Harvard Law School

Jean Monnet Chair

Seminar and Workshop on Advanced Issues in Law and Policy
of the European Union, NAFTA and the WTO

Professor J.H.H. Weiler

Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 11/99

Sverker Gustavsson

Reconciling Suprastatism
And Democratic Accountability

Harvard Law School    Cambridge, MA 02138

All rights reserved.
No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form
Without permission of the author.

ISSN 1087-2221
© Sverker Gustavsson
Printed in the United States of America in 2000
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA

RECONCILING SUPRASTATISM AND DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY

By Sverker Gustavsson []

Contents

•	One problem, five solutions
•	Provisionalise suprastatism
•	Surrender representation
•	Abandon accountability
•	Criteria for evaluation
•	Under the auspices of the stability pact
•	Bibliography

Abstract

In princple, there are five solutions to the problem of reconciling suprastatism and democratic accountability. These are to abandon suprastatism, to democratize suprastatism, to provisionalise suprastatism,to surrender represenation and to abandon accountability. The paper is focussing upon the latter three of these alternatives. How can the democratic deficit be defended? What criteria apply when evaluating the abolitionist and preservationist strategies? Taking his point of departure in a Popperian way of reasoning the author ends up arguing that a piecemeal constitutional engineering is preferable to a utopian strategy. Provisionalising suprastatism is the least worst alternative when trying to establish monetary union without fiscal union .

The reorientation of Sweden’s foreign policy in 1990 took place in the aftermath of two major historical events. One was the fall of the Berlin wall. In the new situation Sweden and Finland became less interested in keeping up a buffer zone of non-aligned states in Northern Europe. Thereby the policy of ”non-alignment aiming at neutrality in war-time” became obsolete. The other was the impossibility of fighting unemployment alone. In an international context of established neo-liberalism, the policy of full employment turned into a political impasse (J. Gustavsson 1998).

As a combined effect of these two major developments – the end of the cold war and the international retrenchment of the welfare state – Sweden entered the European Union on January 1, 1995, after a referendum on November 13, 1994. Politically, this meant that Sweden did not debate membership until the democratic deficit had come to the forefront through the ratification problems related to the Maastricht Treaty. As a consequence, it became hard to convince the Swedish public that the deficit could be handled according to the pre-1989 idea of permissive consensus. The problem of reconciling of suprastatism and democratic accountability did not seem to have any obvious practical solution.

Three main questions are being posed in the post-1995 public debate on the European Union in Sweden. First, what should be our position as to the principle of open government? Should we contribute to a less secretive standard by trying to open up the European Union procedures via using the less restrictive practices in Sweden? Second, what should be our position to the principle of parliamentarianism? The system, which was introduced in 1917, meant a fusion between the majority in the Riksdag and the Government. These basic institutions started to work in close cooperation with each other on regulatory as well as on fiscal matters. After we joined the EU, important parts of the legislative competences are pooled in the councils of ministers at the European Union level. Should the individual ministers in Stockholm then keep working together with their opposite numbers in the Riksdag? Or should they restrict themselves to a purely informative behaviour in relation to their political base in the Riksdag? Third, what should be our position as to whether the deficit should be preserved or abolished ?

This third question – on which I am going to concentrate in this article – is the core constitutional policy problem within the general problematique of democracy and sovereignty (Newman 1996). In sum and according to my own view, there are two normatively defensible solutions – the German Constitutional Court’s option of autonomy compatible provisionalism on the one hand and the idea of democratising suprastatism on the other.

When the Swedish people said yes to the European Union in 1994, the majority in the referendum was based on the German idea of the provisional character of the European suprastatism. As a consequence, the current Swedish discussion on joining the EMU and giving more weight to the more populous member states in the Council is very much influenced by the fact that the Swedish public defines the democratic problem at the European level as a matter of autonomy compatible provisionalism. However, it is easy to consider joining the EMU as neither autonomy compatible nor provisional. Likewise, it is hard to accept a demographic adjustment of the weights given to the different member countries in the voting rules of the Council. Why should Britain be given more weight than Sweden, as long as the Union as a whole is a union of states rather than a union of citizens?

One problem, five solutions

The broad and general problem, as I see it, is if and how suprastatism and democratic accountability can be reconciled. By suprastatism I mean the particular combination of majority voting, direct effect and precedence for federal law that distinguishes a federal form of government from a confederal. By democratic accountability I mean the principle that it should be possible to replace the holders of political office through general elections founded on universal suffrage and civil rights, and to achieve an alternative set of policies thereby.

My argument is formulated against the backdrop of federal systems being compared historically and worldwide. All such systems face the problem of how to reconcile the two basic principles of suprastatism and accountability. How can decision-making be carried out on a suprastatal basis while maintaining the accountability of office-holders, i.e., ensuring that leaders can be replaced and policies changed through elections?

The most common solution to the problem is to strike a balance between the one-state-one-vote principle, on the one hand, and the one-citizen-one-vote principle, on the other. This is accomplished through a two-chamber system, in which the states are equally represented in the one chamber and the citizens equally represented in the other. Not only Canada and the U.S. have overcome the opposition in this way, but also Austria, Germany, Spain and Switzerland.

Figure 1. Five recommendations concerning the democratic deficit

		Abandon suprastatism 	
	Abolish		
		Democratise suprastatism 	
			
Democratic deficit		
Provisionalise suprastatism 	

Preserve	Surrender representation	
			
		Abandon accountability	

The great and interesting exception is the European Union. Its member states are democracies. Governance within the Union as such, however, diverges from the usual pattern by which suprastatism and accountability are combined. Within the framework of the first pillar, decision-making is suprastatal in character, at the same time that it is beyond the reach of a collective judgement and review.

There are two main main lines of argument concerning this exception from the main rule. The one view holds the asymmetry of the European Union to be normatively unacceptable. Those who wish to abolish the democratic deficit and to establish a symmetrical relationship between power and responsibility at the national as well as at the European level of governance. Abolitionism divides into two sub-options. Both aim to set the asymmetry at nought, either by abandoning suprastatism or by introducing democratic accountability at the European level.

The other main argument considers the Union to constitute progress, at any rate as compared with being forced to choose between two undesirable alternatives – the abandonment of suprastatism on the one hand, and its democratisation on the other. Those preferring to uphold the imbalance between power and accountability choose, then, to preseve the democratic deficit. Preservationism divides into three sub-options, which are the subject of this paper. These are to provisionalise suprastatism, to surrender representation and to abandon accountability. All are designed to reconcile suprastatism and accountability, but in a manner different from the way in which the two abolitionist alternatives do this.

In this article I leave the two abolitionist options aside.  After presenting an overall view of the alternatives, I remind the reader of the proposal to provisionalise suprastatism. The main focus will then be on the second and third variants of preservationism. The first of these latter two arguments seeks to defend suprastatism without accountability by arguing that a transnational separation of powers is more important than individual representation. The second defends the democratic deficit by pleading the increased need for independent rather than accountable government. In conclusion, I return to evaluating the three preservationist options as compared both with each other and with the two abolitionist options.

Provisionalise Suprastatism

The defence of the democratic deficit which has been most frequently argued is the one set forth in the 1993 verdict (BVerfGE, 17, 155-213) of the German Constitutional Court. The question facing the Court was whether the Law of Accession to the Treaty on European Union – which the Bundestag had passed by a large majority in December 1992 – could be reconciled with the demands for democratic accountability enshrined in the German Basic Law. Not until the Court had answered that question in the affirmative could the Maastricht Treaty be ratified.

The German Constitutional Court argued as follows: the suprastatism established in the first pillar of the Union Treaty is provisional. Sovereignties are delegated rather than surrendered. Such a delegation of sovereignties is acceptable, according to the Court, as long as the criteria of the Basic Law are upheld. According to these criteria, the common use of competences in common must be marginal in relation to the functioning of German democracy as a whole, and the uses to which these competences are put at the European level must be predictable. The delegation of German sovereignty must also be revocable; that is, the German authorities must retain the prerogative to re-assume the powers delegated if the criteria of marginality and predictability are not met. The German Constitutional Court deemed these three criteria to have been met, and so concluded that the ratification of the Treaty was consistent with the demands for democratic accountability laid down in the Basic Law.

A relevant critical observation, it appears to me, is that the provisional character of suprastatism has never been demonstrated in practice. Besides its lack of realism, moreover, the argument presented by the Court is inconsistent. For the Court defends the democratic deficit in terms of marginality, predictability and revocability, leading one to expect the Court would be disinclined to view the EMU as democratically acceptable. Yet the converse actually obtains. In adducing the position of the constitutionally independent and guarded Bundesbank, the Court makes a European virtue out of a German exception from the general rule of popular sovereignty and democratic accountability.

Notwithstanding its vulnerability to such criticisms, however, the preservationist position, as argued by the German Constitutional Court, is in fact widely embraced. It can be examined in one of its most elaborated versions in the work of Fritz W. Scharpf. He calls for an overall European arrangement which is compatible both with the demands for autonomy put by the member states and with the advantages associated with collective action arising from the principle of provisional suprastatism (Scharpf 1994: 131 ff). As a reformist and piecemeal constitutional engineer, Scharpf argues that we should attempt to achieve as much democracy as possible. If our purpose is to defend the principle of democratic governance in Europe, as the 21st century approaches, we must proceed on the basis of a realistic picture of the political options facing us in view of the completed internal market. 

The implication of Scharpf’s general idea becomes clear in the light of Bela Balassa’s staircase metaphor of political integration. The member state of the EU have now reached the fourth step of the stair-case, i.e. the completed common market. In the 21st century, Scharpf argues, the European system of governance should be based on a recognition of the difference between negative and positive integration as regards the fulfilment of this fourth step. Negative integration is the abolition of barriers for the free movement of capital, goods, services and labour. Positive integration is the building up of welfare state arrangements – of the ”in-kind” as well as the ”in-cash” type – to compensate for the effects of negative integration. 

Regulatory (and negative) policies do not require the same degree of democratic accountability and legitimacy as the redistributive (and positive) policies, Scharpf argues. Hence the established asymmetry is double. It is not only an asymmetric relation between the location of power and and the location of responsibility. There is also a parallel asymmetry as to the content of public policies. De-regulation can be forced through by suprastatal means. Positive measures, in contrast, can only be achieved through singular but co-ordinated decisions by 15 member states according to their respective constitutions and political structures.

Figure 2. Bela Balassa’s stair-case metaphor of political integration
					Fiscal union	
				Monetary
union		
			Common
market			
		Customs
union				
	Free trade
area					
Each country by itself						

This means – translated to the context of the Maastricht Treaty – that the move from common market to monetary (and thereby probably by implication to fiscal) union is historically critical. If we insist upon going further up the stair-case, we risk the introducation of fiscal federalism without a corresponding growth in the powers of the European Parliament. That would mean a far worse constitutional predicament than provisional suprastatism at the present level of mainly de-regulatory policies and double asymmetry in non-fiscal matters (Scharpf 1995: 581ff; Scharpf 1996 a: 109 ff: Scharpf 1996 b: 15 ff).

The notion of provisional suprastatism is based on a rejection of two imagined scenarios of a contrary character. That is the thrust of the Scharpfian argument. Neither a system of sovereign nation-states nor a completed federation is to be considered a ”historically natural” condition. The choice as to which arrangment is the more suitable should be made, rather, in the same way as the conflict between public and private ownership of the means of production is adjudged in the Social Democratic tradition‚ i.e., on a pragmatic and piecemeal basis.

The overriding purpose, from a modern (as distinct from a pre-modern or post-modern) standpoint, is to preserve the capacity for consciously accomplished and evaluated political change. Such a capacity presumes an argumentation about open alternatives which is based on reason. No course of development is inevitable. Neither the Westphalian system of nation-states nor a United States of Europe represent the end of history. The democratic deficit is thus defended on the basis of the claim that the established suprastatism in Europe is provisional – and thus within the reach of democratic accountability still.

Those arguing for the provisional character of European suprastatism consider themselves limited in their thinking by two important restrictions: representative government and democratic accountability. Both of these principles should be maintained, in the view of the German Constitutional Court. The desire for a partially suprastatal order may not be fulfilled at the expense of the member states as political entities with their own identity and capacity for action. Similarly, national electorates must continue to be able to hold their leaders accountable. Rather than give up these two restrictions, champions of provisional suprastatism abandon the principle that the citizens of the member states should not delegate their right of decision.

Surrender Representation

One of the two restrictions here considered – representative government – is not respected if the representation of individuals belonging to a particular state is surrendered. The word ‘state’ here does not refer to an ethnically based political unit but rather to a territorally bounded constitutional community. The citizens of Switzerland count up the votes cast everywhere in their country equally, without regard for the fact that French, German, Italian and Romansh are spoken there.

The distinctive mark of a state, as that word is here employed, is the equal counting of votes within the constitutionally delimited community. Verfassungspatriotismus is the word used in German. It is the state which presents – under democratic conditions – the outer preconditions for public discussion and, thereby, a willingness on the part of the minority to accept the decisions of the majority. For such decisions appear possible to influence. Permanent minorities – the Swedish-speaking citizens of Finland, for example – have their rights guaranteed in the Finnish constitution. In this way a foundation is laid – through the procedure of a simple majority – for the use not merely of the regulatory norm–giving power, but of the redistributive fiscal power too.

According to the historically established form of normative democratic theory, there is a solution to the problem of the permanent minority. It is the provision of constitutionally stipulated rights. According to the fourth and fifth recommendations regarding the democratic deficit, however, this solution is insufficient, on acount of the cultural, economic and social heterogeneity characterising 21st-century Europe.

Those championing the fourth position consider it unsatisfactory, as a matter of principle, to present the suprastatism of the European Union as provisional in nature. The deficit ought, in their view, to be defended more aggressively. They argue that the notion of representation for individual citizens must be abandoned. Otherwise, no effective defense of the prevailing constitutional asymmetry can be mounted against the onslaught of those wishing to abolish it.

According to those recommending the surrender of representative government, suprastatism and accountability should be reconciled in a manner different from that proposed by those embracing the first three recommendations mentioned. Instead of accountability on the basis of the representative-democratic principles of individual suffrage and of mediation through the agency of parties and elected representatives, they put the emphasis on the following two principles: separation of powers within the structure as a whole, and holding referenda where all Europeans are asked to give their opinion.

The argument for surrendering representative government – as the best way of reconciling the presence of suprastatism with the absence of accountability – begins with objections to each of the other possibilities:

Figure 3. Arguments given by protagonists of a surrender of representative government in relation to strategies sdvocating its primacy.

Abandon suprastatism	Correct in principle, but the common market would disappear.
	
Democratise suprastatism	Correct in principle, but there is no European demos. ‘The great jump’ is too risky.
 	
Provisionalise suprastatism	There is no satisfactory normative theory behind such an idea of a federal balance. 	

Edgar Grande may serve, in this review, as an exemplar of the position that representative government should be surrendered. He formulates this standpoint by presenting it against the background of a generally embraced critique. Wholly irrespective of European integration, he avers, there is cause to criticise representative government. Such a system does not succeed in actively forming popular opinion through an interplay between electors and elected. It is, likewise, far from admirable as regards the effective control by citizens over the policies actually pursued (Grande 1996: 347 ff).

It is not with the ideal of popular government within a framework of national democracy, in other words, that Grande's recommendations should be compared. They should be assessed, rather, against the actual functioning of existing representative systems. He thus warns against the so-called Nirvana approach, which so easily appears in all political analysis. The ideal should compared with the ideal, and actual systems with actual systems. If one compares ideals with actual systems, one runs the risk of serious misjudgement.

Let us turn now to Grande's two proposals. One of his practical suggestions is transnational referenda. By such means, he suggests, a sufficient degree of legitimacy can be attained to make possible the maintenance of a structure marked by suprastatism without a corresponding mechanism for holding the European tier of government accountable. This is accomplished through having the European population as a whole adjudicate the conflicts arising from the confrontation of different constellations of union organs and member states.
 
The point of these transnational referenda would not be simply, he writes, to grant immediate legitimation to the changes in the Maastricht Treaty then in session. All-European referendums would be able – in the long term too, and with permanent effect – to work in a community-building manner. The word ‘immediate’ is of central importance here. All-European referendum would work in a Europeanising direction. They would establish, as a fait accompli, a constituent power. A European demos with its own competence to establish its own competences would already be established thereby. 

To this political effect may be added the establishment of a constitutional instrument of threat on behalf of European citizens. In this way the possibilities are enhanced, at the margins, that the all-European system of decision-making will become responsive, if not responsible, to the 300 million Europeans who constitute the electorates of the member states (Grande 1996: 355).

Grande's second proposal for solving the problem of suprastatism without a corresponding mechanism for holding the European officeholders accoutable is by establishing a transnational separation of powers. Given the material and institutional complexity of suprastatism in today’s Europe, he argues, the responsibility of individual citizens and of parties, mass media and political organizations would simply be too much, even under the most favourable conditions. An effective control of the norm-giving and fiscal powers could only be achieved at the European level by consciously changing from a principle of individual control to one of institutional control, and achieving thereby an optimization of institutional control in the political system of the European Union (Grande 1996: 355).

Grande cites one of the Federalist articles, No. 51, according to which the different powers will ”control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself” (Madison, Hamilton and Jay [1787] 1987: 321). This idea is yet more relevant in the present European context, he argues. In 21st-century Europe, still more than in the 18th-century United States, the effective control of political power can only be secured through strong institutions, rather than through procedures by which individual citizens within states have their say in general elections. 

On the basis of this general approach, Grande recommends that we go further – with both a stronger European Parliament and a two-chamber system at the European level, complete with the use of concurrent majorities. There is a risk, certainly, that increasing complexity will reduce the possibilities of European-level decision-making. On this point, however, we are fortunate to have the European Commission as a possible institutional arbiter and mediator. Together with transnational referenda the Commission should be enough, according to Grande, to ensure that a separation of powers does not lead in an excessive measure to a reduced capacity for action, as far as the use of suprastatism for integrative purposes is concerned.

Grande argues that, as a general matter, there is a dilemma here which must be confronted. The separation of powers should not, on the one hand, be permitted to produce a total decisional blockade. On the other hand, a system of mutual institutional controls – based on the separation-of-powers principle – is needed. According to the conceptual framework embraced by Grande, however, no demand for democratic accountability follows from the latter requirement. Such a notion orginates, namely, in the idea that legitimate governance issues from private individuals who are represented by those they elect. If we surrender this notion, the problem can be solved. In surrendering representation, those disposed to defend the democratic deficit emerge from their quandary more easily than if they cling stubbornly, in Grande’s view, to the much more demanding alternative of keeping suprastatism provisional.

Abandon Accountability

From the first two preservationist proposals – to provisionalise suprastatism and to surrender the element of individual representation – I turn now to the third such option. This is to abandon democratic accountability – in favour a system of government which is independent rather than accountable, and which derives its legitimacy from the fact that, instead of being majoritarian in character, it is based on expertise, and is beyond the reach besides of public opinion, parliaments and electorates. 

The suspicion entertained by adherents of this view towards the idea of democratising the European suprastate is fundamentally the same as that expressed by those favouring the abandonment of the idea of individual representation. Their practical recommendation, however, is different. The problem is not solved by dividing power between a series of independent institutions, but rather by establishing a cluster of technocratic and regulatory regimes released from the need for democratic accountability. On the contrary – and somewhat paradoxically – these regimes assume their own legitimacy, to the extent that they are exempted from the very need for legitimacy in democratic terms.

This notion too functions within a framework of non-majoritarian, Madisonian political theory. The stress in this case lies, however, not on the separation of powers, but on the exercise of said powers independently of majority preference. The problem to be solved in both cases is ”to carve out an institutional system that will bring a remedy to the current legitimacy crisis of the Community, without at the same time [my emphasis] exposing it to the dangers of majoritarian solutions” (Dehousse 1995: 135). The problem can be solved either by separating powers from each other or by rendering their exercise independent of any requirement for accountability.

According to this fifth option, then, independence is the key concept. The transnational separation of powers implies checks and balances between institutions. Independence, by contrast, implies not a system of institutional checks and balances, but rather an institutional monopoly for those exercising authority within the particular area in question (e.g., energy, banking, food prices, the environment, competition law).

Otherwise put: Madisonian theorists are of two kinds where the preservation of the democratic deficit is concerned. Some are pluralists; others are technocrats. The bottom line for both groups is the following: democracy is not to be equated with the rule of the majority. Pluralists surrender the notion of representative government. They continue to insist, however, on the need for accountability. This is to be met by checks and balances. Technocrats bring the Madisonian argument one step further. In his book Regulating Europe, Giandomenico Majone avers that majoritarian rule is ”particularly inadequate in the case of the European Union”. This is so, he argues, because ”[t]he Union is not, and may never become, a state in the modern sense of the concept” (Majone 1996: 287). 

There are two types of policy within the constitutional framework of a state ”in the modern sense”, Majone argues. The one is regulation, which is designed to increase efficiency in the interests of all. The important thing here is obedience – not so much how decisions came about, or what opportunities are available for holding decision-makers accountable.

The other type of policy is redistribution, which does not lie in the interests of all. In order for the transfer of resources across borders to be possible – recall that the countries in question are democracies – majority decisions must be made. It must be possible to hold decision-makers accountable. This presupposes, in turn, that the Union as a whole constitutes a democratic state. Citizens must be motivated by mutual solidarity and must be able to communicate with each other politically.

The technique for making the market a common one is, in all important respects, regulation. Some marginal subventions and regional supports to agriculture and peripheral parts of the Union certainly exist. They are needed for ensuring acceptance of the common rules governing the market. As long, however, as the fees for membership in the European Union amount to no more than 1.27 % of GNP – as compared to an overall tax level in the neighbourhood of 40 to 60 % – the institutions of the Union will require no legitimation of their own.

Against this background it is surprising, Majone argues, that the emphasis in the debates of the 1990s has been so heavily on strengthening rather than weakening the Union's majoritarian features. Confederalists and federalists, provisionalists and political pluralists – all emphase the need for democratic accountability (to Europe as a whole, to national electorates, and to specific veto groups). This is not, in Majone’s view, a rational constitutional policy for the European Union. Majoritarianism can only lead – especially if combined with the separation of powers – to deadlock and perhaps even disintegration. As a de facto matter, moreover, constitutional reforms in a majoritarian direction would limit the role of the small countries (Majone 1996: 287).

The real question, Majone argues, is how ”agency independence and public accountability can be made complementary and mutually reinforcing rather than antithetical values” (Majone 1996: 300). His own theoretical arguments, as well as the experiences of the United States in the 20th century with independendent regulatory commissions (IRCs), indicate that independence and accountability can be reconciled by a combination of control mechanisms, rather than by the exercise of oversight from any fixed place on the political spectrum. Such control mechanisms include: clear and limited statutory objectives for providing unambiguous performance standards; reason-giving and transparency requirements for faciliating judicial review and public participation; due process provisions for ensuring fairness among the inevitable losers from regulatory decisions; and professionalism for withstanding external interference and reducing the risk of an arbitrary use of agency discretion (Majone 1996: 300).

With a system of multiple rather than concentrated controls, ”no one controls an agency, yet the agency is ‘under control’. At that point, the problem of regulatory legitimacy will have been largely solved.” Majoritarian democratic accountability, in this argument, is reduced to ”oversight exercised from any fixed place in the political spectrum” (Majone 1996: 300).
The drawback of allowing public opinion, ordinary citizens, political parties and interest organizations to have an ultimate say in the choice of policies and office-holders is that it does not ”ensure consistency in regulatory policy-making by insulating the regulators from the potentially destabilizing effects of the electoral cycle” (Majone 1996: 289). When seeking re-election, ”legislators engage in advertising and position-taking rather than in serious policy-making, or they design laws with numerous opportunities to help particular constituences. In either case, re-election pressures have serious consequences for the quality of legislation” (Majone 1996: 291). 

The core of Majone’s argument lies in his positive evaluation of regulatory independence together with his negative attitude towards government by elected politicians. Along with Susan Rose-Ackerman, in her book Rethinking the Progressive Agenda, Majone asks himself rhetorically: ”if the courts require the regulatory process to be open to public input and scrutiny and to act on the basis of competent analyses, are the regulators necessarily less accountable than elected politicians?” (Majone 1996: 291). Independence, in this view, means not insulation from the surrounding society, but integrity.

The reason Majone considers advocates of democratic suprastatism to be naive in their federalism is historical. Federalists take their point of departure, he claims, in an presumed analogy with the integrative role of social policy in the growth and establishment of the nation-state in nineteenth-century Europe. Historically, social policy made an essential contribution to the process of nation-building by bridging the gap between state and society. ”National insurance, social security, education, health and welfare services and housing policy were, and to a large extent remain, powerful symbols of national solidarity” (Majone 1996: 296). When today’s federalists believe that a European welfare state would provide an equally impressive demonstration of Europe-wide solidarity, they embrace unrealistic expectations. The redistribution actually taking place within the common agricultural policy and the system of cohesion funds should be interpreted as ”a side-payment to induce all member states to accept certain efficiency-enhancing measures”, rather than as an instrument of social policy (Majone 1996: 298). 

The delicate value judgements social policies express concerning the appropriate balance of efficiency and equity can only be legitimately made, Majone argues, within fairly homogeneous communities. He considers this a decisive argument in favour of his particular brand of preservationism: 

It is difficult to see how generally acceptable levels of income redistribution can be determined centrally in a community of nations where levels of economic development and political and legal traditions are still so different, and where majoritarian principles can play only a limited role. Thus, a more active role of the European Union in income redistribution would not reduce the Union’s democratic deficit, as many people would seem to think, but would on the contrary, aggravate it (Majone 1996: 298f).

The point concerns the difference between the norm-giving and fiscal powers. The former are more easily used in concert with other states than the latter. Rules promulgated on a suprastatal basis meet with less opposition than does redistribution conducted at such a level. The art of preserving the democratic deficit thus means avoiding a regulatory policy that calls forth a need for economic redistribution across borders.

Criteria for Evaluation

When it comes to evaluating these three preservationist options – as compared both with each other and with the two abolitionist approaches – we require some basic criteria of a more general kind. There are, as far as I can see, two ways of approaching this question. One is to compare the options in terms of end result, the other is to compare them in terms of process.

If one selects the end-result method, a checklist approach may be suitable. To my mind, Michael Zürn's suggestion of a fourfold checklist has moved the debate on the democratic deficit a large step forward. At the top of his list comes congruence. In principle, those who are affected by decisions (as objects) should also be those responsible for them (as mandators). If the degree of congruence is too small, the persons affected will consider the system of governance to be alien, in the same way that the law was alien under feudalism. There is a lack of fit, under such conditions, between the range over which democratically legitimated decisions apply, on the one hand, and the range of relevant social and economic relations, on the other. This lack of fit creates a new form of alienation and non-decision-making (Zürn 1996: 39).

The second criterion with which Zürn presents us is identity. Of course, a ‘demos' need not be an ‘ethnos’ as well. However, the members of a demos must be ‘identical’ in the sense of recognising each other as members of the ‘same’ political community. In practice, this means a preparedness to accept the use of the majority principle and of revenue-sharing, I would like to add. Joseph Weiler and his co-authors (Weiler, Haltern and Mayer 1995: 13 f) provide a good example. They suggest, as an intellectual experiment, the entry of the Kingdom of Denmark – with its four million citizens – into the Federal Republic of Germany as a seventeenth Land. How would the Danes then be different from the four million Germans who vote for the Greens (and who form something of a permanent minority within the political system of Germany as a whole) ? Accepting the majority principle presupposes, in other words, the existence of a community of communication, of memory, and of experience. The countries of Western Europe do not, taken as a whole, constitute a community of communication. Nor do they form a community of memory, and only to a very limited extent are they a community of experience (Kielmannsegg 1996: 57).

The third criterion in Zürn's fourfold scheme is reversibility. Democratic theory rests on the epistemological notion that decisions are not eternal truths. They should be seen, rather, as the result of an interplay between interests and convictions. We must therefore accept that future decisions on any given issue may differ from past ones, i.e., new decisions may proceed in a different and even contrary direction. This is an important, if largely implicit, reason for accepting majority rule in a democracy (Zürn 1996: 41). Under modern conditions, it is true, reversibility is hard to achieve for two reasons. One has to do with the empirical character of technologies like nuclear power. The use of simple majority rule is difficult in such cases, for technologies of this type have irreversible consequences as to their substance. The second reason derives from the phenomenon here discussed, i.e., a system of procedural and substantive policy asymmetry which tends to render decisions irreversible. For neither in the public discourse nor (all the less) in an election campaign is the actual majority on any specific question confronted, in such a system, with a potential majority for an alternative policy.
	
Michael Zürn's fourth criterion is accountability. Democracy is not preferable to other forms of governance just because the majority is entitled to rule. A still more critical reason is that democracy makes it possible to dismiss bad or incompetent rulers. Not only decisions but the holding of political office too should be reversible. For an electorate vis-à-vis its parliament, and for a parliament vis-à-vis its government, this is an imperative demand. Its effective execution requires, moreover, a minimum of accurate information, and a general grasp of the achievements of the political system as a whole (Zürn 1996: 41 f). 
	
I would propose here that we use Zürn's four criteria as a normative guide for deciding whether to abandon suprastatism, to democratise it, or to preserve it. The last-mentioned can be accomplished by provisionalising suprastatism, surrendering representation, or abandoning accountability. 
	
Abandoning suprastatism entails establishing a confederation. In an association of states of this sort, all four criteria are satisfied. Citizens decide for themselves, and they have no difficulty in accepting the majority principle within their own state. As far as the element of multi-level decision-making is concerned, policies can be easily reversed. The power of citizens to force governments and legislative majorities from office for political reasons, moreover, is in no way threatened, for decisions in a confederal system are taken in each member state singly. Common decisions in a confederation are not binding until they are ratified by each and every member state in accordance with its own constitutional provisions.
	
Democratising suprastatism means founding a federation. If the EU were transformed into a multi-level state of that kind, the European parliament would be made the ultimate repository of the legislative and – indirectly – the executive suprastatal powers. A federation would work in the same way as member countries such as Austria, Belgium and Germany, all of which are federal in character. The criterion of accountability would then be satisfied. The same could be said of the criteria of congruence and identity. 
	
The matter is trickier in the case of the reversibility criterion, which is difficult to satisfy in any federation. Reversibility is satisfied far better, however, in an outright federation than in the present system of double asymmetry and provisional suprastatism. If the EU were a federation, central political issues would be the stuff of a Europe-wide discourse and will-formation, and the composition of the European Parliament would be the decisive factor in resolving conflicts between the member states and the suprastate.
	
Provisional suprastatism represents the maintenance of the status quo. This is preferable, I would argue, to the other options available. Double asymmetry based on provisional suprastatism perhaps can be said – at a stretch – to fulfil the criteria of congruence and identity, but it certainly cannot be deemed satisfactory in the case of reversibility and accountability. Avoiding majority decisions and making as few decisions as possible at the suprastatal level is a pragmatic way to avoid violating the criteria of identity and congruence more than is absolutely ‘necessary’ to defend the four freedoms. 
	
However, a multi-level decisional system which is not federal – in the sense that governance at its suprastatal level is not founded in direct and general elections – cannot be accepted from the standpoint of reversibility and accountability. As long as elections to the European Parliament do not carry significant political weight, policy alternatives and policy openings are not being confronted according to the principle of majoritarian rule at the European level. The result is that important policies are made by the European governments in common and, thereby, on an unaccountable basis, and with irreversible effect (Zürn 1996: 47).
	
Surrendering representation, according to Edgar Grande’s theory, violates all four of Michael Zürn’s criteria. The political structure of European suprastatism would then be turned into a system marked by a transnational separation of powers. Each single element in the system of countervailing powers would be released from its inherent element of individual representation. The Commission, the Parliament, the Court and the Council of Ministers would continue to exist, alongside a system of transnational referenda. The important thing here is checks and balances, not identity, congruence, reversibility and accountability.
	
Abandoning accountability, according to Giandomenico Majone’s theory of technocratic rule, violates the criteria of reversibility and accountability, but not necessarily those of identity and congruence. The last two criteria could be upheld even in a political machine without mandators, in which citizens could change neither policies nor office-holders. In such a system the governing elite will hold referendums. People will identify themselves with the state, but they will have no influence.
	
From an end-state point of view, provisional suprastatism does not seem an especially good solution. As seen from the standpoint, however, of the piecemeal constitutional engineering (Popper 1945, ch. 9), it might be thought preferable to its abolitionist and preservationist alternatives:

[Utopian] principles, if applied to the realm of political activitity, demand that we must determine our ultimate political aim, or the Ideal State, before taking any practical action. Only when this ultimate aim is determined, in rough outlines at least, only when we are in the possession of something like a blueprint of the society at which we aim, only then can we begin to consider the best ways and means for its realization, and to draw up a plan for practical action (Popper 1945: 138).

The politician who adopts the piecemeal method, in contrast, may or may not hope that mankind will one day realize an ideal state, and achieve happiness and perfection on earth. However she or he will

be aware that perfection, if at all attainable, is far distant, and that every 	generation of 	men, and therefore also the living, have a claim; perhaps not so much a claim to be made happy, for there are no institutional means of making a man happy, but a claim not to be made unhappy, where it can be avoided. The piecemeal engineer will, accordingly, adopt the method of searching for, and fighting against, the greatest and most urgent evils of society, rather than searching for, and fighting for, its greatest ultimate good (Popper 1945: 139).

Scharpf, for his part, argues implicitly in such terms when presenting the provisionalising version of the preservationist position. Economic interdependence is nowadays so far-reaching, he avers, that it would be irresponsible to adopt a strategy of abandonment. The re-introduction of member state self-determination into the negatively integrated single market – the confederal solution – would not simply violate the treaty: ”[E]scalating national protectionisms would not just mean the end of the Union, it would also plunge the European economy into catastrophic straits” (Scharpf 1995: 582).

Nor, in Scharpf's view, should the suprastatal order be democratised. The legitimacy of the suprastate is admittedly weak. In practice, however, a strategy of democratising suprastatism – in accordance with the federal solution – would lead to unacceptable results. For it would mean that, during a transitional period of uncertain length, the more legitimate law would be superseded by the less – all in order to achieve a better state of affairs in a distant future. This would mean, in practice, that the legitimacy of member–state democracies would decline, without a corresponding growth in the democratic legitimacy of the suprastate.

Much is therefore at stake if politics at the European level remains weak, while politics at the national level has lost its effectiveness. The only way to avoid this horror scenario is to employ the limited opportunities of action present at both levels – national and European – in such a way that the existing opportunities for effective policy are exploited, and predictable frustrations are side-stepped. This has important implications for the relationship between European and national policy (Scharpf 1995: 583f).

The thrust of my argument may be summed up as follows: comparing different options in terms of piecemeal constitutional engineering means that we must identify, specify, and try to falsify our premises. A piecemeal approach should not be thought, however, to imply a defence of the status quo, i.e., in this context a preservationist position. The point is that the premises underlying each and every step in the development of our constitutional policy should be rendered clear and falsifiable. Premises supporting the status quo are quite as important to clarify and to corroborate as premises underlying policies of change.
	
Virtually all of us have, at the very root of our thinking on the democratic deficit, a psychological tendency to let ourselves be inspired (consciously or not) by a well-known three-stage metaphor. I have in mind the threefold tale of Paradise, Fall and Resurrection. From the Medieval Paradise the Renaissance and Reformation were sprung, and the system of sovereign states replaced the indivisible Universal Community in sacred union with the Holy Church. Yet the modern system of sovereign states in Europe has never lost its telos, according to this implicit and idealistic creed. Through its re-unification, Europe shall be resurrected from the consequences of the Fall of Man. At present, it is true, divisions, splits and schisms prevail. In the future, however, Europe shall return to its true self, as once it existed under Pope and Emperor.

According to the principle of piecemeal engineering, however, policies should be formulated in small, clearly stated stages so that their premises can be tested. If, furthermore, we refuse to accept telos as an argument, it becomes urgent to criticise what is often said in the current political debate on the process of European integration. For criticism is in fact called for, and should be delivered along two different lines.

My first point – and an elementary one it is indeed – is that there is no immanent goal called ‘united Europe’. Events and developments in the area of European integration are not the servants of some underlying purpose or cunning of history. Only individuals exist – individual people who actively prefer that certain steps be taken or not taken. The surrender of congruence, identity, reversibility and accountability cannot be justified by reference to ‘integration’ as an historical ‘process’ aimed at bringing Europe back to its ‘true self’. The democratic deficit cannot be defended on the grounds that is a ‘necessary’ element whereby the ‘natural’ development of things is accelerated. The double asymmetry – of power and responsibility and of positive and negative integration – can only be discussed, and should only be discussed, in terms of falsifiable propositions. These propositions should relate to the intended and unintended consequences that the double asymmetry brings – in terms of employment, economic growth, social improvement, the loss of democracy, the risk of war, etc.

Second, more ‘integration’ should not be considered, by definition, to be ‘better’ than less. The outcome one prefers – as regards congruence, identity, reversibility and accountability – must be argued for in terms of falsifiable propositions concerning the anticipated consequences of accepting double asymmetry vs. not accepting it. The question is which option is preferable to the available alternatives at any particular time. Which is considered better must be allowed, moreover, to change over time and in accordance with experiences gained. A step in the direction of more integration is not a priori better; it should not be equated automatically with progress. Such a step may indeed take the member states one step higher, in terms of the integration stair-case metaphor. However, being taken one step higher up the stair-case does not by definition mean an improvement. The level is higher but not necessarily better.
	
One can say, as Bela Balassa did when presenting his metaphor in 1961, that the various steps represent varying degrees of integration. 

In a free trade area, tariffs (and quantitative restrictions) between the    participating countries are abolished, but each country retains its own tariffs against non-members. The establishment of a customs union involves, besides the suppression of discrimination in the field of commodity movements within the union, the creation of a common tariff wall against non-member countries. A higher form of economic integration is attained in a common market, where not only trade restrictions but also restrictions on factor movements are abolished. An economic union, as distinct from a common market, combines the removal of restrictions on commodity and factor movements with a degree of harmonisation of economic, monetary, fiscal, social 	and countercyclical policies (Balassa 1961: 5f).

A political union – or what Belassa calls ”total economic integration” – involves ”the unification of economic, fiscal etc. policies and requires the setting up of a supranational authority whose decisions are binding for the member-states” (Balassa 1961: 5 f). Whether this will work or not obviously has something to do with how realistic it is to reconcile suprastatism with the absence of accountability. This can be done more easily at the lower stages of the stair-case. The common market is the last step, which does not imply more than regulatory policies. Monetary union might imply fiscal union and thereby indirectly the need for making federal taxation and spending policies accountable to the European Parliament. 
	
In the light of the stair-case metaphor, a terminology for describing varying degrees of integration is not the same as a theory of European federalism as a pre-determined process of ever-closer union. As an acceptable theory, such a notion would have something falsifiable to say in three respects. First, is it an accurate description that the various steps in the staircase are being reached in accordance with an inherent logic ? Second, is it a plausible explanation that the process of integration is determined by its immanent purpose? Third, is it a reasonable prescription to recommend that these steps be ascended one after the other, in accordance with a given logic ?
	
My answers to these three questions are all decidedly in the negative. No other ultimate criterion is possible, in my view, than the reformist one stated by Karl Popper, to the effect that we should ”be aware that perfection, if at all attainable, is far distant, and that every generation of men, and therefore also the living, have a claim”. This means that the perfectionist solutions – whether they entail abandoning suprastatism or democratising it – are unavailable in practice. This notwithstanding the fact that they may be perfect according to the checklist approach.

The proposals to surrender representation or to abandon accountability may be reconcilable with some scheme of Madisonian democracy. Yet, however reconcilable in such terms, they have great difficulty meeting the Zürnian criteria. In conclusion – and this is decisive in my view – they are normatively unacceptable. I cannot accept a political theory not built on the principles of representing individuals and open for the possibility of changing policies and office-holders as the result of general elections. 
	
From the standpoint of piecemeal constitutional engineering, in sum, it would appear that provisional suprastatism remains the best available option, and preferable to both its two preservationist and two abolitionist, surrender representation or abandon accountability competitors.

Under the Auspices of the Stability Pact

The aim of this article has been to consider provisional suprastatism, into theoretical perspective. That raises an additional question. To what extent are the four alternative options actually advocated? 

They are in fact proposed by individuals, who are either strongly against the democratic deficit or strongly in favour of limiting the reach of democracy through transnational separation of powers or irreversibly technocratic rule. Especially, there are influential protagonists in favour of abandoning accountability. That position is needed in order to defend the idea of the European Central Bank being irreversibly beyond any possible influence from electoral change or shifts in public opinion. Governments have changed in Great Britain, France and Germany during 1997 and 1998. However, when it comes to the Central Bank being unreachable, they are all advocating technocratic rule.

Apart from the important exception of defending the irreversibility, rather than the reversibility, of monetary union, provisional suprastatism dominates the picture. However uncomfortable politicians and political commentators may feel, they tend to defend the democratic deficit. That is done by referring to national sovereigny being delegated rather than surrendered. Accepting the restrictions of marginality, predictability and revocability they see no better alternative than sticking to democratic accountability within each single country.

Hopefully, this concentration on democratic accountability in the member states will have a practical consequence. The EMU should vitalize the system of nation-wide political parties, popular movements and open government. Otherwise the national political life inside a monetary union without fiscal union – in periods and areas of recession and deflation – will have to face a very hard choice. A breakdown of nation-wide political parties and trade unions will force the member states to choose between taking the step up to fiscal union or to give up political rights and free elections in order to prevent social unrest and populist political parties getting dominant. In order to make the stability pact work – meaning that fiscal union and abandoning basic human rights should be avoided at every conceivable price – the member states will need more rather than less democracy (S. Gustavsson 1997-98: 23 ff, 1998 a: 204 ff, 1999: 20 ff).

Setting our hopes on a democratic renewal under the auspices of the stability pact may seem too hazardous. In my view, however, there is no better idea than the stability pact when it comes to revitalizing national democracy in order to make 21st century Europe a better union of states than the one we have experienced since 1914. My analysis seems to be showing, that the alternatives are even more venturesome.

Bibliography

Balassa, Bela. 1961. "Towards a Theory of Economic Integration", Kyklos, 16, 1-17.

BVerfGE [Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts], 89, 17, 155-213. The complete text of the Maastricht verdict is available in English, German and French in Winkelmann 1994, pp. 697-799).

Dehousse, Renaud. 1995. "Constitutional Reform in the European Community. Are there Alternatives to the Majority Avenue?", pp. 118-136 in Jack Hayward, ed., The Crisis of Representation in Europe. London: Frank Cass.

Grande, Edgar. 1996. "Demokratische Legitimation und europäische Integration", Leviathan, 24, 339-360.

Gustavsson, Jakob. 1998. The Politics of Foreign Policy Change. Explaining the Swedish Reorientation on EU Membership. Lund: Lund University Press.

Gustavsson, Sverker. 1996. "Preserve or Abolish the Democratic Deficit?" pp. 100-123 in Eivind Smith, ed., National Parliaments as Cornerstones of European Integration. London: Kluwer Law International.

________________ 1997. "Double Asymmetry as Normative Challenge" pp. 108-131 in Andreas Føllesdal & Peter Koslowski, eds., Democracy and the European Union. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

________________ 1997-98. "Myntunion utan fiskal union", pp. 5-38 in Annales Academiæ Regiæ Scientiarum Upsaliensis, 32, 5-38.

–––––––––––––––– 1998 a. "Sökandet efter en tredje möjlighet", pp. 172-218 in 
Ulf Bernitz et al EU i dag. Stockholm: SNS förlag.

________________ 1998 b. "Defending the Democratic Deficit" pp. 63-79 in Albert Weale & Michael Nentwich, eds., Political Theory and the European Union. London: Routledge.

________________ 1999. Monetary Union without Fiscal Union: A Politically Sustainable Asymmetry? Paper presented at the American ECSA Sixth Biennial International Conference, June 2-5, Pittsburgh.

Kielmansegg, Peter Graf. 1996. "Integration und Demokratie" pp. 47-71 in Markus Jachtenfuchs & Beate Kohler-Koch, Hrsg., Europäische Integration. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton & John Jay. [1788] 1987. The Federalist Papers. London: Penguin Classics.

Majone, Giandomenico. 1996. Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.

Newman, Michael. 1996. Democracy, Sovereignty and the European Union. London: Hurst & Company.

Popper, Karl. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1. London: George Routledge & Sons.

Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1992. Rethinking the Progressive Agenda. The Reform of the American Regulatory State. New York: Free Press.

Scharpf, Fritz W. 1994. Optionen des Föderalismus in Deutschland und Europa. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

______________ 1995. "Demokratische Politik in Europa", Staatswissenchaften und Staatspraxis, 6, 565-591.

______________ 1996 a. "Politische Optionen im vollendeten Binnenmarkt" pp. 109-140 in Markus Jachtenfuchs & Beate Kohler-Koch, Hrsg., Europäische Integration. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

______________ 1996 b. "Negative and Positive Integration in the Political Economy of European Welfare States", pp. 15-39 in Gary Marks, Fritz W. Scharpf, Philippe C. Schmitter & Wolfgang Streeck, Governance in the European Union. London: Sage.

Weiler, Joseph H.H, Ulrich R. Haltern & Franz C. Mayer. 1995. "European Democracy and its Critique" pp. 4-39 in Jack Hayward, ed., The Crisis of Representation in Europe. London: Frank Cass.

Winkelmann, Ingo. 1994. Das Maastricht-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 12. Oktober 1993. Dokumentation des Verfahrens mit Einführung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Zürn, Michael. 1996. "Über den Staat und die Demokratie im europäischen Mehrebenensystem", Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 37, 27-55.