‘We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’: the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union

Henrik Bang; Mads Christian Dagnis Jensen; Peter Nedergaard

doi:10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846

‘We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’: the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union

Henrik Bang, Mads Christian Dagnis Jensen, Peter Nedergaard

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Eurozone crisis has rekindled the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union (EU). In this paper, the debate is reconsidered by contrasting the modus vivendi of ‘We the People’ in the USA with the modus vivendi of ‘We the Heads of States’ in the EU. It is demonstrated that many of the solutions to the alleged democratic deficit focus on how more voice can be given to ‘We the People’ on the input side, but that this goes against the functional logic of the EU system, thereby undermining its ability to govern. Instead, we argue that more attention should be given to how to increase output legitimacy, and a number of proposals are put forward. Such a reshuffling of the analytical focus is the best way forward to escape the current impasse in the debate on how to ‘fix’ democracy in the EU.

Original language	English
Article number	5
Journal	Policy Studies
Volume	36
Issue number	2
Pages (from-to)	196-216
Number of pages	21
ISSN	0144-2872
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846
Publication status	Published - 4 Mar 2015

Keywords

Faculty of Social Sciences
democratic deficit
EU
output
legitimacy

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846

Cite this

@article{ded7cd3f8e1243aebb5b73cafd04ddb5,

title = "{\textquoteleft}We the People{\textquoteright} versus {\textquoteleft}We the Heads of States{\textquoteright}: the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union",

abstract = "The Eurozone crisis has rekindled the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union (EU). In this paper, the debate is reconsidered by contrasting the modus vivendi of {\textquoteleft}We the People{\textquoteright} in the USA with the modus vivendi of {\textquoteleft}We the Heads of States{\textquoteright} in the EU. It is demonstrated that many of the solutions to the alleged democratic deficit focus on how more voice can be given to {\textquoteleft}We the People{\textquoteright} on the input side, but that this goes against the functional logic of the EU system, thereby undermining its ability to govern. Instead, we argue that more attention should be given to how to increase output legitimacy, and a number of proposals are put forward. Such a reshuffling of the analytical focus is the best way forward to escape the current impasse in the debate on how to {\textquoteleft}fix{\textquoteright} democracy in the EU.",

keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, democratic deficit, EU, output, legitimacy",

author = "Henrik Bang and Jensen, {Mads Christian Dagnis} and Peter Nedergaard",

year = "2015",

month = mar,

day = "4",

doi = "10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846",

language = "English",

volume = "36",

pages = "196--216",

journal = "Policy Studies",

issn = "0144-2872",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - ‘We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’

T2 - the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union

AU - Bang, Henrik

AU - Jensen, Mads Christian Dagnis

AU - Nedergaard, Peter

PY - 2015/3/4

Y1 - 2015/3/4

N2 - The Eurozone crisis has rekindled the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union (EU). In this paper, the debate is reconsidered by contrasting the modus vivendi of ‘We the People’ in the USA with the modus vivendi of ‘We the Heads of States’ in the EU. It is demonstrated that many of the solutions to the alleged democratic deficit focus on how more voice can be given to ‘We the People’ on the input side, but that this goes against the functional logic of the EU system, thereby undermining its ability to govern. Instead, we argue that more attention should be given to how to increase output legitimacy, and a number of proposals are put forward. Such a reshuffling of the analytical focus is the best way forward to escape the current impasse in the debate on how to ‘fix’ democracy in the EU.

AB - The Eurozone crisis has rekindled the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union (EU). In this paper, the debate is reconsidered by contrasting the modus vivendi of ‘We the People’ in the USA with the modus vivendi of ‘We the Heads of States’ in the EU. It is demonstrated that many of the solutions to the alleged democratic deficit focus on how more voice can be given to ‘We the People’ on the input side, but that this goes against the functional logic of the EU system, thereby undermining its ability to govern. Instead, we argue that more attention should be given to how to increase output legitimacy, and a number of proposals are put forward. Such a reshuffling of the analytical focus is the best way forward to escape the current impasse in the debate on how to ‘fix’ democracy in the EU.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - democratic deficit

KW - EU

KW - output

KW - legitimacy

U2 - 10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846

DO - 10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0144-2872

VL - 36

SP - 196

EP - 216

JO - Policy Studies

JF - Policy Studies

IS - 2

M1 - 5

ER -

‘We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’: the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this