‘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

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

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.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPolicy Studies
Vol/bind36
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)196-216
ISSN0144-2872
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2015

Citer dette

Bang, Henrik ; Jensen, Mads Christian Dagnis ; Nedergaard, Peter. / ‘We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’ : The Debate on the Democratic Deficit of the European Union. I: Policy Studies. 2015 ; Bind 36, Nr. 2. s. 196-216.
@article{da8764504f2c4a5f80f74b5f1c40860d,
title = "‘We the People’ versus ‘We the Heads of States’: 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 ‘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.",
author = "Henrik Bang and Jensen, {Mads Christian Dagnis} and Peter Nedergaard",
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 Christian Dagnis; Nedergaard, Peter.

I: Policy Studies, Bind 36, Nr. 2, 2015, s. 196-216.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

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

Y1 - 2015

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.

U2 - 10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846

DO - 10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846

M3 - Journal article

VL - 36

SP - 196

EP - 216

JO - Policy Studies

JF - Policy Studies

SN - 0144-2872

IS - 2

ER -