The recent move to install the unelected Mario Monti as Italian Prime Minister has led further support to accusations of a democratic deficit often used by Eurosceptics
It is pantomime season in the UK and everyone’s favourite Eurosceptic panto villain, Nigel Farage, has been doing his very best to capitalise on the current crisis in the EU. In a recent address to the European Parliament, Farage continued his attack on EU President Herman Van Rompuy calling him the noisy assassin of nation-state democracy. Amongst his archaic and jingoistic rhetoric Farage managed to articulate one interesting point regarding the unelected nature of some European leaders and now national leaders in the case of Italy.
When Mario Monti was parachuted into the role of Italian Prime Minister some questions were raised as to the legitimacy of providing an unelected official with a formal political platform from which to espouse his views. The ‘democratic deficit’, as it is commonly referred to, has long been used as a Eurosceptic argument against the existence and expansion of the EU. The strengthening of the European Parliament’s authority has gone someway to neutralising this; however, there are still those who default to the democratic deficit position.
But just how much of a democratic deficit is there in the EU and are the member states any more democratic? Many responsibilities throughout nation states are devolved to unelected officials. Regulatory agencies, constitutional courts, central banks and quasi autonomous non-government organisations are widely used to implement and deliver policies in many European countries. These organisations fulfil an important role in citizens’ everyday lives yet one seldom hears accusations of a lack of democracy. This is predominantly because most people do not pay attention to these organisations as they deliver services to us. It is also equally as important to add that they are accountable to democratically elected ministers, who suffer if services are not delivered to a satisfactory level and at low cost.
This is no different in the EU and with the European Parliament’s increased authority since the Lisbon Treaty, particularly with the extension of the co-decision procedure, the Commission has far less autonomy over policy formulation than it once had. As well as this the choice of candidate for the President of the European Commission is now directly linked to the election results of the European Parliament, further bridging the gap between the two institutions.
There is, of course, a distinction between technocrats implementing government policies and installing an unelected technocrat as the leader of a nation. Further to this Italy’s entire cabinet is unelected. New defence minister Giampaolo Di Paola told reporters “The absence of political personalities in the government will help rather than hinder a solid base of support for the government in the parliament and political parties because it will remove one ground for disagreement,” Although there may be some truth in this, the negative side is that disagreement is also a fundamental right in a democracy. It can be argued that without disagreement the legislative process suffers and the richness of the policy debate is lost.
Although the Italian situation is far from ideal, it appears to be the only credible response to the economic crisis after years of incompetent leadership. In order to maintain integrity, Prime Minister Monti must deliver on the promise to hold elections by 2013, if not sooner. It must also be recognised that the EU does not lack a democratic process and that the strengthening of the European Parliament and the continued presence of member states in the Council provides both direct and indirect accountability and legitimacy.
