The question of how to decrease the democratic deficit of the EU has been high on the research agenda of scholars of European studies, particularly since the early 1990s. A
‘standard’ version of the critique is that institutional reforms will decrease the democratic deficit of the EU. A more ‘substantial critique’ questions whether the political system of the EU can be transferred into a democratic system as measured against national democratic systems at all, because it lacks some substantial requirements for democracies (cf. Grande 1996). The EU is a representational system still in the making (Norris 1997). Schmidt (1997) points to the fact that the democratic deficit at the supranational level has effects also on the national level; she writes (pp. 142-143): ‘... unless nation states make their citizens fee l that they are participating in the supranational decisions that increasingly affect their lives, the legitimacy o f both the EU and the nation state will be increasingly open to question \ The political representation of women (as well other underrepresented social groups) is thus a serious problem at the national as well as the EU level. The empirical findings presented here clearly indicate some positive trends regarding the political representation of women in EU institutions. The number and status of women has considerably improved over the years. Judged by the concept of parity democracy the EU remains a democracy still in the making. On the whole, there is a particularly noticeable imbalance between the Nordic Member States (which have a higher commitment to equality issues) and the Mediterranean Member States. Also, the differences between the
31 For example the European Court of Justice decided against a plaintiff who took her employer, a British railway company, to court on the ground that the company denied grant travel concessions to her female partner. The Court decided that this is not a case of discrimination based on the sex of the employee and therefore it does not constitute a violation of Article 119 EC Treaty. The Court also mentions that the situation may change after the Treaty o f Amsterdam comes into force (ECJ, Press Release No 5/98, February 17, 1998).
32 On tire other hand, Community action under Article 119 is taken up under the co-operation procedure which assignes the European Parliament the role of a co-legislator. Due to the traditional woman-friendly attitude of the Parliament, there is hope for some substantial improvement in relation to women and the labour market.
This is not to say that the Amsterdam Treaty is of no more relevance to women than in those articles (anti- discrimination and labour market). The introduction o f the Social Protocol into the Treaty is obviously very important; also the immigration policy is very relevant for women from non-Member States etc. Here, I have to limit my argument to the questions and matters related to pariy democracy. The EU institutions are also very undemocratic when looking at representation form a perspective of social classes or ethnicity which interrelates with gender issues.
EU institutions are vast in actual numbers as well as in their commitment to equal opportunities.
While many measures that have been proposed to EU policy-makers have been adopted in order to balance the number of women and men in political decision-making (European Network and Leijenaar 1996), it is now time for the Member States, their governments and political parties as the actors primarily responsible for the ‘passages to power’ (Norris 1997a) to meet the challenge of parity democracy by implementing measures that are de facto effective.
I have shown, first, that political science and especially the field of international relations (cf.
also Hoskyns 1994) have much to learn from a gender perspective — which some EU policy
makers have already started to take on. Secondly, a widely neglected possibility to decrease the democratic deficit and strengthen representational channels is by promoting parity democracy.
However, this means more than just female bodies in place; ‘a balanced participation o f men and women in the decision making process is likely to give rise to different ideas, values and behaviour which will result in more justice and equality in the world'’ (Council 1996, p. 12). Gender parity therefore touches at the core of any debate on the representational and substantial revitalisation of democracy and social progress in the European Union. By failing to address the issue of women’s underrepresentation, political scientists are missing a most important prerequisite for building a true democratic Union that is closer to all its citizens, and hence they miss an important chance for increasing representation and thereby legitimacy of both the EU and the Member States.
The political system of the EU, its structures, institutions and wide array of policy fields still has to be placed on the research agenda of feminist scholars. While issues of women’s participation and representation in politics are a main focus of feminist political scientist, it is striking that the questions, tools, and concepts developed nationally have not yet been used for systematic comparisons between Member States concerning the nomination and election to decision-making posts in EU institutions.33 For example, the EP would prove to be a particularly interesting field for international comparative studies, because it allows us to examine a complex research setting of a number of socio-economic determinants, political cultures, and electoral systems among other institutional barriers with respect to their effects on women’s representation, as well as the role of political actors in the Member States.
Moreover, the narrow focus to date of most feminist analysis on social policy needs to be expanded to a number of policy fields and has to be analysed by concepts and methods from policy analysis.34 A limited focus is also reflected in the Commission proposal on
‘mainstreaming’ women’s policy. While the proposal does include an array of policy fields, important areas are excluded at the same time, and thus obviously perceived as ‘gender- neutral’. This common misunderstanding holds true for research and development (R&D).
Feminist studies in science and technology have proved that technologies do have an impact on gender relations. This means that feminist policy analysts need to take the field of EU
33 An exception is Norris and Franklin 1997. For a systematic comparison of the political systems of the EU Member States plus Norway see Hoecker 1998.
34 For sexual and body politics cf. Elman 1996.
R&D policy into account when studying the gender impact of policies and the actual processes of policy-making.
From an approach of gender and policy analysis, the EU is an important field of study because of its developing nature. A key characteristic of EU policy-making is a two-level game, that is the close link between policy issues and polity changes. This means that institutional and constitutional development of the Union is intermingled in the policy-making process.
Therefore, introducing gendered perspectives into EU policy-making may have long-term effects on the polity construction of the Union. A starting point here is the relative openness of some of the EU institutions towards women and gender issues, namely the European Parliament, the Commission, the European Court of Justice, and also the Committee of the Regions.
As the Commission stated in its ‘mainstreaming’ proposal (Commission 1996, p. 2), meeting the challenge of parity democracy could be part of the European project for the twenty-first century.
8 References
Andersen, S.S./Eliassen, K.A. (eds.) (1995) The European Union: How Democratic Is It? London:
Sage.
Biester, E. et.al. (eds.) (1994) Das unsichtbare Geschlecht der Europa. Der europäische Einigungspro^ß aus feministischer Sicht. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.
Catling, J. (1996) ‘Organisation und Politik des Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschusses’. In:
Röttinger, M. and Weyringer, C. (eds.), pp. 169-182.
Cockburn, C. (1995) Women and the European Social Dialogue — Strategies for Gender Democracy. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Commission of the European Communities (1995) Women at the European Commission, 1984-1994. Brussels: CEC.
Commission of the European Communities (1996) ‘Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities - mainstreaming’, COM (96) 67 final, 21 February 1996.
Commission of the European Communities (1997) Equal opportunities for women and men in the European Union. Annual report 1996. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Committee of the Regions (1996) ‘Opinion on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men’, CoR 161/96 final, 18/19 September 1996. Brussels: CoR.
Committee of the Regions (1997) ‘Statement by the Committee of the Regions to member states with regard to future CoR appointments in terms of equal opportunities’. Draft.
Brussels: CoR.
Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (1997) Draft Treaty of Amsterdam, CONF/4001/97, 19 June 1997.
Corbett, R., Jacobs, F. and Shackleton, M. (1995) The European Parliament, 3rd. ed. London:
Cartermill.
Council of the European Communities (1995) ‘Council Resolution of 27 March 1997 on the balanced participation of women and men in decision-making’, Official Journal C 168, 4 July 1995.
Council of the European Union (1996) ‘Council Recommendation of 2 December 1996 on the balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process’, Official JoumalU 319, 10 December 1996.
Council of the European Union (1997) ‘Representatives of Member States’ Governments who regularly take part in Council meetings’, http: / /europa.eu.int.
Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (1997) Treaty of Amsterdam. 2 October 1997. Amsterdam.
Dijkstta, A.G. and Plantenga J. (eds.) (1997) Gender and Economics. A European Perspective.
London, New York: Routledge.
Elman, R.A. (ed.) (1996) Sexual Politics and the European Union: The new Feminist Challenge.
Oxford: Berghahn Books.
European Network ‘Women in Decision-Making’ (1994a) European Elections 1994. Women standing as candidates and women elected as members of the European Parliament, CEC DG V/2078/94. Brussels: CEC.
European Network ‘Women in Decision-Making’ (1994b) Participation of women in political decision-making at regional and local level, CEC DG V/6467/95. Brussels: CEC.
European Network ‘Women in Decision-Making’ (1995) Participation of women in four Political Groups in the European Parliament, CEC DG V/5953/95. Brussels: CEC.
European Network ‘Women in Decision-Making’ (1996) Women in Decision-Making. Facts and Figures on Women in Political and Public Decision-Making in Europe, 4th ed.
Brussels: CEC.
European Network ‘Women in Decision-Making’ and Leijenaar, M. (1996) How to create a gender balance in political decision making: A guide to implementing policies for increasing participation of women in political decision making. Brussels: CEC.
European Parliament (1994a) ‘Resolution of 11 February 1994 on women in decision-making bodies’, Official journal C 61, 28 February 1994.
European Parliament (1994b) ‘The rights of women and the Maastricht Treaty for a European Union, Working Paper, DG IV/W5. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Parliament (1995) Women Members of Parliament. Statistics, DG IV/WIP/95/01/112. Luxembourg: European Parliament.
European Parliament (1997a) List of Members. Luxembourg: European Parliament.
European Parliament (1997b) ‘Draft Report on the Communication from the Commission -Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities - mainstreaming COM (96) 67’ , PE 222.553, 3 June 1997.
European Parliament (1997a) ‘Equal opportunities for men and women’, PE 166.770.
Luxembourg: European Parliament.
European Parliament/Task Force on the IGC (1997) ‘Briefing on European citizenship’.
Working Paper No 10, 20 February 1997. Luxembourg: EP.
European Women’s Lobby (1996) ‘Contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference 1996’.
4 March 1996. Brussels: EWL.
European Women’s Lobby (1997) ‘Amendments of the EWL to the consolidated draft treaty text’, 6 June 1997. Brussels: EWL.
Everson, M.C./Preuss, U.K. (1995): Concepts, Foundations, and Eimits o f European Citizenship.
ZERP-Diskussionspapier 2/1997. Bremen: ZERP.
Githens, M. (1995) ‘Legislative Recruitment and Gender: Women in the European Parliament
— A Case Study’. Paper delivered at the ECPR Workshop on Legislative Recruitment and the Structure of Opportunities, Bordeaux 27 April - 2 May 1995.
Hervey, T./Shaw, J. (1997) ‘Women, work and care: Women’s dual role and double burden in EC sex equality law’, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 43-63.
Hoecker, B. (1997) ‘Zwischen Macht und Ohnmacht: Politische Partizipation von Frauen in den Staaten der Europäischen Union’, Aus "Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 52/97, pp. 3-14.
Hoecker, B. (1998) Handbuch Politische Participation von Prauen in Puropa. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Holland-Cunz, B. (1998) Peministische Demokratietheorie. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Hoskyns, C. (1994) ‘Gender issues in international relations: the case of die European Community’, Review op International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 225-239.
Hoskyns, C. (1996) Integrating Gender. Women, Paw and Politics in the Puropean Union.
London/New York: Verso.
Inter-Parliamentary Union (1995) Women in Parliaments 1945-1995. Worldwide Statistics. Geneva:
Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Inter-Parliamentary Union (1997) Democracy still in the making. Men and Women in Politics.
Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Lane, J.-E., McKay, D. and Newton, K. (1997) Political Data Handbook OPCD Countries.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liebert, U. (1997) The Gendering of Euro-Skepticism: Public Discourses and Support to the EU in a Cross-National Comparison, Institute for European Studies Working Paper no.
97.2, Cornell University.
Mazey, S. (1988) ‘European Community Action on Behalf on Women: The Limits of Legislation’, Journal o f Common Market Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 63-84.
Mazey, S. (1995) ‘The development of EU equality policies: bureaucratic expansion on behalf of women?’, Public Administration, Vol. 73, Winter 1995, pp. 591-609.
McBride Stetson, D. (1997) ‘Gender and European Politics: The Limits of Integration’. PS:
Political Science & Politics, Vol. 30, June 1997, pp. 195-197.
McCormick, J. (1996) The Puropean Union: Politics and Policies. Boulder, Col.: Westview.
Meehan, E. (1993) Citizenship and the Puropean Community. London: Sage.
Mender, M. (1996) Der Ausschuß der Ständigen Vertreter in den Europäischen Gemeinschaften. Baden- Baden: Nomos.
Mushaben, J.M. (1994) ‘The Other ‘Democratic Deficit’. Women in the European Community before and after Maastricht’ In: Luetzeler, P.M. (ed.) Purope after Maastricht. American and Puropean Perspectives. Oxford, pp. 251-277.
Norris, P. (1997a) ‘Conclusions: comparing passages to power’ In: Norris, P. (ed.) Pathways to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 209-231.
Norris, P. (1997b) ‘Representation and the democratic deficit’, European Journal o f Political Research, Vol. 32, No. 2, Special Issue on ‘Political Representation in the European Parliament’, pp. 273-282.
Norris, P. and Franklin, M. (1997) ‘Social Representation’, Puropean Journal o f Political Research, Vol. 32, No. 2, Special Issue on ‘Political Representation in the European Parliament’, pp. 185-210.
Phillips, A. (1994) ‘Democracy and Representation or, why should it matter who our representatives are?’ Schweizerisches Jahrbuch fü r Politische Wissenschaft. Frauen und Politik.
Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt, pp. 63-76.
Rees, Teresa (1998) Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union. Education. Training and Eabour
Rossilli, M. (1997) ‘The European Community’s Policy on the Equality of Women. From the Treaty of Rome to the Present’, The European Journal o f Women’s Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.
63-82.
Sbragia, A.M. (ed.) (1992) Euro-Politics: Institutions and Policy-making in the New’ European Community. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Schmidt, V.A. (1997) ‘European integration and democracy: the differences among the member states’, Journal o f European Public Policy, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 128-145.
Spence, D. (1994) ‘Staff and personnel policy in the Commission’. In: Edwards, G. and Spence, D. (eds.) The European Commission. Harlow: Longmann, pp. 62-96.
Steffani, W. (1995), ‘Das Demokratie-Dilemma der Europäischen Union. Die Rolle der Parlamente nach dem Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 12. Oktober 1993’ In:
Zeitschrift fü r Parlamentsfragen, Special Issue on ‘Demokratie in Europa. Die Rolle der Parlamente’, No. 1/1995, pp. 33-49
Tsebelis, G. (1994), ‘The power of the European Parliament as a conditional agenda-setter’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 128-142.
Vallance, E. and Davies, E. (1986) Women o f Europe — Women MEPs and Equality Policy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wessels, W. (1991) ‘The EC Council: The Community’s Decisionmaking Center’. In:
Keohane, R.O. and Hoffmann, S. (eds.) The New European Community: Decisionmaking and Institutional Change. Boulder, Col.: Westview, pp. 133-153.
Westlake, M. (1994a) The Commission and the Parliament: Partners and Rivals in the European Policymaking Process. London: Butterworth.
Westlake, M. (1994b) A Modem Guide to the European Parliament. London/New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Wesdake, M. (1995) The Council o f the European Union. London: Cartermill.
Wiener, A. (1997) ‘Making sense of the new geography of citizenship: Fragmented citizenship in the European Union’, Theory and Society 26, pp. 529-560.
Who’s Who in the European Union? Interinstitutional Directory April 1997. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Young, Iris Marion (1990) Justice and the Politics o f Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.