Representative Democracy: Input and Output

Norway has a representative democracy, meaning that there ought to be a similarity between the political decisions being made, and the people’s wishes (Claes et al. 2003: 63). At the core

of the representative democracy is therefore the idea that the people, indirectly by voting on political parties in elections, participate in choosing the policies they are exposed to. Crombez (2003: 4-5) argues that one can take two distinct approaches when defining what constitutes a democratic deficit. Firstly, one can focus on the output of political processes, i.e., the legislation and regulations that emerge from it. If the voter’s policy preferences are not reflected in the output, this is an indicator of a democratic deficit because it touches upon the core of every democracy; voters elect representatives to govern on their behalf according to their wishes. Secondly, we can concentrate on the political process itself and its inputs and study whether or not the voters are adequately represented in the different steps of the process and have the means to exercise influence on it. If they do not, this can also be an indicator of a democratic problem.

Crombez’ definition is originally thought to assist in determining whether or not there is a democratic deficit between the EU institutions and the European citizens. However, it is fully possible to adapt this definition to the cooperation between Norway and the EU, analysing whether or not the public’s opinion is being followed (output) and whether the voter’s representatives are adequately represented in the different steps of the decision-making process (input).

2.2.1 Input

It is essential in a democracy that the citizens are not subjected to any laws which their representatives have not participated in making. The main question is therefore if people are adequately represented in the political process itself. Especially two concepts are relevant when discussing democratic deficits and the input side; ‘accountability’ and ‘co-decision’.

Accountability pertains to the public control over the elected representatives’ actions through elections, and co-decision is the participation in decisions concerning own situation. When analysing the input side one can for example focus on the three main concerns for the Norwegian Government with regard to the EU-Norway cooperation on security and defence;

getting information, participation and possibilities for influence.

Getting information is paramount in any relationship or cooperation. In this case, what is significant is whether or not Norway has access to relevant information. If not, this might be considered as a weakness in the relationship. Participation is also a relevant measure of possible democratic weaknesses, as it is important to be represented in the relevant discussion

fora as well as have access to meetings. It is, however, not only enough to have representation on paper if the representatives do not enjoy speaking, proposing, vetoing and voting rights.

The possibilities for influence can be viewed in different ways. Firstly, one should be able to have some sort of possibility to influence during the decision-making process, or at the very least during the decision-shaping process. Another important aspect is whether or not there is any national room of manoeuvring, for example veto rights at the last moment, or that the final proposal has to be approved by national parliaments. Simply put: the possibility to have the last and final word with regard to decision-making concerning own country, citizens and laws. This right is of course important in theory as well as in praxis in order to truly possess national sovereignty. Unlike EEA regulations, EU directives on security and defence are not implemented into Norwegian laws. Hence, it is essential to look at the actual participation in operations and the degrees of freedom that Norwegian personnel enjoy.

2.2.2 Output

Domestic variables can have an impact on how security influences state decisions because democratic governments must consider their political survival as well as being concerned with the state’s survival (Davidson 2011: 14-15). In a democracy, there is a need for public awareness and public debate. Some would argue that this is not the case with regard to security and defence policy because this is part of a nation’s vital interests and therefore exempted the public eye. This may have been true some decades ago, however:

With the end of the Cold War and the changes in the security policy in the 1990s and 2000s, the presumed consensus of values has been weakened both nationally and internationally. Following this, arguments against openness and democratic control of the security and defence policy are put under pressure⁵

(Sjursen 2008: 332)

Do people get what they want? In a representative democracy, public opinion is important because there should be a similarity between the political decisions being made and the people’s wishes. For example, the Europeanisation of commodity markets was considered democratically legitimate because ‘a majority of citizens demanded competitive industries (...) and interdependence rendered national policies increasingly incapable of providing these public goods’ (Wagner 2005: 11). Since the start of the European integration there has been a linkage between the public opinion and the democratic legitimacy of the further integration.

After the Danes rejection of the Maastricht Treaty, public opinion was however taken even more seriously as an indicator of democratic legitimacy; ‘The Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty caught many by surprise and demonstrated that the politics of European integration could no longer flourish without popular support’ (Wagner 2005: 12).

By assuming command of military operations the EU must also assume responsibility for potential casualties. The decision-makers in Brussels and in the member states should thus be aware of the public’s opinion on the matter (Wagner 2005: 5). In Norway the EU question has been a highly polarising issue, dividing the people and the political parties in two camps.

Because the EU has been such a sensitive topic, the public opinion has always been regarded as highly relevant; best illustrated by the fact that Norwegian EC/EU membership was put to a referendum. One can argue that by putting the membership question to a vote, the Norwegian Government has made the public opinion on the EU matter a standard for democratic deficit.