Executive Selection in the European Union: Does the Commission President Investiture Procedure Reduce the Democratic Deficit?
AbstractCentral to all democratic systems is the ability of citizens to choose who holds executive power. To reduce the democratic-deficit in the EU, therefore, the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties give the European Parliament (EP) a vote on the European Council nominee for Commission President. The effect, so many commentators claim, is a parliamentary model: where EP elections are connected via an EP majority to executive selection. However, these claims are misplaced. There are no incentives for national parties to compete for the Commission President, and every incentive for MEPs to abide by national-party rather than EP-party wishes. The result is that EP elections are �second-order national contests�, fought by national parties on national executive performance, and that the winning coalition in the investiture procedure is of �prime ministers� parties� not of �EP election victors�. Consequently, for a parliamentary model to work, either the EP should �go first� in the investiture process, or the link between domestic parties and MEPs should be broken. However, if EP elections remain second-order, the only option may be a presidential model, where the Commission President is directly-elected.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A) in its journal European Integration online Papers (EIoP).
Volume (Year): 1 (1997)
Issue (Month): (November)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2006.
"The European Commission – Appointment, Preferences and Institutional Relations,"
6, Aboa Centre for Economics.
- Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2008. "The European Commission–Appointment, preferences, and institutional relations," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 21-41, October.
- Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2007. "The European Commission – Appointment, Preferences, and Institutional Relations," CESifo Working Paper Series 2120, CESifo Group Munich.
- Napel, Stefan & Widgrén, Mika, 2006. "The European Commission - Appointment, Preferences and Institutional Relations," CEPR Discussion Papers 5478, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Napel, Stefan & Widgrén, Mika, 2006. "The European Commission - Appointment, Preferences and Institutional Relations," Discussion Papers 999, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
- Muntean, Andrei M., 2000. "The European Parliament�s Political Legitimacy and the Commission�s �Misleading Management�: Towards a �Parliamentarian� European Union?," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 4, 05.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Editorial Assistant).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.