DEMOKRATİK YÖNETİŞİM NOSYONU BAĞLAMINDA AB'NİN KURUMSAL KISITLARININ SOSYO-POLİTİK ANALİZİ

Yıl 2006, Sayı: 16, - , 20.06.2015

Hüsamettin İnaç Ümit Güner

Öz

AB, yirminci yüzyılın ikinci yarısının başlarında, altı kurucu devlet arasında, sektörel bir işbirliği olarak başlayan, göz kamaştırıcı bir başarıyla bir ekonomik bütünleşmeye ilerleyen ve yeni üyelerin katılımıyla politik bir birliğe dönüşen uzun bir yolculuğun hikayesidir. İçeriği devasa Avrupa halklarının yönetimi olan konularla baş edebilmek için yeni kurumsal mekanizmalar ve üyeler bu yolculuğa eklemlendi. Ancak bu zaman zarfı içerisinde yapısını ve işleyiş mekanizmasını daima sorgulayan AB, demokratik kurallar ve prosedürlere yakınlaşabilmek için kendini demokratik ve ekonomik olarak geliştirmiş ülkelerle mukayese ederek hep en iyisini arama çabasını sürdürdü. Bu çalışmamız, bu çabayı gerçekleştirme sürecinde AB’nin maruz kaldığı kurumsal problemleri sosyo-politik boyutuyla çözümlemeyi amaçlamaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal açık, meşruiyet, politik hesap sorulabilirlik, şeffaflık, karar alma süreci

DEMOKRATİK YÖNETİŞİM NOSYONU BAĞLAMINDA AB'NİN KURUMSAL KISITLARININ SOSYO-POLİTİK ANALİZİ

Öz

The EU began its journey at the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century as a sectoral cooperation between the six founding member states and progressed miraculously by creating an economic union and then a political union with the new members. Throughout the years it has developed with new members and institutional set up in order to cope with the tremendous issues concerning the administration of European people. It has advanced to such an extent that, recently its structure and institutions have been questioned in terms of congruence with democratic rules and procedures; and what is more, this is usually done by comparing the EU with democratically and economically developed states. This article tries to indicate the institutional deficits of EU in achieving the aforementioned aims

Anahtar Kelimeler

Institutional deficit, legitimacy, political accountability, transparency, decisionmaking process

Kaynakça

• Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J. A., Limongi, F. and Przeworski, A., 1996, ‘Classifying Political Regimes’, Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 3–36. Qted in Zweifel, D. T.,2002a, Democratic Deficit?, Lenxington Books, Oxford, Newyork.
• Barker, R., 1993, ‘Democracy and Individual Freedom’ in A.M.Rieu and G. Duprat (eds.), European Democratic Culture, Routledge, London. Qted in Mather, J., 2001, ‘The European Parliament- A Model of Representative Democracy?’, West European Politics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 181-201.
• Bealey, F., 1998, The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science, Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts. Qted in Neuhold, C., 2001, ‘The Legislative Backbone-Keeping The Institution Upright? The Role of European Parliament
• Braud, P., 1997, ‘Decline of the Founding Values of Democracy and Weakening of Quasi-Missionary Institutions’, Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 112-124.
• Carter, C. And Scott, A., 1998, ‘Legitimacy and Governance Beyond the European Nation State: Conceptualising Governance in the European Union’, European Law Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, pp.429-446.
• Casey, L.A., and Rivkin Jr., D. B., 2001, ‘Europe in the Balance’, Policy Review, no.107, pp. 41-54.
• Christiansen, T., 1997, ‘Legitimacy Dilemmas of Supranational Governance: The Independence’, European University Institute Working Papers, no. 97/74. between Accountability and
• Chryssochoou, D. N., 2001, 'Models of Democracy and the European Polity’, University of Exeter Working Papers, no. 1/2001.
• Commission of the European Communities, 2001, White Paper on ‘European Governance’, COM (2001) 428.
• Corbett, R., 1999, ‘The European Parliament and the Idea of European Representative Government’ in J. Pinder (ed.), Foundation of Demoracy in the European Union, Palgrave Publishers, New York.
• Coultrap, J., 1999, ‘From Parliamentarism to Pluralism: Models of Democracy and the European Union’s Democratic Deficit’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.107-135.
• Dahrendorf, R., 2001, ‘Can European Democracy Survive Globalization?’, National Interest, no.65, pp.17-23
• Decker, F., 2002, ‘Governance Beyond the Nation-State. Reflections on the Democratic Deficit of the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 256–272.
• Egeberg, M., 2002, ‘The European Commission-The Evolving EU Executive’, Arena Working Papers, no. 02/30.
• Eichengreen, B., 2003, ‘Putting It Together: The Foibles and Future of the European Union’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 194-201.
• Eriksen, E. O., 2001, ‘Democratic or Technocratic Governance?’, A Contribution to ‘Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance’, Jean Monnet Working Paper, no.6/01.
• Eriksen, E. O. And Fossum, J. E., 2001, ‘Democracy Through Strong Publics İn The European Union?’, Arena Working Papers, no. WP 01/16.
• Eurobarometer, 1995, no. 42, pp. 34-35. Qted in Braud, P., 1997, ‘Decline of the Founding Values of Democracy and Weakening of Quasi- Missionary Institutions’, Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 112-124.
• European Parliament Elections Web Page, 2004, [online], available: http://www.elections2004.eu.int/ep- graphical.html, (25 June 2004). election/sites
• /en/results1306/ European Parliament Official Web
• available:http://www. europarl.org.uk/guide/Gelectionsmain.html (23 April 2004). Page, 2004, [online],
• Fİllesdal, A., 2000, ‘Theories of Democracy for Europe: Multi-level Challenges for Multi-level Governance’, Unpublished Workshop Paper, [online], available: http://www. arena.uio.no, (30 January 2003).
• Habermas, J., 1996, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. by W. Rehg, MIT Press, MA, Cambridge. Qted in Entrikin, J.N., 1999, ‘Political Community, Identity and Cosmopolitan Place’, International Sociology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 269–282.
• Héritier, A., 1999, ‘Elements of Democratic Legitimation in Europe: an Alternative Perspective’, Journal of European Public Policy, v. 6, n. 2, pp. 269-82.
• Helmbring, K, 2002, ‘Procedural Reforms of the EU Legislative Process. Increased Power for the European Parliament?’, CFE Working Papers, Centre for European Studies at Lund University.
• Helmer, R., 2002, ‘Federalism in the USA and the EU’, [online], available: http://www.rogerhelmer.com/cheyenne.asp, (21 July 2004).
• Joerges, C., 2001, ‘“Economic order” – “technical realization”– “the hour of the executive”: Some Legal Historical Observations on the Commission White Paper on European Governance’, A Contribution to ‘Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance’, Jean Monnet Working Paper, No.6/01.
• Lijphart, A., 1991, Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Qted in Judge, D. and Earnshaw, D., 2002, ‘The European Parliament and the Commission Crisis: A New Assertiveness?’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 345–374.
• Lijphart, A., 1984, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Qted in Judge, D. and Earnshaw, D., 2002, ‘The European Parliament and the Commission Crisis: A New Assertiveness?’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 345–374.
• Lipset, S. M., 1994 ‘The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited’, American Sociological Review, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 1-22.
• Livingston, W., 1956, Federalism and Constitutional Change, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Qted in Thorlakson, L., 2003, 'Comparing Federal Institutions: Power and Representation in Six Federation', West European Politics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1-22.
• Lodge, J., 2003, ‘Transparency and EU Governance: Balancing Openness with Security’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, vol. 11, no. 1.
• Mather, J., 2001, ‘The European Parliament- A Model of Representative Democracy?’, West European Politics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 181-201.
• Moravcsik, A., 2001a, ‘Despotism in Brussels?’ Foreign Affairs, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 114-22.
• Moravcsik, A., 2001b, ‘People and Parliament in the European Union: Participation, Democracy, Legitimacy’, The American Political Science Review, vol. 95, no.2, p. 512.
• Mueller, D. C., 1997, ‘Federalism and the European Union: A Constitutional Perspective’, Public Choice, no. 90, pp. 255–280.
• Muntean, A. M., 2000, ‘The European Parliament’s Political Legitimacy and the “Parliamentarian” European Union?’ European Integration online Papers (EIoP), vol. 4, no.5. Management”: Towards a
• Neuhold, C., 2001, ‘The Legislative Backbone-Keeping The Institution Upright? The Role of European Parliament Committees in the EU Policy-Making Process’, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), vol. 5, no. 10.
• Peter, F., 1999, ‘Europe United But Who Runs It?’, Christian Science Monitor, 1/13/99, vol. 91, issue. 33.
• Rasmussen, A., 2000, ‘Institutional Games Rational Actors Play- The Empowering of the European Parliament’, European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), vol. 4, no. 1, pp.1-20.
• Raunio, T., 2000, ‘Second-rate Parties ?: Towards a Better Understanding of the European Parliament's Party Groups’, Qted in Neuhold, C., 2001,
• Rittberger, B., 2003, ‘Removing Conceptual Blinders: Under What Conditions Does the Democratic Deficit Affect Institutional Design Decisions?’, ConWEB Papers, no. 5, pp. 1-38 [online], available: http://les1.man.ac.uk /conweb/, (17 November 2003).
• Roland, E. G., Kaufmann, A., Kleger, B, H., (eds.),1995, Transnational Democracy, http://frontpage.auburn.edu /tann/tann2/gross.html, (14 January 2003). Zurich, [online], available:
• Rovni, J., 2003, ‘Approaches to the Democratic Deficit of the European Union’, Perspectives, no.19.
• Serbanescu, I., 2000, ‘Deficient Democracy’, Harward International Review, vol. Summer, pp. 10-12.
• Schmidt, S., 1997, ‘ European Integration and Democracy: the Differences among the Member States. J. Eur. Public Policy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 128- 45. Qted in Fabbrini, S., 2003, ‘Bringing Robert A. Dahl’s Theory of Democracy to Europe’, Annual Reviews Political Science, vol. 6, pp. 119-37.
• Steinberg, P., 2001, ‘Agencies, Co-Regulation and Comitology - and What About Politics ?‘, A Contribution to ‘Mountain or Molehill? A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on Governance’, Jean Monnet Working Paper, No.6/01
• Sullivan, A., 2001, ‘Union Due’, New Republic, 05/21/2001, vol. 224, no. 21, p. 8.
• Tsakatika, M., 2002, ‘Why Political Responsibility is Lacking in The EU: The Legacy of the Monnet Method’, A Paper presented in the PSA Conference of University of Aberdeen on 5-7 April 2002.
• Wallace, H., 1996, ‘Politics and Policy in the EU: The Challenge of Governance’, in H. Wallace and W. Wallace (eds.), Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Newyork, pp.3-35.
• Wallace, H. and Wallace, W. eds., 1996, Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Newyork.
• Weale, A. (ed.), 1998, Political Theory & the European Union: Legitimacy, Constitutional Choice & Citizenship, Routledge, Florence, KY, USA.
• Weiler, J.H.H., 2000a, ‘Federalism and Constitutionalism: Europe’s Sonderweg’, Jean Monnet Working Paper, no. 10/2
• Wessels and Diederichs, 1999, ‘The European Parliament and European Legitimacy’, in Bachoff and Smith (eds.), Legitimacy and the European Union, London, pp. 135-138. Qted in Dann, P., 2002, ‘Looking Through the Federal Lens: The Semi-Parliamentary Democracy of the EU’, Jean Monnet Working Paper, no. 5/02
• Wessels and Diederichs, 1999, ‘The European Parliament and European Legitimacy’, in Bachoff and Smith (eds.), Legitimacy and the European Union, London, pp. 135-138. Qted in Dann, P., 2002, ‘Looking Through the Federal Lens: The Semi-Parliamentary Democracy of the EU’, Jean Monnet Working Paper, no. 5/02
• Williams, S., 1991, ‘Sovereignty and Accountability in the European Community’, Qted in Lehning, P. B., 1998a, ‘European Citizenship: Beween Facts and Norms’, Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory; vol. 4, no. 3, pp.346-368.
• Wincott, D., 1998, ‘Does the European Union Pervert Democracy? Questions of Democracy in New Constitutionalist Thought on the Future of Europe’, European Law Journal, vol.4, no.4.
• Woods, N., 1999, ‘Good Governance in International Organizations’, Global Governance, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 39-62.
• Zweifel, D. T.,2002, Democratic Deficit?, Lenxington Books, Oxford, Newyork.