEPs to better reflect their constituents’ wishes. Currently, legislative initiative is purely at the discretion of the Commission.

A second solution is to elect the Commission directly. Each member state would have its political parties choose their nominee for the office of Commissioner, which would allow for regular campaigning to take place, and make future commissioners more visible to the public. The electorates of each member state would elect its Commissioner directly, and there would be no need for the Parliament to conduct a confirmation process. This would preserve the presidential system employed by the EU, while making the Commission more accountable to EU citizens. Former President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, argued in 2010 that electing future commissioners would allow the Commission to have “stronger democratic legitimacy” and that it “would be strengthened as an institution”.

The third option is for the Commission to be appointed from already elected MEPs. In this scenario, the European Council would nominate the commissioners from among the MEPs, and then the Parliament would confirm or reject their appointments. This would, in essence, alter the Commission’s role into that of the cabinet of the EU government. Legislative initiative would still be at the discretion of the Commission, but they would be accountable to the Parliament, and thus to the people. This solution would serve as a compromise between the first two suggestions.

Whatever the policies the EU decides to take, it cannot continue to ignore what has been a major question for the EU’s democratic legitimacy for decades. The only alternative to further democratisation is to reduce the amount of influence the EU holds over its member states and citizens, and such a proposition is unthinkable to the political elite in Brussels. If we don’t see further action being taken to address the “democratic deficit”, we may well continue to see a rise in right wing populism across Europe.