1. Theoretical sources of legitimacy
Empirical legitimacy
(Weber)
legitimacy exists where
it is perceived to exist
Weberian sources:
Charisma
Tradition
Legality (democracy?)
Normative legitimacy
(lib democratic theorists)
legitimacy depends on
established democratic
ethics and principles:
representation
popular mandate for
action
acceptable system for
choice of government
2. Problems for the EU (1)
Empirical legitimacy
no sources of
Charisma
Tradition
how useful is legality
in satisfying Weber’s
criterion?
2. Problems for the EU (2)
Normative legitimacy - Key elements of the democratic deficit
Lack of clear lines of accountability (eg Commission President)
No occasion on which the people choose amongst options
European Council and Council of Ministers members mostly
are elected, but at one stage removed and not on the
basis of European issues
EP is elected, but its powers are restricted, electoral
turnouts are low, and elections are contested on national
issues
Policy processes do not conform to liberal
democratic notions of transparency, accountability
and participation
3. “traditional” solutions (1)
Enhanced representation
(Beetham & Lord 1998)
direct election of Commission President
enhanced EP powers
but…
electoral apathy
how effective is the EP as the instrument
of representative democracy?
3. “traditional” solutions (2)
Confederal consociation
(Tsinisizelis & Chryssochoou 1998)
“mutual governance” (by national actors)
EU legitimacy depends on state legitimacy
but… (Beetham and Lord – 1998 – critique)
EU has direct effect on citizens
EP and Commission are supranational
EU competences are expanding beyond those agreed
EU has a political as well as economic/social mission
Ministers may lose legitimacy if they fail at EU level
3. “traditional” solutions (3)
non-majoritarian democracy
(Majone 1996)
majority rule is restrained by placing authority
in the hands of non-accountable experts and technocrats
working within guidelines imposed on them by EU
politicians
this is appropriate where policies are about
regulation (economic, social, legal)
i.e., in the EU case
but… (Beetham & Lord – 1998 – critique)
there is no such thing as “ideological neutrality”
decision-making always depends on policy choices
technocratic rule needs to complement, not compete
with democratic choice
present EU powers and competences are not
universally accepted
4. “alternative” solutions (1)
Input solutions – a new normative form?
Participatory involvement
(Multi-level governance?)
sub-national govt; groups;
parties participate
people derive legitimacy
from participation & feed
it back to the EU
but are people, or their
groups empowered?
multi-level participation
is not the same thing as
multi-level governance
(Bache 1999)
Enabling involvement
(Abromeit, 1998)
establishing veto rights
on major EU policy
initiatives to be
exercised by groups
and regions
would slow things down
-a good thing?
but problem of
enabling informed
involvement
4. “alternative” solutions (2)
Outcome (performance) solutions
externalised legitimacy
(Feldman 1999; Beetham
& Lord 1998)
gained by means of
international “approval”
eg development of peace
community
but…
outcomes are disputable
has the EU guaranteed
peace beyond its
immediate borders?
EU citizenship
(Beetham & Lord 1998)
EU institutional
legitimacy derived from
sense of belonging
eg: popular human rights
EU constitution
post-national citizenship
thus EU democracy leads
to EU demos (not the
other way round)
The EU is only a partially developed political
system with the consequences that:
it may require a different form of
legitimisation
it may require a different form of democracy
with only limited powers in such key areas as
foreign and defence policy, social
redistribution, and taxation, it may not need
such high standards of legitimisation and
democratisation as states