EU’s Democractic Conditionality: Democratic Principles and Procedures?

Monte, Déborah Silva do

doi:10.1590/S0102-8529.20234501e20210020

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

RESEARCH ARTICLE • Contexto int. 45 (1) • Jan/Apr 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-8529.20234501e20210020 copy

EU’s Democractic Conditionality: Democratic Principles and Procedures?

Condicionalidade democrática da UE: princípios e procedimentos democráticos?

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This article aims at explaining the changes in the democratic conditionality of the European Union over time from the institutional contexts of the domestic and regional levels. The comparison milestones regard enlargements that happened between 1993 and 2014. Variations on the dependent variable are analysed in light of the principles and procedures of the concept of polyarchy (Dahl 1989Dahl, R A. 1989. Um Prefácio à Teoria Democrática. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.). This analysis demonstrates and explains that the democratic conditionality of the EU has changed over time, becoming more complete and with more pluralist principles when applied to the enlargements. It also highlights the relation between the democratic conditionality and the democratic deficit of the EU by the incorporation of democratic principles and procedures in EU institutions.

Keywords
democratic conditionality; polyarchy; European Union; regional integration; decision-making

	Conditions of the polyarchy ⁷ 7 Only the conditions used on this analytical model are available.	Application (variables)	Indicators	Proximity to the concept of polyarchy
During the voting period	Universal suffrage	1. Method of the composition of the decision-making body	Government nomination	More distant to polyarchy ⁸ 8 This analysis establishes parameters of approximation and distance about the concept of polyarchy and we consider that the government nomination is at the end of the scale, being the least polyarchic of the methods of composition in analysis.
	Universal suffrage	1. Method of the composition of the decision-making body	Democratic representation	Closer to polyarchy
	The alternative with the greatest number of votes wins.	2. Decision rule	Unanimity	More distant to polyarchy
			Absolute majority
			Qualified Majority	Closer to polyarchy
	Equality of information among individuals.	3. Sources of the Reports that use the democratic conditionality and inform decisions about the accession of new members	Made exclusively by the Commission	More distant to polyarchy
			Made by the Commission in interaction with other institutions
			Made by the EP	Closer to polyarchy
	The orders of elected officials are executed.	4. Accountability of public bureaucracies	Autonomous bureaucracies	More distant to polyarchy
	The orders of elected officials are executed.	4. Accountability of public bureaucracies	Bureaucracies accountable to elected officials	Closer to polyarchy
During the intersection stage	Elections are controlling - all interelection decisions are subordinate or executory to those of the election stage. New decisions in the interelection period are ruled by the preceding conditions, although operating under different institutional arrangements.	5. Role of the EP in the process of adhesion of new members states.	EP unassigned in the accession process	More distant to polyarchy
			EP with a decisive role only in the final stage of the accession process.
			EP with a decisive role in all stages of the accession process.	Closer to polyarchy

	Pre-accession	Screening	Negotiation Positions
T1(1995 – 4th enlargement)	The instrument for pre-accession: CEE and EFTA Agreement on creating the European Economic Area (EEA).	Country Situation Assessment Documents: European Commission Report (1993)	Approximately 60% of the acquis Communautaire had already been incorporated by the candidates as part of the EEA creation process, with a high degree of political and economic convergence during the negotiations.
T1(1995 – 4th enlargement)	Democratic Conditionality: not used	Democratic Conditionality: not used. Economic aspects and the adoption of the community acquis were addressed	Democratic conditionality: the Copenhagen Criteria already existed at the time of negotiations and accession but were not used due to the democratic political regimes of the countries. The EP even emphasized the importance of these countries’ adherence as a way of reducing the EU’s democratic deficit.
T2 (1997/1998 – the start of access negotiations with 5th enlargement countries and Turkey’s declaration of eligibility) and T3 (2004/2007 – 5th enlargement)	The Instrument for pre-accession: European Agreements settled between 1991 and 1996 and e PHARE program (financial assistance).	Country Situation Assessment Documents: Agenda 2000 (1997) and Commission`s Regular Reports on each country (1998 and 1999) based on the Copenhagen Criteria (1993)	The Commission analysed the capacity of States to assume the obligations of the acquis Communautaire
	Democratic Conditionality: minimum democracy requirements (free elections, human rights and the rule of law)	Democratic Conditionality: more pluralist requirements of democracy. Free and fair elections, alternation of power, participation of the opposition in the political game, stability of institutions, separation and cooperation between the Powers, combating corruption, freedom of the press, access to public services, individual rights and inclusive citizenship to minorities. Turkey (1998): all requirements mentioned above plus non-interference of the armed forces in political life, due process of law and peaceful relations with neighbour countries.	Democratic conditionality: was not directly used over the 31 negotiating chapters. Romania and Bulgaria: the democratic conditionality was expanded after the accession process through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CMV)
T4 (2013/2014 – Croatia’s accession/start of access negotiations with Serbia).	The Instrument for pre-accession: The Stabilisation and Association Agreement- IPA (financial assistance)	Country situation assessment documents: Regular Reports made by European Commission, released between 2005 and 2013, based on the Copenhagen Criteria Plus (2001)	The Commission analysed the capacity of States to assume the obligations of the acquis Communautaire
	Democratic Conditionality: minimum democracy requirements (free elections, human rights and the rule of law) and cooperation with the ICTY	Democratic Conditionality: more pluralist requirements of democracy. Free and fair elections, alternation of power, participation of the opposition in the political game, stability of institutions, separation and cooperation between the Powers, combating corruption, freedom of the press, access to public services, individual rights and inclusive citizenship to minorities. Changes on the democratic conditionality from T3 to T4 (new criteria): full cooperation with the ICTY, return of refugees, regional cooperation and reconciliation with neighbouring countries, respect and implementation of peace agreements.	Democratic conditionality: Inclusion of new chapters - Chapters 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights) and 24 (Justice, Freedom and Security) - that make direct reference to democratic principles

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Relações Internacionais Rua Marques de São Vicente, 225 - Casa 20 , 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil, Tel.: (55 21) 3527-2284, Fax: (55 21) 3527-1560 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: cintjournal@puc-rio.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Déborah Silva do Monte is a permanent professor at the Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD/Brazil), teaching at the Graduate Program in Borders and Human Rights and at the undergraduate course of International Relations. Coordinator of GeDem (Group of Studies on Democracy, Institutions, and Inequalities), she holds a PhD in International Relations (PUC Minas/Brazil). Her research is focused on regional integration, theories of democracy, comparative politics, international cooperation, political institutions, and foreign policy analysis. Her current research interests includes recent democratic backslidings, and radical right parties. She is the current coordinator of the undergraduate course of International Relations (Faculty of Law and International Relations - UFGD/Brazil).