The rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by the French and Dutch citizens in the referendum of spring 2005 has caused a revival of the EU's legitimacy issue. It was also evidence for the fact that both the continuous strengthening of the European Parliament's powers one the one hand and the Commission's strategy for a good governance on the other hand were unable to provide a satisfactory answer to the persistent questioning of the EU's legitimacy . The concept of legitimacy is founded on three kinds of elements: its legality (the rule of law), its capacity to respect the sovereignty of the people (through elections, representation, and accountability), and the democratic nature of its political outcome in terms of efficiency and rights protection for instance. Furthermore, legitimacy assumes the consent of citizens and recognition by other political organizations .
[...] “Post-parliamentary strategies need, therefore, to be recast as complements, rather than substitute, for parliamentarism at Union level” (Lord and Beetham). Discuss Introduction The rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by the French and Dutch citizens in the referenda of spring 2005 has caused a revival of the EU's legitimacy issue. It was also an evidence that both the continuous strengthening of the European Parliament's powers one the one hand and the Commission's strategy for a “good governance” on the other hand were unable to provide a satisfactory answer to the persistent questioning of the EU's legitimacy. [...]
[...] Finally, the consultation of stakeholders should increase its problem- solving capacity through the emergence of consensual and solutions” as a result of the deliberative process, allowing for a better implementation. Secondly, and by the way, consultation allows interest groups to bring some pluralistic and democratic input into the EU policy-making. The various post-parliamentary strategies described above are promoted particularly by the Commission that seeks to put forward new practices in conformity with its theory of good governance, as described in its 2001 White Paper. [...]
[...] Scharpf (see 1.2 I argue that the possibility to achieve Pareto-improvement situations through deliberation between experts and stakeholders should be relativized. Since every policy is bound to create winners and losers, the belief that well rationalized policy-making could produce a policy output satisfactory for all addressees is in my view closer to technocratic utopia than to reality. As falsification of a theory data by another theory is constitutive of science, the arguability of policies lies at the core of democracy. [...]
[...] Facing such a deadlock, the way out can be seen in more pragmatic and efficient extra- parliamentary means of legitimating the EU Post-parliamentary strategies: theorizing and implementing new governance 1. Liberal democracy As mentioned earlier, the EU does not constitute a regime of separation or rather distribution of powers with a classical government-parliament relationship. Nevertheless, the multiple checks and balances create a “mutual horizontal control” between the various participants to the policy process (member-states, institutions, administrations, experts and networks) which prevents autocratic decision-making and ensures the accountability of the decision-makers, according to the various theories of liberal and pluralist democracy. [...]
[...] The pre-existence of a political community for legitimating parliamentarism can be objected, as Jürgen Habermas for instance does. However, it impedes the EP in its representation capacity. While low turn outs can be observed at national levels as well, substantial problem of the European Parliament's problem with its electorate lies in its image, or rather, in its lack of image. A plurality has no image, good or bad, of the Parliament”: it suffers from its “failure to even begin to penetrate the consciousness of so many of its electors. [...]
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture