The lack of a European demos mentioned above should have made clear that full-fledged input legitimacy is unrealistic at the European level. But whilst the EU will increase input problems, at the same time it will decrease problems of output. Effectiveness will have to come at a democratic cost. This is very much in line with the democratic dilemma pointed out by Dahl - system effectiveness beyond the nation-sate runs counter to citizen participation.
But Dahl also argues that we are witnessing a third transformation of democracy from territorial states to multi-level systems. The implication is that just as democracy on the scale of national states required new patterns of political institutions radically different from those of the small scale city-states, democracy on a transnational scale will similarly require new sets of institutions sometimes radically different from those of the familiar political institutions in modern representative democracies.
(Dahl, 1994, 27) Dahl's argument appears inherently convincing and could help explain why filling the democratic gap with elements found at the national level is a wrong approach. Since the European Union is not a state, its institutions ought not to be assessed on the basis of those found in the member states. Merely transferring those institutions from the national to the European level would not make the EU more democratic or legitimate. One should rather look if a new form of democracy could come to exist and how this form of democracy could operate differently from that within the nation-states.
As the notion of input legitimacy is under direct constrain from external economic and institutional factors, this new form of democracy would inevitably have to depend on output legitimacy. Policy choices that would be domestically popular must be avoided due to European law or because they could affect negatively the international competitiveness of the nation. As a result, the role of popular preferences and demands will be rendered more insignificant and expertise and specialized knowledge will increase, especially if solutions are achieved though interstate negotiations.
In Scharpf's words, it means that "popular approval and popular demand are becoming less and less sufficient for assuring, or even for justifying, corresponding policy choices. As a consequence, input-oriented legitimating arguments will become less plausible, and government at the national level must increasingly depend on output-oriented legitimation arguments alone. " (Scharpf, 1998) Policies guided solely towards input legitimacy in a Europe without common identity could actually signify de-legitimization of its policy.
Unlike input legitimacy, output legitimacy only requires the perception of common interests but no common identity. Choices will still be legitimate because they effectively promote the common welfare of the constituency by giving solutions to problems that can only be achieved through collectively binding decisions. Furthermore, there exist several mechanisms with which legitimacy in the Union can be sustained. For instance, Majone argues that pareto-improving policies should be left the regulatory agencies in Europe, and only redistributive policies would need democratic legitimation.
Although these independent agencies seem to violate democratic principle since they are not subject to majoritarian control, the American model showed that agency independence and public accountability should be viewed as complementary and mutually reinforcing rather than antithetical values. These agencies will be legitimized by the results that they achieve. Factors such as professionalism, statutory goals, procedural requirements, and judicial review are all elements of a complex system of immanent control more important than majoritarian rule that ensure legitimacy and accountability.
Source: law aspect
But Dahl also argues that we are witnessing a third transformation of democracy from territorial states to multi-level systems. The implication is that just as democracy on the scale of national states required new patterns of political institutions radically different from those of the small scale city-states, democracy on a transnational scale will similarly require new sets of institutions sometimes radically different from those of the familiar political institutions in modern representative democracies.
(Dahl, 1994, 27) Dahl's argument appears inherently convincing and could help explain why filling the democratic gap with elements found at the national level is a wrong approach. Since the European Union is not a state, its institutions ought not to be assessed on the basis of those found in the member states. Merely transferring those institutions from the national to the European level would not make the EU more democratic or legitimate. One should rather look if a new form of democracy could come to exist and how this form of democracy could operate differently from that within the nation-states.
As the notion of input legitimacy is under direct constrain from external economic and institutional factors, this new form of democracy would inevitably have to depend on output legitimacy. Policy choices that would be domestically popular must be avoided due to European law or because they could affect negatively the international competitiveness of the nation. As a result, the role of popular preferences and demands will be rendered more insignificant and expertise and specialized knowledge will increase, especially if solutions are achieved though interstate negotiations.
In Scharpf's words, it means that "popular approval and popular demand are becoming less and less sufficient for assuring, or even for justifying, corresponding policy choices. As a consequence, input-oriented legitimating arguments will become less plausible, and government at the national level must increasingly depend on output-oriented legitimation arguments alone. " (Scharpf, 1998) Policies guided solely towards input legitimacy in a Europe without common identity could actually signify de-legitimization of its policy.
Unlike input legitimacy, output legitimacy only requires the perception of common interests but no common identity. Choices will still be legitimate because they effectively promote the common welfare of the constituency by giving solutions to problems that can only be achieved through collectively binding decisions. Furthermore, there exist several mechanisms with which legitimacy in the Union can be sustained. For instance, Majone argues that pareto-improving policies should be left the regulatory agencies in Europe, and only redistributive policies would need democratic legitimation.
Although these independent agencies seem to violate democratic principle since they are not subject to majoritarian control, the American model showed that agency independence and public accountability should be viewed as complementary and mutually reinforcing rather than antithetical values. These agencies will be legitimized by the results that they achieve. Factors such as professionalism, statutory goals, procedural requirements, and judicial review are all elements of a complex system of immanent control more important than majoritarian rule that ensure legitimacy and accountability.
Comments
Post a Comment