{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01790830945558739, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.589622641509434, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Accountability Through National Parliaments: Practice and Problems

The accountability of those elected to power to their electorate is the defining feature of democratic government. Within the European Union (EU), there is considerable debate concerning the legitimacy of decision-making institutions and the efficacy of existing procedures and practices for ensuring accountability. On the one hand, it is posited that the Union is fundamentally flawed in terms of the accountability of agenda-setters to the Union’s citizens, and that the more powerful the institution, the greater the lack of accountability and transparency. On the other hand, the Union is regarded as one of the most open and accountable forms of trans-national governance in existence, with substantial opportunities for citizens and member states to influence its evolutionary trajectory and challenge its decisions. While both views have merit, competing interpretations of accountability have acted as catalysts for a range of institutional and procedural reforms within the EU. Not least, it has spawned considerable debate over the role of national parliaments in an ever-closer Union. It is argued that, in the context of changing political and administrative environments, accountability through public institutions such as parliaments remains central to the success of democratic government in contemporary Europe.