​

Anti-Democratic Rule by Unelected Elites

The critique of anti-democratic rule by elites in the European Union (EU) encompasses concerns about how power and decision-making are concentrated within certain EU institutions and among a limited group of individuals, often perceived as being disconnected from the general populace. This criticism is rooted in what is sometimes referred to as the "democratic deficit" in the EU, a term that suggests a lack of democratic representation, transparency, and accountability in the EU's governance structures. Here are the key aspects and arguments related to this critique:

1. European Commission's Role: The European Commission, which is the EU's executive body responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties, and managing the day-to-day business of the EU, is particularly highlighted in critiques of elitism. Commissioners are appointed rather than directly elected, raising concerns about their democratic legitimacy and the influence of elite interests in their decision-making.

2. Other Unelected Bodies: Critics argue that power within the EU is concentrated among a small number of elites, including bureaucrats in the European Commission, officials in the European Central Bank, and other non-elected bodies. These institutions have significant influence over EU policy and legislation but are not directly accountable to the electorate.

3. Lack of Transparency and Accountability: The complex nature of EU governance and the perceived opacity of its legislative and policy-making processes can contribute to the view that it is an elitist institution. The convoluted procedures and the role of unelected officials in drafting and proposing legislation are often cited as barriers to transparency and democratic accountability. This complexity leads to opacity, making it difficult for the average citizen to understand how decisions are made and who is making them. There is little clear mechanism for citizens to influence EU decision-makers or to hold them accountable.

4. Elite Decision-Making: Critics argue that the EU's decision-making processes are dominated by a small group of political elites, bureaucrats, and technocrats, particularly within key institutions such as the European Commission and the European Council. This can sometimes alienate the general populace and make the decision-making process even in bodies with some electoral input seem distant and unaccountable.

5. Influence of Lobbying: Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU, has a large presence of lobbyists representing various interests, from corporations to NGOs. There are concerns that these lobbyists have disproportionate influence on legislation and policy, benefiting elite interests over the general population.

6. Citizen Engagement and Participation: While the European Parliament is directly elected by EU citizens, there is a perception that individual voters have limited influence over EU policies compared to national governments and the EU's bureaucratic apparatus. Low voter turnout in European Parliament elections is often cited as an indicator of the EU's struggle to engage its citizens fully and voter perception of low responsiveness to the people.

The Democratic Deficit

The concept of a democratic deficit within the European Union (EU) has been a central critique and concern in the discourse surrounding EU governance and institutional structures. The term "democratic deficit" refers to the perceived gap between the EU's decision-making processes and the democratic participation or control by its citizens. Several factors contribute to this problem:

1. Institutional Structure and Decision-Making

• Complexity of Governance: The EU's institutional architecture—comprising the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council, and the Council of the European Union—creates a complex decision-making process that can be difficult for citizens to understand and engage with.

• Role of the European Commission: The Commission, which has the sole power to propose EU legislation, is composed of unelected commissioners. This has raised concerns about its democratic legitimacy, despite its accountability to the European Parliament.

• Limited Powers of the European Parliament: Although the European Parliament is directly elected by EU citizens, critics argue that it has historically had limited legislative power compared to the Council and the Commission. However, its powers have been progressively expanded through various EU treaties.

2. Electoral and Participatory Mechanisms

• European Parliament Elections: While these elections allow citizens to vote for their representatives, turnout has often been low compared to national elections, raising questions about the level of engagement and interest in EU affairs among the populace.

• Representation and Legitimacy: There are concerns about the proportionality of representation in the European Parliament, especially regarding the allocation of seats to smaller vs. larger member states, and whether this accurately reflects the will of the European electorate.

3. Transparency and Accountability

• Complex Legislative Processes: The legislative process within the EU, involving multiple institutions and stages, can be opaque and difficult for citizens to follow, making it challenging to hold decision-makers accountable.

• Influence of Lobbying: The significant role of lobbying in Brussels, with powerful industry groups potentially having more access and influence than ordinary citizens, contributes to the perception of a democratic deficit.

4. Supranational vs. National Sovereignty

• Transfer of Powers: The transfer of decision-making powers from national governments to the EU has led to concerns that citizens are losing control over important areas of policy, with decisions being made at a level perceived as remote from their daily lives.

• Principle of Subsidiarity: While the principle of subsidiarity is intended to ensure that decisions are made as closely as possible to the citizens, its application and effectiveness in preventing undue centralization of power at the EU level are subjects of debate.

EU Response and Public Concerns

In response to these concerns, the EU has undertaken various reforms aimed at reducing the democratic deficit, such as:

• Enhancing the powers of the European Parliament, especially through the Treaty of Lisbon, which strengthened its legislative and budgetary powers and its role in the appointment of the Commission President.

• Promoting greater transparency in decision-making and lobbying.

• Introducing the European Citizens' Initiative, which allows citizens to suggest legislation directly to the European Commission.

Critics note that the EU's democratic deficit is structural and pervasive, and that relatively minor cosmetic "reforms" have not meaningfully restored power to the people.  Power remains concentrated in a small cadre of European elites, and many citizens remain effectively disenfranchised regarding key elements of policy, governance, and sovereignty.  

Some critics argue for more profound reforms to enhance democratic legitimacy and accountability, whereas 40-48% express a desire to leave the EU in Poland, Italy, Croatia, Slovenia, and some other countries. These figures substantially reflect the EU's critis of democratic legitimacy.  The loss of sovereignty of member states was a key factor in the United Kingdom's exit from the EU (Brexit).