As debate about House of Lords reform in the UK rolls on, it looks increasingly likely that Britain will end up with some form of largely elected second chamber. Even if the status quo is preserved, the UK will remain more democratic than the political structures of the supra-national European Union.

There are many examples of different political systems available, and starting in the east with Russia, we find a system often dubbed ‘managed democracy’. Constitutionally, Russia has everything in place to be a vibrant democracy; in reality, corruption and a legislature packed full of the President’s supporters means that political opposition is kept firmly out of the general socio-political system.

Russia has a directly elected President and Parliament (Duma), and a second chamber, the Federal Council, half of which are chosen by elected authorities, and half of which are appointed. Were it not for corruption and voting irregularities leading to one party dominating, everything would be in place for the flourishing of a democracy, albeit with a powerful President forming the Executive.

To the West lies the United States, the founding fathers of which took pains to balance all powers carefully between three core institutions: the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Presidency. The President has wide powers and is the main manager of foreign policy, though many nominations and decisions must be approved by Congress and held to be constitutional by the Court. The President is of course elected by the Electoral College, voting in accordance with the will of the majority in the regions the Electors represent.

Congress is formed of two democratically elected houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate, with some differing powers, though with both helping to call the President to account. The Supreme Court, theoretically free from populist politics, consists of judges appointed for life, nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress.

The French system is not dissimilar to the Russian one. Both President and National Assembly (the lowers house) are directly elected, and the upper house, which has less power, is elected by local officials, themselves elected. The President holds great power, able to choose his Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet. Should the voters fill the National Assembly with political opponents of the President, then the President is obliged to choose a Prime Minister representing the majority of the Assembly, severely checking the Presidents power.

In Germany, the system is founded on the Basic Law, which acts constitutionally to define the powers and responsibilities of different layers of government, similar to the EU concept of subsidiarity. Whilst a President does exist, this post is largely ceremonial, and the real politics is performed by the directly elected Bundestag (lower house) and the Bundesrat (upper house). The Bundesrat has less power, representing the federal states of Germany, who send delegates to it.

The elected Bundestag then elects the Chancellor, a leader who represents usually the largest party in the Bundestag and who is chosen for a four-year term.

With all these variations of democracy available, the European Union sits as an uncomfortable anomaly, existing as a system of political power and governance higher than the nation state, yet with less democracy than in any of the governmental structures beneath it. An attempt to give itself legitimacy was made in the Lisbon Treaty, but it appears that the political parties of Europe have been subjected to the federalist agenda. The Consolidated Treaties Title 2, Article 10, states that the EU’s political parties exist in order to “…contribute to forming European political awareness…”. In other words, the one democratic part of the EU political system exists to mould popular consciousness.

In Europe, the Commission, a group of selected officials removed from the will of the people have sole power over proposing legislation, and thus controlling the direction of the EU (on the basis that what goes in must in some form come out). Whilst the European Parliament does hold the Commission to account, its role is to review, amend or reject legislation in combination with the Council of Ministers, the collection of Ministers from member states representing the specific area of competence for a piece of legislation.

Be it in the US, France or Russia, the executive is directly elected. In the EU, the Commission is chosen. In all the political systems listed here, the main (most powerful) legislative house is directly elected. In the EU, the European Parliament is only an equal of the Council of Ministers.

Of course, the EU is a product of the member states and the negotiations between them. But if they cannot produce something that is far more representative of the views of the people of Europe, then certainly there should be no more transferral of power to this entity.

It is also clear that the European model has strong similarities to the German, federal model. With some powers allotted to Brussels, some to national parliaments and some to local authorities, the structure of the German state is clearly reflected, as the powerful and driving influence of Germany behind the scenes in the European project is felt.