Towards A Genuine EMU: Democratic Legitimacy and
Accountability
The Fourth Pillar of a Genuine EMU
Democratic Legitimacy and Accountability
Brigid Laffan
Professor of European Politics
University College Dublin
Towards A Genuine EMU: Democratic Legitimacy and
Accountability
Introduction
The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, was mandated by the
European Council to work together with the Presidents of the other European institutions to
draft a report on the building blocks necessary for a genuine EMU. The mandate reflected
the conviction on the part of Europe’s Heads of State and Government (HoSG) that the
future of the euro required further institutional and policy development to ensure its longterm sustainability. The Van Rompuy report submitted to the European Council in June 2012
identified four building blocks; integrated financial, budgetary and economic policy
frameworks buttressed by the necessary democratic legitimacy and accountability. The
inclusion of the fourth pillar on political integration stemmed from an understanding that
the development of the other three pillars would mark a step change in the degree to which
the member states, at least in the Euro area, would further pool their sovereignty and that
such a step change would not be stable without adequate democratic underpinning. The
need for strong mechanisms of democratic legitimacy and accountability was re-affirmed
by the HoSG in the Conclusions of the European Council meetings held in October and
December 2012.
Legitimacy and Accountability
Legitimacy and accountability lie at the heart of democratic politics. Constructing
mechanisms for the necessary democratic legitimacy and accountability of the next phase of
EMU is challenging because the EU represents a compound multi-level polity that is more
than an international organization but less than a state. The EU consists of 27 democratic
states that have voluntarily agreed to pool their sovereignty but in so doing must preserve
the democratic character of their domestic political systems. There is no easily identifiable
institutional or procedural fix. While institutions and procedures matter, the key challenge
lies in the quality of politics in the multilevel system. In exploring the challenge, it is vital to
explore what might be fostered at EU level but also at the domestic level. The goal is to
make the multi-level system work in ways that will be perceived by Europe’s citizens as
legitimate and accountable. This necessitates enriching the quality of politics at EU level and
bringing ‘outside’ views into the domestic. These views are no longer foreign but not
domestic either.
The EU cannot become a scaled up version of the nation state. It must seek imaginative and
innovative ways of enhancing the democratic fabric of the multi-level system.
Accountability is a sub-set of legitimacy as the holding to account contributes to the
legitimacy of a political system. In exploring legitimacy it is useful to distinguish between
‘input legitimacy’ and ‘output legitimacy’. Input oriented legitimacy rests on the
participation of citizens in politics and their subsequent representation in politics
(government of the people and by the people). The main participatory and representative
mechanism is elections. Political parties offer policy programmes to the electorate which in
Towards A Genuine EMU: Democratic Legitimacy and
Accountability
turn delivers a mandate to govern at national level and a mandate to be represented
indirectly in the Council/European Council and directly in EP at EU level. Input legitimacy is
not just about giving voice to the people but also about responsiveness to the people.
Output oriented legitimacy, on the other hand, rests on the performance of
governments/public authorities in solving the problems that they confront (government for
the people). All political systems rely on a mixture of input and output oriented legitimacy.
Traditionally the EU relied on output legitimacy which has been weakened by the euro crisis
and has always struggled with input legitimacy.
In order to achieve long-term sustainability, the EU but more particularly the Euro area,
must regain output legitimacy but this is unlikely to prove adequate in the long term.
Governing parties in Europe are faced not just with the challenge of representative and
responsive government but also responsible government. The Euro crisis and the system of
economic governance that is evolving has strengthened the need for responsibility to
partners, to the ‘common concern’ of the member states, and places further limits on the
freedom of governments to respond to their electorates. Euro states are answerable to their
peers and must be dependable and trustworthy in their conduct of policies that may affect
the euro area.
Issues for Consideration
I: Parliamentary Accountability
The EU has two levels of parliamentary accountability, the EU level and the national level.
The European parliament has evolved from a Cinderella institution into a central player in
the Union’s legislative process. The role of national parliaments has also been enhanced in
successive treaty negotiations. The roles and practices of both parliamentary levels do not
yet amount to a comprehensive system of parliamentary accountability in the EU.
Questions
1. What role should the EP have in monitoring and reviewing the emerging
system of economic governance?
2. How can the EP enrich the debate on the choices facing Europe in terms of
prosperity, equity and fairness?
3. What can be done to strengthen the political groups in the EP so that they
have greater organizational and intellectual capacity to participate in national
political debates as European voices?
4. Is there a need for an EU level standing committee of national budgetary and
finance committees?
5. How can national parliaments enrich the domestic debate on economic
governance?
Towards A Genuine EMU: Democratic Legitimacy and
Accountability
6. How can the Commission be held to account for its role in monitoring and
surveillance of national budgets? Should the Commission engage in dialogue
with national parliamentary committees on its recommendations concerning
national budgets?
7. How should cooperation between the EP and national parliaments, as
envisaged in the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, be
organised?
8. Is there a risk that greater involvement of national parliaments will further
constrain the capacity of member state governments to reach compromises
at EU level?
II: Managing the Politics of Constrained Choice
One of the key lessons of the Euro crisis is that membership of the Euro requires a high level
of fiscal prudence and co-responsibility within the euro area. The euro states have created a
new regulatory and institutional framework for national budgetary and economic policy,
one that encases them in a wider euro area framework of responsibility. The direction is
towards more stringent surveillance, reinforced penalties and constraint. This amounts to
more collective authority. Reciprocal responsibility as a member of the euro area reduces
domestic budgetary and economic policy autonomy, alters the timing and cycle of
budgetary preparation and brings the ‘outside’ in at an early stage of budgetary planning.
The EU has become much more politicized and contested over the last 20 years and this will
deepen as the EU or euro area exercises greater authority. National governments will not be
able to contain politicization within executives or even parliaments.
Questions
1. How can political parties, particularly governing parties, present and justify the
politics of constrained choice to their electorates so as to ensure that publics are
aware of the rationale behind the evolving system of economic governance and
accept it as proportionate and legitimate?
2. How can the EU and member states respond to the growth of populist challenger
parties?
3. How can political parties avoid scapegoating the EU and ‘Europe’ for unpopular
policies and measures that have both an EU and domestic rationale?
III: Creating a European or Euro wide political space
Political space in Europe is highly fragmented and national elections remain the preeminent
electoral contests in the member states. Competition for national office remains the key
goal of political parties. Political groupings at EU level have been strengthened over the last
twenty years but do not constitute a Europe wide party system. There is some evidence of
Towards A Genuine EMU: Democratic Legitimacy and
Accountability
the emergence of a European public sphere and European issues have become more salient
in national politics. That said, political space at EU level remains fragmented.
Questions
1. Should the 2014 European elections be used to enliven a European wide political
space? How could this be done-through the nomination of the Commission President
designate by party groupings?
2. Does the direct election of the President of the Commission have merit?
3. If governments are less responsive at national level because of the importance of
reciprocal responsibility, how could the EU level become more responsive?
4. Will it require Euro or EU wide taxes to create ‘genuine’ politics in the EU? Will
electorates only become actively engaged in EU or Euro wide politics when
representation is linked to taxation?
IV: Political Communication about Europe
EU institutions and procedures offer multiple channels for national governments and
interest groups to input into EU policy making. Governments develop a narrative about their
countries in the EU and the salience of the EU for them (positioning in the EU).
Communication with domestic publics is less structured and more uneven. Political
communication about Europe and the euro is essential if publics are going to understand
and support the building of the other three euro pillars. Given the step change involved in
the other pillars, all governments must find ways of communicating Europe to their publics
in ways that acknowledge the undoubted complexities but also identify the challenges of
interdependence in contemporary Europe.
Questions
1. What are the available narratives that could or should be developed in
relation to the EU but particularly the euro?
2. Apart from national narratives, what is the EU and euro wide narrative or
narratives?
3. Who has responsibility for communicating the EU and the Euro?
4. How can cross-national debate be organised at domestic level, reflecting
‘outside’ views that are no longer ‘foreign’ but not ‘domestic’ either?
5. How best to handle the different audiences-domestic, partners, the
international system?
6. How can the media be encouraged to involve more cross-national voices in
debates and reportage on European and euro zone affairs?