They do not answer to anyone and they collude with lobby organizations to push an agenda. This is the far from being a democratic process.
When you say it like "they are not elected but appointed", you make it sound like some 3rd party is appointing them and you have no power on it but those who appoint the members of EC are the members of EP(elected every 5 years) and the national governments(elected accordingly to the local laws).
If you you want to make it sound undemocratic, you can say that the US president is elected by the electoral college and citizens of the USA have no way to vote for their president.
The more indirect the method is, the more control shifts from voters to lobbyists and insiders versed in the system.
How many businessmen you see going around and promoting EU? if it’s that easy to influence they should love it.
Here’s a quote from Anthony Hilton about the media magnate Murdock:
I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. ‘That’s easy,’ he replied. ‘When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.’”
Many important EU figures have been elected repeatedly for national parliaments, as national ministers or for leadership positions in major national political parties, and only after that got an EU job.
I think it's by design: The jobs are put together as a nationally/politically balanced team, picked from from a large set of candidates who have generally been accepted by national voters over a period of time.
If you like to argue over technicalities, we can do that.
The executive (governments) should not become legislators, under the principle of seperation of powers of Montesquieu.
What if Montesquieu was just wrong and systems with fused or subordinated executive and legislative powers actually just work better in pretty much every way that separation-of-powers systems?
Yeah, the US unusually strongly applies Montesquieu in its Constitutional design, but the US isn't particularly well-governed among modern democracies. (Personally, I think the dominance of poor electoral methods and the resulting partisan duopoly is a bigger effect than separation of powers here, but...)
I have the impression that this is often the case: EC members are recruited from members of national parliament, ministers and people who stepped down from either of those recently.
So technically you're correct, she's not elected. But she got the job by being elected.
This is relevant as the Social Democrats are pro chat control, while the Left Party is against chat control.
That may explain why she is interested in bringing this legislation forward. I think privacy is not at the forefront of preoccupations for communists.
Anyway, my point is that she's been repeatedly elected. She didn't get her present job in an election, but someone who's won three elections in a row recently is democratically legitimate, even if the current job isn't directly elected.
It would be just as false as saying "rdm_blackhole supports decriminalising incitement because he supports free speech".
Many dictators were democratly elected.
