LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Spring 2008

by Alan Dukes

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

Jerzy Baczynski says central and eastern Europe found that “Democratisation quickly came to mean westernisation that was often chaotic, arbitrary and divorced from the country’s psychological and cultural roots.” He adds that the democratic institutions of these EU member states lacked a sound base in civil society and were held hostage by political parties. While much of this analysis is valid, it is not peculiar to eastern and central Europe. The region’s post-communist experiences have parallels in the histories of Greece after 1981 and of Spain and Portugal post-1986. Ireland, too, suffered a civil war in the wake of independence in 1922.

It seems that the path to democracy is never smooth, even when the principal obstacle to its introduction has been removed. It takes time for civil society, including political parties, to “construct” their relationship with the new political order. A period of instability is, therefore, not unusual. In the early stages of transition, actions that appear to be incompetent may in fact be the result of inexperience. Either way, this often leads to abuses of power and corruption. However, it cannot be said that these vices are unique to new democracies. What is important is that they are recognised as faults and remedial action is taken.

Baczynski also takes up the theme of the “democratic deficit” in the EU. He quotes Timothy Garton Ash’s aphorism, that: “Were the EU to apply for membership of the EU, it would not be accepted.” This presumably means that the EU does not meet the Copenhagen criteria, which set down the eligibility requirements for accession, including institutional guarantees for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. However, it is hardly surprising that the EU fails to meet its own accession rules. The Copenhagen criteria were designed to apply to states; the EU is not a state, therefore it cannot be judged by the same criteria as states.

To understand the nature of democracy in the EU, it is essential to remember that member states are the primary components of the Union: the EU is a union of states. Therefore democracy in the EU means democracy between these member states. And that is assured by the institutional provisions governing relations between them, i.e. the Council. The member states have adjusted these relations in successive treaties, all of which were ratified – until the French and Dutch referendums of 2005 - in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It is national democratic institutions that have the final say.

Furthermore, the democratic structure of the European Parliament, and its power of co-decision with the Council, constitutes an additional element of democratic assurance within the European Union. It is an arrangement without parallel in the internal structures of the member states. So, where’s the democratic deficit? As I have argued in detail elsewhere, I consider the “democratic deficit” to exist at the level of national parliaments, not the EU.