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

Henrik BANG, Mads Jensen, Peter Nederfard

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    6 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    keywordsThe 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 languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)196-216
    Number of pages21
    JournalPolicy Studies
    Volume36
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Fingerprint

    head of state
    deficit
    Eurozone
    legitimacy
    democracy
    ability

    Cite this

    @article{c0109e2359c6402f9a1fa1d7cc72302c,
    title = "We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’: the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union",
    abstract = "keywordsThe 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.",
    keywords = "democratic deficit, EU, input, output, legitimacy",
    author = "Henrik BANG and Mads Jensen and Peter Nederfard",
    year = "2015",
    doi = "10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846",
    language = "English",
    volume = "36",
    pages = "196--216",
    journal = "Policy Studies",
    issn = "0144-2872",
    publisher = "Routledge",
    number = "2",

    }

    We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’: the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union. / BANG, Henrik; Jensen, Mads; Nederfard, Peter.

    In: Policy Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2015, p. 196-216.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’: the debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union

    AU - BANG, Henrik

    AU - Jensen, Mads

    AU - Nederfard, Peter

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - keywordsThe 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 - keywordsThe 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 - democratic deficit

    KW - EU

    KW - input

    KW - output

    KW - legitimacy

    U2 - 10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846

    DO - 10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846

    M3 - Article

    VL - 36

    SP - 196

    EP - 216

    JO - Policy Studies

    JF - Policy Studies

    SN - 0144-2872

    IS - 2

    ER -