At the core of current arguments regarding the legitimacy and efficacy of the European Union (EU) is the issue of whether it is really democratic or mostly technocratic. Originally an economic community, the EU has developed into a political union with broad legislative and executive authority as a distinctive supranational organization. This development has prompted ongoing concerns regarding the character of its government, notably as to the equilibrium between democratic accountability and the impact of bureaucratic procedures and professional knowledge. The institutional structure of the European Union, which is marked by a complicated interaction between national governments, supranational organizations, and various stakeholders, offers a difficult case study for conventional models of democracy. Proponents counter that the EU upholds democratic ideals by means of its directly elected European Parliament, its adherence to the rule of law, and the general influence of member state governments in decision-making. Critics, on the other hand, call attention to the apparent “democratic deficit”, stressing the important role of unelected officials and the technical character of many policy domains which can undermine public comprehension and involvement. The essay will investigate this complicated contradiction by analyzing the institutional framework, decision-making processes, and citizen participation of the EU to determine its democratic credentials while also closely examining the justification for its technocratic bent. We can gain a more nuanced knowledge of the governance of the EU and its continuous efforts to reconcile its supranational goals with the basic ideals of democratic representation and accountability by examining the interaction between democratic aspirations and technocratic realities.

The Democratic Pillars of the European Union

The EU has many institutional traits that support democratic ideals, despite complaints. The European Parliament (EP) is the most notable among these. Directly elected every five years by the citizens of the member states, the EP reflects the will of the European people. Its legislative authority has progressively increased over time, especially through the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (formerly co-decision), whereby it has equal authority with the Council of the European Union in passing the majority of EU legislation. Since its members are responsible to their voters, this direct electoral mandate gives the EP vital democratic legitimacy. The EP’s function goes beyond legislation; it examines the European Commission, accepts the EU budget, and may censure the Commission, therefore compelling its resignation. A cornerstone of democratic governance, this supervisory role is absolutely necessary to limit executive authority.

Moreover, the Council of the European Union, made up of ministers from every member state, plays a critical part in EU decision-making. Although not directly chosen at the EU level, its members are democratically elected national politicians who answer to their citizens and national legislatures. Representing the direct will of their people, this intergovernmental pillar guarantees that national governments significantly influence the direction of EU policy. Particularly those needing unanimity or qualified majority, decisions in the Council include sophisticated negotiations and compromises among democratically responsible national leaders mirroring the collective will of the member states. Gathering heads of state or government, the European Council defines the general political direction of the EU and addresses the most urgent issues, thereby further embedding EU decision-making inside the context of national democratic mandates.

Another essential democratic ideal ingrained in the structure of the EU is the rule of law principle. Treaties approved by the member nations through their national democratic processes form the basis of the EU. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ensures that EU law is interpreted and applied consistently throughout all member states, therefore defending basic rights and legal certainty. The independence of the CJEU and its adherence to legal ideals offer a vital defense against arbitrary power and strengthen the democratic responsibility of EU institutions and member states. Furthermore reinforcing the dedication to human dignity and democratic liberties, the legally binding EU Charter of Fundamental Rights offers a full array of civil, political, and economic rights for all EU people.

The EU also solicits citizen input via several channels and consultations. Public discussions on proposed law are often held, letting people and interest groups express their views. One million people from at least seven member nations can use the European Citizens’ Initiative to ask the European Commission to suggest a legislative act. Although their actual influence is debatable, they provide a formal vehicle for direct citizen input into the legislative program of the European Union. Moreover, National legislatures are playing a growing role in reviewing EU legislation using tools like the “yellow card” and “orange card” systems, which let them contest suggested EU rules they judge to infringe on national competence or the subsidiarity principle. National level parliamentarian supervision is growing as a means of improving democracy’s legitimacy from below.

The democratic character of the EU is further enhanced by the presence of many interest groups and a lively civil society. Essential components of the policy-making process, lobbying, campaigning, and public discussion guarantee a broad spectrum of viewpoints taken into account. Although the power of strong interest groups might be a worry in any democracy, the plurality of actors and the transparency tools in place seek to create a pluralistic environment whereby many opinions may be heard. Though faulty, the EU’s openness and commitment to open governance offers channels for public scrutiny and participation typical of democratic states.

The Technocratic Leanings of the European Union

In spite of these democratic aspects, strong justifications indicate the technocratic nature of the European Union. The apparent “democratic deficit”, a term frequently used to characterize the divide between the authority of EU institutions and their responsibility to the populace of the EU, is one of the main worries. Critics say that the complexity of EU decision-making processes, together with the perceived distance between Brussels and ordinary people, results in feelings of disenfranchisement and alienation. For example, the Council of the European Union frequently makes decisions in private, and the legislative process might be unclear to the general public.

A crucial aspect of this technocratic dimension is the strong sway exerted by the European Commission. Although the Commission is officially led by a President selected by the European Council and approved by the European Parliament, its members, the Commissioners, are named by national governments and are expected to serve the overall interest of the EU free from their national governments. There is tension in this arrangement: Commissioners lack a direct popular mandate since they are not directly elected, but they wield substantial executive and legislative initiative authority. The Commission is a strong player in the governance of the EU as it suggests legislation, carries out EU policies, and oversees the EU budget. The contention is that the Commission, made up of nominated officials and backed by a sizable bureaucracy, functions in a way that gives technical knowledge, efficiency, and the integration agenda top priority, occasionally at the cost of democratic debate and popular will.

The character of several policy fields controlled by the EU also favors technocratic methods. Often, competencies like trade policy, competition legislation, environmental laws, and monetary policy (for Eurozone nations) call for sophisticated technical knowledge as well as specialized expertise. This reliance on expert advice and the involvement of several committees and organizations staffed by professionals might result in policies that are seen as being developed by unelected technocrats instead of being the outcome of broad democratic agreement. The claim is that in these complex fields, the “what works” usually trumps the “what is popular”, and the sophisticated details of legislation and implementation are best managed by those with extensive knowledge, hence unintentionally producing a system in which technical efficiency takes precedence over direct democratic participation.

The technocratic argument is further enhanced by the influence of advisory committees and unelected bodies. EU policy is mostly shaped by several expert panels, advisory committees, and organizations. Although they aim to offer technical guidance and guarantee proper policy development, their impact can be significant, and their discussions are frequently not subject to the same degree of public scrutiny as those of the elected Parliament. For example, the European Central Bank (ECB) is an independent organization in charge of monetary policy in the Eurozone. Though its independence is considered as essential for its success in preserving price stability, it also implies that a very important policy area is mostly shielded from direct democratic governance, depending instead on the discretion of chosen central bankers.

Some use the concept of subsidiarity, according to which choices ought to be made at the lowest level of government possible, to explain the extent of the EU’s influence. But critics counter that the EU frequently disregards this guideline, resulting in centralized decision-making that might be more efficiently managed at the national or regional level. Particularly in sectors where public knowledge is restricted, decisions made at the supranational level might seem more technical than democratic. It can be daunting for people to keep up with the legislative process and participate effectively in policy-making because of the sheer volume and complexity of EU legislation, usually known as the “acquis communautaire.”

The lobbying activities of strong economic interests in Brussels are frequently presented as a representation of technocracy, whereby well-resourced organizations use their official contacts and capacity for thorough technical input to significantly impact policy development. Lobbying is a feature of democratic systems, but the concentration of lobbying power and the apparent lack of transparency in certain of these contacts can raise questions about whether policies are influenced by vested interests rather than by the broader public good as determined through democratic processes. The argument is that the complex policy environment of the EU provides fertile ground for technocratic influence, where sophisticated technical arguments can occasionally eclipse the direct expression of citizen wishes.

The impression of a lack of democratic accountability is aggravated by the reality that the Treaties, the main legislative acts of the EU, are not directly accepted by European citizens in referendums but rather are ratified by national governments or through national referendums. The ultimate source of authority for EU institutions and their broad powers might be questioned due to the indirect democratic validity of the underlying legislative structure. When people believe their issues are not fairly handled by national governments-especially ones that are themselves restricted by EU law and decisions-the feeling of a democratic deficit might grow, therefore strengthening the impression of a technocratic system functioning at a distance from the people.

The Interplay Between Democracy and Technocracy

The tension between democracy and technocracy inside the EU is not necessarily an either/or dilemma but rather a sophisticated interaction whereby both forces coexist and interact. The framework of the European Union seeks to strike a compromise between the demand for democratic responsibility and popular representation and the need of professional knowledge and effective policy formulation. To grasp this interplay, one must go past the narrow definitions of democratic or technocratic governance and investigate how these rival forces influence the EU’s institutional behavior and policy results.

One way to understand this interaction is via the idea of “organized hypocrisy”, whereby the EU portrays itself as democratic but runs with considerable technocratic components. This view implies that the democratic goals of the EU are real but inevitably limited by the realities of running a huge, varied, and complicated union. The structures are intended to deal with these restrictions, so forming a system maybe ideally described as a kind of “institutionalised compromise” between democratic principles and technocratic requirements. While the Commission, the Council, and other expert organizations offer the technical ability and administrative experience needed for efficient administration, the directly elected Parliament acts as the democratic foundation.

The growth of the legislative process of the EU provides additional evidence of this interaction. The Ordinary Legislative Procedure, in which the Parliament and the Council act as co-legislators, marks a major stride toward greater democratic governance. Still, the process entails lengthy negotiation and compromise between nationally elected representatives (Parliament) and governments (Council), usually guided by thorough technical advice from the Commission and several stakeholder organizations. This implies that even in democratic decision-making, technocratic interests and the interests of member states are quite important. The “what works” in terms of economic integration, legal harmonization, and policy effectiveness is always balanced against the “what is politically feasible” and “what is democratically acceptable” to a varied spectrum of national and European electors.

The involvement of European residents in this interplay is also complex. Although direct engagement could be constrained, people exert influence through several avenues. They choose MEPs, who have growing authority to affect EU law. They choose national governments that have a decisive voice in many EU decisions by means of their representation in the Council. Moreover, public opinion fashioned by political discourse and national media pressures MEPs and national governments alike. Therefore, the democratic legitimacy of the EU depends not only on direct supranational elections but also on the democratic processes inside the member countries that support the decision-making framework of the EU. But the technocratic component might become more visible when national democratic processes fail to adequately reflect citizen worries or when EU policies are seen as remote and technical.

The interaction is made much more difficult by the difficulty of explaining sophisticated EU policies to the public. Areas such the single market, environmental standards, or financial legislation need a degree of technical knowledge not generally found in public discourse. This might cause policies to be driven by expert consensus and the democratic debate to center on more general ideas or perceived national interests instead of the complex details of the legislation. Where specialized knowledge is vital, this dynamic can strengthen technocrats and maybe undermine the direct voice of citizens.

Moreover, the integration project of the EU itself possesses a technocratic undertone. The aim to build a more unified Europe usually depends on harmonizing laws and regulations, which inevitably entails some level of technical standardization. Driven by the perceived advantages of a level playing field and the elimination of trade and mobility impediments, this process may result in the impression that the EU is enforcing technical solutions from the top down instead of mirroring a broad democratic agreement. Achieving specific policy objectives, such as environmental protection or consumer safety, frequently calls for a technocratic approach to guarantee effectiveness and consistency across member states.

Another facet of this interaction is the idea of “governance by committee”. The EU relies mostly on a large network of committees, working groups, and agencies whereby officials and specialists from member countries and the Commission interact. Though they are necessary for creating and carrying out sophisticated programs, these structures can also produce a layer of decision-making that is out of sight and responsibility for the general public. While their day-to-day operations can be quite technocratic, these committees’ legitimacy relies on the democratic mandates of the national governments and the EU institutions assigning their membership.

The finest way to respond to the issue of whether the EU is genuinely democratic or simply technocratic is to recognize that it is a hybrid system. It has democratic aspirations and institutions, but it also runs with important technocratic processes given the nature of supranational government, the complexity of policy issues, and the need for effective and expert-driven solutions. The continuing argument reflects a constant effort to strike the ideal mix between these two powers—a struggle that is intrinsic in the character of the European project itself. For the EU, the difficulty is making sure that its technocratic structures advance democratic objectives and stay answerable to the people it represents instead of turning into an aim in themselves.

Addressing the Democratic Deficit and Enhancing Accountability

The constant criticism of the EU’s lack of democracy and its technocratic leanings has led to several changes meant to boost democratic accountability and public engagement. Although diverse in their influence and reach, these initiatives emphasize the EU’s recognition of these issues and its will to handle them. Crucial for a full evaluation of the democratic credentials of the EU is an awareness of these projects.

One important area of change has been on improving the European Parliament. The Parliament is the only EU institution that is directly elected, and its powers have grown consistently over time. The Ordinary Legislative Procedure, in which the EP has co-legislative authority with the Council, has greatly improved its capacity to examine and help to influence EU policies. Moreover, the Parliament’s participation in approving the EU budget and closely monitoring the activities of the European Commission-including the authority to approve or reject the Commission President and to reprimand the Commission-offers crucial checks and balances. Efforts to improve the visibility of the Parliament and its capacity to engage with the public, such as by increasing the use of digital media and providing more accessible information campaigns, are underway. The debate about the “Spitzenkandidaten” procedure, whereby European political parties nominate their lead candidates for Commission President before the European elections, aims to directly link the electoral outcome to the leadership of the executive branch, therefore boosting democratic accountability. Although this process has encountered political hurdles, its fundamental goal is to increase the electorate’s direct accountability of the EU’s executive leaders.

Giving national parliaments more power is still another important component of closing the democratic gap. The Lisbon Treaty increased the participation of national parliaments in EU decision-making, especially with regard to the principle of subsidiarity. The early warning system provides national parliaments a formal tool to oppose suggested EU legislation if they have cause to believe it violates subsidiarity. Though the “yellow card” and “orange card” processes have not always resulted in the withdrawal of legislation, they have raised the profile of national parliamentary scrutiny and stimulated more conversation between Brussels and national parliaments. Improving democratic legitimacy may be achieved by further refining these systems and making sure national parliaments have sufficient resources and knowledge to examine EU ideas.

The Lisbon Treaty introduced the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) as a direct democratic tool. It lets people ask the European Commission to propose laws on subjects under its purview. Although the ECI has had difficulties in its execution, such as low participation rates and varying degrees of Commission responsiveness, it is still a useful instrument for direct public participation. For the effectiveness of the ECI process, simplifying it, raising knowledge of its existence, and guaranteeing that effective projects get careful thought are absolutely critical.

Enhancing democratic accountability also depends much on transparency and open governance. Particularly within the Council, the EU has tried to raise openness in decision-making processes. Greater document access and publicizing Council discussions can assist to decompress the legislative process and increase its accountability. Likewise, transparency in lobbying activities and the interaction between interest groups and EU institutions may be enhanced to assist alleviate worries regarding excessive influence by strong technocratic actors. The EU’s dedication to open data and the accessibility of information on its legislative proposals and policies also helps to stimulate public debate.

Another approach to handle technocratic concerns is to change the European Commission itself. Although the Commission’s independence and competence are crucial, questions regarding its democratic accountability persist. This could include improving the Parliament’s monitoring function, guaranteeing more diversity among the Commission’s personnel, and increasing accessibility of its decision-making mechanisms. Although the appointment of Commissioners is ultimately a political decision made by member states and the Parliament, it might also be open to greater public scrutiny.

Building a more democratic EU also depends on encouraging more citizen participation and developing a more robust European public sphere. This entails promoting European media projects, creating educational programs that promote a better knowledge of EU policies and institutions, and encouraging cross-border communication. The perceived distance between Brussels and the people can diminish when citizens feel more connected to the European project and have a clearer understanding of how it impacts their lives; this also helps to balance the influence of technocracy through informed democratic participation.

The discussion regarding the democratic character of the EU is dynamic; it is an continuous process of change and adaptation. The EU’s awareness of the need of legitimacy resulting from citizen approval and responsibility is seen in the many projects meant to close the democratic gap. The difficulty is in properly applying these changes and guaranteeing they convert into measurable advances in democratic governance. Whether the EU may transcend the image of being solely technocratic and really represent the democratic aspirations of its people will mostly depend on the outcome of these initiatives.

The Case for a Neo-Functionalist Understanding of EU Governance

Considering the viewpoint of neo-functionalism, a well-known theory of European integration, helps one to fully appreciate the complicated link between democracy and technocracy in the EU. Neo-functionalism provides a structure for understanding how supranational organizations, typically propelled by technical knowledge and practical necessity, acquire legitimacy and traction, potentially producing a dynamic that seems both technocratic and democratically advancing.

Neo-functionalism argues that integration starts in particular functional areas (e.g., coal and steel, customs unions) where interdependence and the quest of common advantages result in the development of supranational institutions. Driven by a logic of efficiency and problem-solving, these authorities in charge of these sectors frequently rely on technical competence. As these supranational organizations improve in effectiveness and develop expertise, a phenomenon known as “spillover” takes place. This spillover might be political, in which the growing power and influence of supranational institutions need more political integration and democratic oversight, or functional, in which integration in one area results in demands for integration in linked sectors.

Early integration in the EU was largely motivated by technocratic necessities. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and subsequently the European Economic Community (EEC) arose from the yearning for tranquilly and financial success following World War II. These organizations, including the High Authority of the ECSC (a forerunner to the Commission), were made up of appointed specialists assigned to oversee particular economic sectors. Their ability to stimulate economic development and cooperation resulted in a slow increase of skills and the establishment of more complex supranational institutions. This historical path plainly shows a technocratic beginning.

Neo-functionalism, though, addresses the growing influence of democratic forces in reaction to this technocratic development as well. Demand for democratic responsibility climbed as supranational organizations gained power and decision-making shifted to that level. The establishment of the directly elected European Parliament was a direct answer to this demand, mirroring the “political spillover” envisaged by neo-functionalist theory. People and national political players understood that more supranational power necessitated more representation and power.

Neo-functionalism can help one to comprehend the constant conflict between democracy and technocracy in the EU. The EU’s quest for more integration in fields like digital governance, climate change, or security calls for technical competence and the creation of particular regulatory systems. This poses technocratic problems that calls for sophisticated understanding and well-organized bureaucratic procedures. At the same time, the deepening of integration, even in functional terms, inevitably raises issues of legitimacy, representation, and accountability, thereby driving the demand for more robust democratic mechanisms.

Neo-functionalism helps clarify why the EU runs on a dual logic. On the other hand, the functional needs of a complicated economic and regulatory union call for technocratic answers. In contrast, democratic validation is needed given the political reality of running many countries and people. Therefore, the EU institutions are neither entirely technocratic nor entirely democratic; rather, they reflect a hybrid result of this continuous process. Driven by the functional imperative of building a unified and efficient European space, the European Commission, while made up of appointed officials, acts as a facilitator of integration. Its ideas usually rely on expert analysis and are meant to solve particular policy concerns. Comprised of democratically elected national leaders, the Council makes sure that these utilitarian goals are tempered by national political reality and democratic imperatives. Directly elected, the European Parliament offers the democratic balance by examining the technocratic ideas and making sure they are appropriate for the European population.

This neo-functionalist view contends that the alleged democratic shortfall is not always a indicator of failure but rather an unavoidable attribute of a constantly developing supranational entity. Integration is a dynamic process whereby the equilibrium between technical efficiency and democratic responsibility is always renegotiated. From an economic community to a political union, the EU’s path may be seen as evidence of the influence of functional integration creating greater supranational authority, therefore requiring the establishment of appropriate democratic frameworks and processes.

Neo-functionalism also aids in the dismembering of the “democratic versus technocratic” binary. It implies that rather than being mutually exclusive categories, these are closely related components of administration, especially in a complicated supranational setting. Finding and putting answers to complicated challenges that then need democratic acceptance usually depends on technocratic knowledge. On the other hand, democratic mandates might influence the course and priorities of functional integration, therefore guaranteeing that technical fixes support more general society objectives. The current dispute inside the EU regarding its democratic legitimacy can thus be viewed as a symptom of this sophisticated, continuous neo-functionalist dynamic whereby the need for democratic accountability constantly challenges and shapes the search for efficient government using professional knowledge.

Therefore, the neo-functionalist perspective offers a great way to grasp why the EU has both democratic and technocratic qualities. It emphasizes how functional integration, propelled by expert knowledge and the quest for particular policy goals, may result in the strengthening of supranational institutions. At the same time, it clarifies how growing scope and authority of these institutions inevitably give rise to demands for democratic accountability and oversight, therefore fostering democratic processes. This perspective suggests that the EU is a living illustration of how supranational governance develops, always aiming to strike a balance between the logic of efficiency and knowledge and the requirement of public legitimacy.

Conclusion

The matter of whether the European Union is genuinely democratic or just technocratic is complicated and has no straightforward dichotomous response. My study has shown that the EU combines components of technocratic processes with democratic governance, and a sophisticated evaluation depends on an understanding of their interaction. The directly elected European Parliament, the representation of national governments in the Council, the adherence to the rule of law, and the systems for citizen participation clearly reflect the democratic principles of the EU. These characteristics guarantee a fundamental legitimacy and guarantee that the EU is in theory responsible to its inhabitants and their elected representatives.

Nonetheless, the technocratic aspects are absolutely obvious. A sense of distance from the people and a reliance on selected experts are exacerbated by the substantial power of the unelected European Commission, the technical character of many policy domains needing specialized knowledge, the impact of advisory bodies and independent agencies, and the sheer intricacy of EU governance. This has given rise to ongoing worries regarding a “democratic deficit,” whereby the difference between institutional power and direct public accountability is quite apparent.

The interaction of these factors is dynamic and always changing. Neo-functionalist theory offers a helpful perspective: integration, spurred by practical necessity and specialist knowledge, naturally results in the development of supranational institutions. This begs, in turn, the growth of democratic checks and balances to guarantee legitimacy. The EU is not a fixed organization but rather a work in progress where democratic accountability remains an ongoing ambition and a never-ending difficulty while technocratic efficiency is frequently sought in the name of group well-being.

Efforts to close the democratic deficit, like bolstering the European Parliament, giving national parliaments more power, increasing transparency, and creating direct citizen initiatives, highlight the EU’s continuous battle to harmonize these opposing needs. The outcome of these changes will decide if the EU can more efficiently close the distance between its democratic values and its technocratic capabilities.

In the end, the EU is a singular hybrid structure. It is neither a conventional democracy nor a totally technocratic bureaucracy. It is a supranational organization wrestling with the inevitable intricacies of multi-level governance, attempting to strike a balance between the pursuit of common interests via expert-driven policy and the fundamental need for democratic legitimacy resulting from the approval of its varied populations. Therefore, the continuing argument regarding its democratic character is not an indication of its failure but rather evidence of its ambition and its ongoing attempts to adjust and change in reaction to the democratic desires of its people. The EU’s future validity depends on its capacity to increase the transparency and accountability of its technocratic systems to its democratic goals, therefore guaranteeing that efficient governance supports, not replaces, the will of the people.

Bibliography

  • Majone, Giandomenico. Dilemmas of European Integration: The Ambiguities and Pitfalls of Integration by Stealth. Oxford University Press, 2005.
  • Moravcsik, Andrew. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Cornell University Press, 1998.
  • Follesdal, Andreas & Hix, Simon. “Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik.” Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 44, no. 3, 2006, pp. 533–562.
  • Schmidt, Vivien A. The Futures of European Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2022.
  • Scharpf, Fritz W. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford University Press, 1999.
  • Habermas, Jürgen. The Crisis of the European Union: A Response. Polity Press, 2012.
  • Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary. Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
  • Risse, Thomas. A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres. Cornell University Press, 2010.
  • Cramme, Olaf & Hobolt, Sara B. (eds.). Democracy in the European Union: Towards the Emergence of a European Public Sphere. Routledge, 2014.
  • Zürn, Michael. A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Oxford University Press, 2018.

References:

Johan P. Olsen (2017). Democratic accountability and the terms of political order | European Political Science Review | Cambridge Core. www.cambridge.org. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/democratic-accountability-and-the-terms-of-political-order/6A1E32FEC375EFB6FFCFA026D99963FA

Tore Vincents Olsen (2022). Why and How Should the European Union Defend its Values? – PMC. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9390962/

European Democracy and Its Critique – Five Uneasy Pieces. jeanmonnetprogram.org. Retrieved from https://jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/95/9501ind.html

Ronald Holzhacker (2007). Democratic Legitimacy and the European Union – University of Twente Research Information. research.utwente.nl. Retrieved from https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/democratic-legitimacy-and-the-european-union/