A necessary and logical starting point is to first decide whether the EU is ‘democratic’? So I will briefly provide a definition of ‘democracy,’ before evaluating whether the EU passes the test for a minimum democracy. Only then, can we start considering ‘democratic quality.’
Then, I will define ‘quality,’ outlining its main dimensions (connotations).
Afterwards, I will explore operationalisation of ‘democratic quality.’ In other words, I will single out the indicators for each dimension, asking myself how I can measure ‘democratic quality’ and what I should be measuring?
Lastly, I will briefly outline my strategy for when I execute the empirical assessment stage of my analysis.
ASSESS THE DEMOCRATIC QUALITY OF THE EU
PRESENTATION BY JAN KERMER – PH.D. STUDENT IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
INTRODUCTION
- Good afternoon Professor and my fellow colleagues. I will now present to you my preliminary assessment on the EU’s democratic quality.
- Before beginning, here is the outline of my discussion.
OUTLINE
1. A necessary and logical starting point is to first decide whether the EU is ‘democratic’? So I will briefly provide a definition of ‘democracy,’ before evaluating whether the EU passes the test for a minimum democracy. Only then, can we start considering ‘democratic quality.’
2. Then, I will define ‘quality,’ outlining its main dimensions (connotations)
3. Afterwards, I will explore operationalisation of ‘democratic quality.’ In other words, I will single out the indicators for each dimension, asking myself how I can measure ‘democratic quality’ and what I should be measuring?
3. Lastly, I will briefly outline my strategy for when I execute the empirical assessment stage of my analysis.
DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY
- What is democracy? Importantly, we are concerned with both an empirical (what it is/how it does operate) and normative definition (what is should be/ how it should function).
- Why? B/c ‘ddemocratic quality’ is concerned about how it does and should work. Also, qualities of democracy vary from low quality (i.e. minimum democracies) to high quality (i.e. closer to normative standards of democracy). But in order to gauge whether a unit is closer to the normative standard of a well-functioning democracy, we therefore need to have a conceptual understanding of democracy as an ideal.
- In short, defining democracy is not an end (a fruitless, intellectual exercise), but a means (an analytical tool) to help us empirically measure quality. I am not only concerned with how democracy operates and what it looks like, but also how it should function.
- Therefore a minimal and maximal definition of democracy is warranted. I will remind you of the minimum definition of democracy: (a) universal male and female suffrage; (b) free, competitive, periodic, and fair elections; (c) more than one political party; (d) different and alternative sources of information. (it is a procedural definition – looking at how democracies work and what they look like).
IS THE EU DEMOCRATIC?
Does the EU pass the threshold for a minimum democracy? On the face of it, the threshold seems to have been satisfied.
a) The 1st requirement, universal male and female suffrage is satisfied. In the EU, a ll EU citizens aged over 18 can vote in European elections, regardless of gender, race etc. The Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines and protects EU citizens’ civil and political rights.
b) Regarding the 2nd requirement, free, competitive, periodic, and fair elections, currently, EU elections are held every 5 years under a proportional representation system. It could be contended that elections are not periodic enough, that referenda have been ignored, and we have the problem of ‘Second-order elections,’ as EU elections are seen as less important by EU voters, they are often used to reward of punish national parties, therefore are voter preferences at EU level really ever communicated? These are some aspects I will elaborate on in my paper.
c) The third requirement, having more than one political party is less contentious. In the EP there are many political parties. We need not dwell on this any further.
d) Lastly, minimum democracies should have different and alternative sources of information. Again, this is a straight forward yes. In the EU, there is unfettered a ccess to national and transnational media channels with different proprietors.
NORMATIVE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY
- As I touched upon earlier, an empirical analysis of the quality or qualities of democracy implies some standard or a maximum definition of democracy as a frame of reference in the development of quality. Such a frame can only be provided by the existing, main normative definitions of democracy.
- A maximum definition must necessarily start with ideals or principles.
- A definition rendered suitably applicable in empirical terms could help in gauging the distance separating real democracies from the maximum one, and also the degree of democracy of regimes that have crossed the minimum threshold outlined earlier.
- As Morlino points out, a good starting point is to refer to the main normative definitions of democracy developed in previous decades, such as: (1 ) liberal, representative democracy; (2) responsive democracy; (3) participatory democracy; (4) deliberative democracy; (5) associative democracy; (6) egalitarian or social democracy; (7) good governance; (8) good democracy. I will now briefly pick out the main normative dimensions from these democratic assortments.
NORMATIVE DEFINITION (I)
- Liberal democracy is about the autonomy of the individual (Held). Therefore, the rule of law is a key connotation. Supreme laws that emanate from a constitution, enshrine individual rights embolden and protect the individual. Participation is another key element. More participation helps individuals to voice their preferences and influence decisions coming from the top. Competition is key. A lack of competition risks dominance of a repressive collective over an individual. Lastly, accountability is fundamental, conferring citizens a power of control over decision-makers.
- The key essence of responsive democracy lies in results of decisions that mirror the preferences of the governed, in other words, that democracy is responsive to the demos.
- Participatory democracy, as the name implies, emphasises the importance of mass participation. Participation is desirable (in theory) for a democracy because it redistributes power in favour of citizens (as regards economic resources, information, and the possibility of having a genuine say in the definition of policies). Therefore the key normative elements to look out for in a ideal democracy are extensive participation and freedoms to allow one to participate.
- A deliberative democracy emphasises the value of strong public discussion among free and equal individuals (i.e. opportunities for “voice” among the whole social strata, not just elites and civil society. It entails a procedural dimension (i.e. participation) and substantive dimensions of freedom and equality.
NORMATIVE DEFINITION (II)
- Associative democracy entails groups with a deep-rooted social base joining in protest to bring about change. Incorporate participatory and deliberative practices designed to solve collective problems. Associative democracy can strengthen representative institutions, oversee forms of public service provision, hold public officials accountable, and protect the rights and interests of citizens (Hirst). Therefore, accountability, participation and freedom and key normative notions of this type of democracy.
- Social democracy permits the existence of a wider variety of ownership rights, including socialist forms of ownership (also known ‘property-owning’ democracy). This conception can be empirically translated into a set of civil, political, and social rights that cover both freedoms and equalities.
- Good governance is about the capacity of a plurality of public actors to shape economy and society. A key aspect of good governance is the ‘impartiality in the exercise of public authority ’. Therefore, Rule of law and freedom are the key empirical elements.
- A Good democracy is a legitimated regime that satisfies its citizens. Citizens themselves have the power to check and evaluate. Democracies which maximise freedom and equality are ‘good democracies.’ Therefore, a democracy with a rich bed of individual rights. (e.g. right to healthcare, right to a job, right to vote, right to ) are likely to be considered ‘good democracies.’
SUMMARY OF KEY NORMATIVE NOTIONS
- So here is a quick summary of the key normative notions extracted from normative definitions of different types of democracy.
1) Rule of law
2) Electoral accountability
3) Institutional accountability
4) Participation
5) Competition
6) Freedom
7) Equality
8) Responsiveness.
- Now we can logically move on to the next, interrelated step of democratic quality. So what does it mean?
DEFINITION OF DEMOCRATIC QUALITY
- Prof. Morlino suggests to firstly define quality and then to single out all the empirical qualities that the aforementioned normative democratic notions would include. I will adopt this framework.
- Quality consists of procedural, contents, and results –based aspects.
- There is a procedural component: a ‘quality’ product is the result of an exact, controlled process carried out according to precise, recurring methods and timing. (i.e. so for example, periodic elections would be a procedure that contributes to ‘democratic quality.’)
- There is also a content component: so we need to look at the structural characteristics of a product, be it the design, materials, or functioning. (i.e. a rich body of civil and political rights would indicate a ‘quality’ in terms of content).
- Then there is the Result: quality is also indirectly derived from the satisfaction expressed by customer. (i.e. so a high level of legitimacy would indicate that a democracy is of a high-quality (i.e. it is functioning how it should do).
- The key question then, is what are more precisely the procedural, content, and result qualities in a democracy?
DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIC QUALITY
Firstly, lets go through the procedural dimensions. As I stated earlier, the rule of law is an important normative notion of democratic standards.
1) Rule of Law defined as “the authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes“. (Oxford Dictionary)
- It connotes things such as the effective enforcement of legal norms; principle of supremacy of law; laws that are non-retroactive, publicly known, universal, stable, and unambiguous; capacity to make authorities respect the laws.
- Professor Morlino identifies 5 key dimensions:
1) Individual security and civil order: which focuses on the right to life, freedom from fear and the threat of torture, personal security, and the right to own property guaranteed and protected throughout the country.
2) Independent judiciary: with a focus on mechanisms establishing an independent, professional, and efficient judiciary system that allows equal access to justice, free from undue pressure on the enforcement of decisions. One could measure the access of citizens to the court system.
3) Institutional and administrative capacity to formulate, implement, and enforce the law: with a focus on the governance system (parliament and government) capable of ensuring the production of high quality legislation and its implementation throughout the country and a transparent policy-making process allowing for the participation of civil society, and the presence of a professional, neutral, accountable, and efficient state bureaucracy.
4) Effective fight against corruption, illegality and abuse of power: with a focus on the existence and implementation of the comprehensive legislative framework to prevent and fight corruption.
5) Lastly, security forces respectful of citizen rights: with a focus on the mechanisms of the civilian control over security forces as well as on efficient, uncorrupted, disciplined police forces respectful of human and political rights.
DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIC QUALITY
Secondly, another important dimension of democratic quality is Electoral Accountability, defined as: ‘ the obligation of elected political leaders to answer for their political decisions when asked to do so by citizen-electors or other constitutional bodies.’ (Morlino)
There are 3 important elements
- information on the political act or series of acts by a politician or political organ (the government, parliament, and so on), is indispensable for attributing responsibility;
- justification - the governed need to be supplied reasons by governing leaders for their actions and decisions;
- Lastly, EA connotes punishment/or compensation – which is the consequences imposed by the elector, or whatever other person or body following an evaluation of the information, justifications, and other aspects and interests behind the political action.
- The traditional channels for EA are period elections and referenda.
DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIC QUALITY
- Inter-institutional accountability is another important facet of ‘quality,’ defined as: “the responsibility governors have to answer to other institutions or collective actors that have the expertise and power to control the behaviour of the governors.” (Morlino)
- So it connotes continuous (rather than periodic) institutional monitoring; and sufficient checks and balances deriving from institutions.
- The main referents of this concept are a strong governmental opposition, court system, magistracy, constitutional courts, state accounting offices, central banks, media, other intermediary associations, such as unions, employers’ associations. (see O’Donnell 1999; Schmitter 1999).
DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIC QUALITY
- Then we have Participation, which is defined as : ‘ th e entire set of behaviours […] that allows women and men, as individuals or as groups, to create, revive, or strengthen group identification or to try to influence the recruitment of, and decisions by, political authorities […] in order to maintain or change the allocation of e xisting values.’ (Morlino)
- This concept notes things such as involvement in electoral campaigns, involvement in partisan and other associational activities, personal contacts with politicians, and collective forms of action; non-conventional participation, such as strikes, demonstrations, riots, and other forms of protest (Barnes and Kaase 1979).
- The main instruments used to participate are voting; strikes; and lobbying.
DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIC QUALITY
- Competition is critical to democratic quality. It is defined as: ‘ peace f u l, non- threatening interaction among individuals and groups with the purpose of allocating a recognized value that repeatedly is put at stake.’ (Bartolini)
- It connotes pluralism, i.e, more than one political actor should be involved in political decision- making;
- freedom for all political parties to compete with each other complemented by fairness of political competition;
- established ‘rules of the game’ for political parties to compete;
- parliamentary competition, media plurality and independence;
- And relations between non-governmental and societal actors and political parties.
DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIC QUALITY
- The fifth dimension concerns the content of democratic quality. Extensive freedoms a feature of democratic quality,
the content of which is a set of rights. When we talk of freedom in the political sense we mean ‘freedom from coercion
in the sense of arbitrary power.’
- Freedom entails both positive and negative freedoms. A positive right is a right to something, a claim. This may be a social (right to education) or political (right to vote) right. A negative right is a right against interference, a defense. An example is the first amendment's prohibition to restrict free speech.
- Freedom consists political, civil and social rights.
- Examples of political rights: are the right to vote ; right for political leaders to compete for electoral support, and the right to be elected to public office (passive electorate).
- Civil rights Inc. personal liberty, the right to legal defence, the right to privacy, the freedom to choose one’s place of residence, freedom of movement and residence, the right to expatriate or emigrate, freedom and secrecy of correspondence, freedom of thought and expression, the right to an education, the right to information and a free press, and the freedoms of assembly, association, and organization, including political organizations unrelated to trade unions.
- Social rights inc. right to health or to mental and physical well-being; the right to assistance and social security; the right to work; the right to human dignity; the right to strike; the right to study; the right to healthy surroundings, and, more generally, the environment and to the protection of the environment; and the right to housing.
DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIC QUALITY
- Equality is the 2nd dimension of content-based ‘democratic quality’ and refer to the equality of each citizen's individual rights and liberty.
- The concept of equality Implies equality before the law;
- prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex, race, language, religion, opinions, and social and personal conditions (formal equality);
- lifting of barriers that limit social and economic equality, and therefore ‘the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic, and social organization of a country (substantive equality)
- Main problem with equality is less on knowing what things constitutes equality and how we can improve equality, and is more about the poor implementation of rights. The EU for example, sets out in the fundamental charter of rights what constitutes equality, the problem is some EU states are reluctant to implement it for political and cultural reasons. The thin legitimacy of the EU, and the fact that EU does not implement law is a problem.
DIMENSIONS OF DEMOCRATIC QUALITY
The last dimension concerns quality in terms of results: responsiveness. Responsiveness is defined as: ‘ the capacity of government to satisfy the governed by executing its policies in a way that corresponds to their demands” (Morlino). Responsiveness is a way to see representation ‘in action’ (Eulau and Karps)
The term is closely related to accountability – as judgements on responsibility imply that there is some awareness of the actual demands, and that the evaluation of the government’s response is related to how its actions either conform to or diverge from the interests of its electors.
The main ways to enhance democratic responsiveness are to increase levels of citizen satisfaction, and narrow the gap between the governors and the governed on policies.
QUALITY SUBVERSION
- As Prof. Morlino has pointed out, ‘quality’ can also be assessed by observing the extent to which the aforementioned ‘qualities’ are subverted (see Fig 7.1) , which might be a useful qualitative method to use in my paper.
- For example, when I am assessing the rule of law ‘quality’, I would look out for instances when law was used as a political weapon, or used to consolidate executive power.
- The same goes for accountability – if there is are instances or trends of no genuine party opposition, or manipulated information, it would contribute towards a negative assessment of the unit I am analysing.
- Recourse to violent participation as legitimate channels are subverted, would be a sign of a low-quality democracy.
- Concerning competition, freedom and equality, if there are party pacts to avoid competition, or rights are not implemented, this would contribute to a negative assessment.
- If information is manipulated from elites, and there is a crisis of legitimacy, then it is likely that the democracy in question is not responsive.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
- Democratic quality should be measured on a different scale from minimum democracy.
- Any assessment of democratic quality presumes first that a country is already democratic and then goes on to say something about how it functions(and how far it is from ideal standard).
- As the concept is specifically of democratic quality, it should apply to an aspect of politics that is unique to democracies rather than applicable to all regime types (Roberts). So measures of policy or outcome quality should be disregarded in measuring democratic quality (e.g. rate of economic growth, level of corruption, welfare and environmental policies promotion) as this also captures non-democratic regimes. Risk of ‘conceptual stretching.’
- A stronger reason for rejecting this approach is that democracy does not imply particular kinds of policy (such as strong environmental standards). There is no theoretical reason why an authoritarian regime might be equally or more effective at implementing policies that protect the environment. I am therefore less inclined to adopt Lipharts interpretation of ‘quality’ for what kinds of policy – he argues that quality promotes ‘gentler, kinder qualities.’ But as Roberts rightly points out, this obfuscates our understanding of ‘democratic quality’ and confuses it with other concepts.
- An assessment of ‘quality’ should not ignore trade-offs – the idea that there can be ‘too much of a good thing.’ (e.g rule of law). Too much rule of law for example could negatively affect the responsiveness of a democracy to act on policy preferences from the governed.
- Also, dimension s of ‘quality’ are not mutually exclusive but tend to overlap (e.g. extensive participation also requires a rule of law that will defend the right and ability of weaker social groups to participate fully).
OPERATIONALISATION: RULE OF LAW
So now I move onto the operationalisation phase. In other words, how can measure ‘democratic quality’ and what indicators should I be measuring? I will briefly go over the main dimensions of ‘democratic quality’ providing a non- exhaustive list of some indicators I might wish to consider that could be applicable to a polity like the EU. They are preliminary and are subject to revisions…starting with rule of law then…
Rule of Law
(i) I might wish to assess the extent to which the ECJ is independent and impartial. It is widely accepted that ECJ is independent…but it is still worth checking (I hold no preconceptions…)
(ii) Institutional and administrative capacity. The EU is a law-maker but has no powers of implementation. The asymmetrical implementation of rights and EU law in member states is partly a result of the EU’s lack of power. Not an effective bureaucracy akin to a national democracy. Powers of surveillance but limited powers of enforcement. (e.g. case of Hungary and Poland )
(iii) Presence of corruption at EU level > high presence of corruption and bribery are indicative of low transparency and high secrecy of decision-making.
(iv) Level of public confidence in the ECJ (legitimacy) > ‘quality’ of justice system dependent on legitimacy (amongst other things), judicial legitimacy is based on the citizens’ confidence in the justice system.
INTER-INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
To analyse inter-institutional accountability, I should observe:
(i) The executive (EC)–legislative relationship (EP)
(ii) Strength and composition of parliamentary opposition > is there a genuine opposition in the EP? On the face of it, Eurosceptic parties, or parties against the integration process, make up a tiny portion of the EP. Can they really genuinely hold majority to account? Less than 1/3 of EP parliamentarians are Eurosceptic according to a recent study.
(iii) Role of EU ombudsman and other independent authorities;
(iv) Degree of centralization and regionalism (role of NP and regional bodies). Currently under the subsidiarity principle, national parliaments also have checks and balance powers through the Early Warning Mechanism, which essentially allows NPs to amend legislation that they don’t like. It’s efficacy has been brought into doubt, however – it is seen as a blunt instrument as legislation cannot be blocked.
ELECTORAL ACCOUNTABILITY
When looking at the electoral accountability dimension, one should:
(i) Consider the extent of freedom of assembly and association (Article 12 of Charter of Fundamental Rights);
(ii) Presence and stability of ‘alternatives’ – i.e. no. of political parties;
(iii) Level of transparency in decision-making (high corruption and bribery can be taken as proxy of low transparency of decisions – (Stiglitz)
(iv) Available provisions for transparent political process (such as freedom of information legislation – Islam)
(v) Extent of media censorship in Europe > as alluded to earlier, EA is conditional on well-informed citizenry. Informed judgements on policies can only come about from impartial and pluralistic sources of media.
PARTICIPATION
When analysing the ‘quality of Participation at EU level, it is important to:
(i) Evaluate what rights are available to safeguard participation in the EU;
(ii) Measuring turnout in EU elections is the traditional barometer of observing trends in participation and cannot be overlooked.
(iii) Measure no. of petitions, boycotts and demonstrations is another useful indicator.
(iv) Measuring level of illegal political participation (e.g. unofficial strikes, occupying buildings etc.) Violent participation is usually a sign that legitimate channels of participation have been subverted.
(v) Is there freedom of association guaranteed by the treaties and freedom of opinion (ie. Pluralistic media)
(vi) Equality of participation > The equal respect and consideration of all interests by political representatives is only possible if participation is as widespread and as equal as possible (Lijphart, 1997; Rueschemeyer, 2004). Disproportional turnout in terms of social characteristics or different resources ‘may mirror social divisions, which in turn can reduce the effectiveness of responsive democracy’ (Teorell etal.) With this in mind, it would be interesting which kind of voter is most under/over-represented?
(vii) Level of non-institutional participation > As Schmitter and Karl also point out, the decision-making process should not be constrained by either non-elected elites . Otherwise, this interference is likely to conflict with citizen preferences articulated through their participation in decision-making.
COMPETITION
Competition
(i) Fractionalisation of the Party systems;
(ii) Alternation/rotation of incumbents;
(iii)Strength of opposition political groups;
(iv)Opposition vote share (%)
(v) Closeness of EP election results (vulnerability component – Bartolini)
(vi)Degree of concentration of EP seats (vulnerability component – Bartolini)
FREEDOM & EQUALITY
Freedom
(i) Level of personal autonomy and individual rights (i.e. right to free conduct of life); E.g) Freedom of movement, freedom of establishment in the EU
(i) Extent to which civil rights are guaranteed by the EU;
(ii) Extent to which political rights are guaranteed by the EU;
Equality
(i) Extent to which social rights are guaranteed by EU;
(ii) Women’s economic rights;
(iii) Distribution of economic resources.
RESPONSIVENESS
Responsiveness
(i) Perceived legitimacy of EU policy-making;
(ii) Availability of resources
(iii)Conditions for implementation (problems of government capability and responsiveness)
(iv)Length of government terms and legislature (Harmel and Robertson)
(v) Comparison of left-right preferences of citizens with left-right position of parties in EP.
STRATEGY FOR EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
- Mixed method (qualitative and quantitative approach).
- Assessment using comparative analysis, when appropriate. It might be useful to pick a exemplar case, such as one of Scandinavian countries, and compare its procedural, content and results-based ‘quality’ vis-à-vis the EU. However, I am aware that the EU represents a sui-generis polity, making comparison a difficult task to realize. I welcome your views on this point.
- I am aware that some indicators might not be applicable to trans-national level. For example, the EU has limited resources and capabilities (no implementation power), therefore an assessment of whether the EU implements rights cannot be carried out. Instead I need to limit my empirical assessment to indicators that are also transposable on a supra-national level. I note that some of the indicators applicable to national democracies would simply not be applicable to the EU.
- I should also acknowledge that assessing ‘democratic quality’ for a supranational polity might require different qualitative dimensions.
- Due to time and space constraints, I may focus instead on fewer, but most contentious dimensions
(i.e. accountability, competition, and responsiveness.
- I will refer to Eurostat, Euro-barometer and other relevant data sources.
THANKS FOR LISTENING!
- Citation du texte
- Jan Kermer (Auteur), 2019, Assess the Democratic Quality of the EU, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/463101
-
-
-
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X. -
-
Téléchargez vos propres textes! Gagnez de l'argent et un iPhone X.