The Persistent Challenge of a United Europe

Poland and Hungary: A Democratic Dilemma

One of the most recent and pressing examples of political and democratic crises within EU member states has been the situation in Poland, exacerbated by Hungary’s veto power. The European Union was founded on principles of human rights protection and the separation of powers—not just as ideals but as mandatory criteria for membership. However, Poland’s trajectory has raised concerns about democratic backsliding since the right-wing, Catholic-conservative party PiS secured a parliamentary majority.

Following its victory, Poland witnessed significant political upheaval, including judicial overhauls, the dismissal of over 11,000 public servants for political reasons, and aggressive actions against independent media. In response, the EU initiated Article 7.1 to suspend Poland’s voting rights within the European Council. However, this measure reached an impasse due to the unanimity rule, which allowed Hungary—itself accused of similar democratic erosion under Viktor Orbán—to block any action against Poland.

This situation underscores a fundamental issue within the EU’s decision-making structure: the requirement for unanimous agreement among member states on crucial matters. Unlike the majority rule that defines most democratic institutions, this unanimity rule can paralyze European governance when national interests clash with collective EU values.

The Nation-State Dilemma: Can a European Demos Exist?

The Polish and Hungarian cases exemplify how national sovereignty often takes precedence over European unity, raising the question of whether the EU can function as a true democratic entity. Democracy traditionally thrives on a common political identity, yet the EU lacks a cohesive “demos”—a unified people who share an identity, political culture, and vision for governance.

Empirical studies reinforce this argument. Research cited by Bellamy (2012) and the European Commission indicates that only 10% of EU citizens strongly identify with the EU, while a mere 3% consider themselves exclusively European. Furthermore, only 7% prioritize their European identity over their national one. These figures suggest that the idea of an integrated European political identity remains largely aspirational rather than a present reality.

Electoral Disengagement: A Symptom of the No-Demos Argument

Low participation in European elections further reflects the EU’s democratic deficit. Turnout has historically hovered below 50%, with some countries reporting participation rates as low as 25%. While the 2019 European elections saw an increase to 50.56%, this still means that nearly half of eligible voters did not participate—a percentage that would be deemed alarming in national elections.

Some EU proponents argue that increased participation could foster European identity. However, the reverse is more likely: a lack of European identification leads to electoral disengagement, not the other way around. Without a strong emotional or cultural connection to the EU, many citizens perceive European elections as secondary to national politics.

The Role of Language and Geography

Language barriers further hinder European unity. Despite English functioning as the EU’s de facto lingua franca, linguistic diversity complicates cross-border political discourse. Belgium serves as an illustrative example: linguistic and ethnic divisions have resulted in a weak central government and strong regional governments, a microcosm of the challenges facing the EU as a whole.

Geography also plays a role. Countries with EU institutions on their soil, such as Belgium, tend to have higher electoral engagement. In the 2019 European elections, Belgium’s voter turnout was 88.47%, compared to just 44.99% in Cyprus, a country geographically distant from EU power centers. This disparity underscores the influence of proximity on citizens’ engagement with EU politics.

Ideological Divides: A Unifying Factor?

Some scholars, like Hix (2008), argue that ideological divisions within the European Parliament—such as the left-right spectrum—can serve as unifying factors. However, ideological divisions exist in all democratic systems and do not inherently foster a collective European identity. The mere existence of leftist, centrist, and conservative factions within the EU does not resolve the fundamental issue of weak European identification among its citizens.

A Way Forward?

The lack of a shared European identity raises difficult questions about the future of the EU. Can the EU remain a purely intergovernmental organization, or must it strive for deeper integration to develop a truly transnational democracy?

One possible approach is the concept of “Demoi-cracy,” as proposed by Kalypso Nicolaïdis (2012), which envisions a political union based on multiple coexisting democratic identities rather than a single European demos. This model could provide a framework for balancing national sovereignty with European unity, ensuring that democratic values remain intact while respecting the diversity of member states.

Conclusion

The EU’s internal struggles, from Poland and Hungary’s democratic backsliding to low electoral participation and linguistic barriers, highlight the persistent challenges of fostering a truly unified Europe. While ideological divisions exist, they alone cannot bridge the gap between national and European identities. Until the EU addresses its fundamental structural and identity issues, its democratic deficit will remain a significant challenge.

Ultimately, the question remains: Can Europe transcend its nation-state framework to build a political entity that is democratic, cohesive, and resilient? The answer may determine the future of European integration in the years to come.

Written by Sergios Saropoulos