The protection of Europe’s democracy tops European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s to-do list.
She promised the European Parliament to enhance democratic legitimacy and proposed policies and even treaty changes. What are we to make of these promises?
Promises are risky, especially since an overeager EU may fuel the growth of authoritarian populism. And the Commission cannot promise to reduce its own democratic deficit.
What feeds authoritarian populism in Europe, and how can the Commission best respond? Run-of-the-mill populists often protest elites for good reasons.
But our concern is rather authoritarian populists: Promoters of “hatred against minorities, against freedom of opinion, against fundamental rights”, and “lawlessness,” as von der Leyen described them.
They sabotage judicial and political mechanisms of accountability and challenge the human rights of minorities — immigrants and others.
Why does authoritarian populism attract voters?
Von der Leyen’s diagnosis is Europeans’ “deep anxiety and uncertainty.” Researchers point to at least three possible sources.
Populist entrepreneurs create and mobilize fears of deprivation or loss of relative status based on economic insecurity, cultural nostalgia or political powerlessness.
We should acknowledge these concerns and assess their explanatory roles. But we should reject the authoritarian populists’ so-called solutions.
Increased state sovereignty, be it stricter border controls or less power to the EU and international bodies, will not solve the problems.
The EU is often accused of being part of the problems, so the Commission must act with great care.
The solution is not to try to make citizens love the EU more, or to showcase its solutions to ever more problems. Van der Leyen has promised a more transparent commission, but that is not enough.
A recent report to the commission by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) on “Defending Democracy in Europe” supports many of von der Leyen’s proposals.
Better-funded public infrastructure for housing, health care and education aligns with von der Leyen’s commitments.
This may reduce clusters of economic insecurity, relative deprivation, and the sense of powerlessness – some of the drivers of authoritarian populism.
The EGE also agrees with von der Leyen’s plans to strengthen the rule of law and human rights, often the targets of authoritarian populists.
Yet caution is required. For example, von der Leyen's plans to address housing could reinforce populists' fears that the EU's expansive power undermines national democracy.
Further challenges concern who should have the authority to decide important matters.
The EGE agrees with von der Leyen on the importance of strengthening European public spaces and civil associations. But who decides which associations merit support?
Shall the Commission protect groups who think their problems are caused by deviants, refugees, climate regulations - or by the EU?
The EGE plausibly insists that all people in Europe must be economically secure. Von der Leyen further promises to deliver social fairness. This objective may surely diminish the demand for authoritarian populism.
But what if the Commission fails to provide this complex outcome? If Union citizens cannot replace Commissions who fail to deliver, the democratic legitimacy of the EU itself is at stake.
Reforms to European democracy are required. Von der Leyen will laudably protect free media. But the commission is an actor within the system, not an unbiased guardian of political debates.
What room will it grant political parties who reject the EU system as a whole or those who oppose current EU policies based on different conceptions of the European interest?
Finally, what to do about the democratic deficit of the commission itself? Its increased visibility and power spawns calls for better democratic accountability. T
he commission is clearly not simply the technocratic administrator of “the” European interest, but a political actor guided by its own contested conception of that interest.
The solution is not to try to make citizens love the EU more, or to showcase its solutions to ever more problems. Van der Leyen has promised a more transparent commission, but that is not enough.
EU citizens deserve real democratic deliberation, contestation among parties, and choice concerning who governs them. They must be able to replace the commission.
Von der Leyen underscored that “choices are the hinges of destiny.”
But the European Parliament has no choice regarding commission president: it can only confirm the European Council’s opaque bargain.
EU commissioner Margaritis Schinas said that this time there was no plan B.
But without real choice, the destiny of the EU is beyond the control of the European Parliament – the only EU institution whose members are directly elected by Union citizens.
Two treaty changes could reduce the democratic deficit: Make the EU Council bargain for the commission president more transparent or strengthen the role of the European Parliament to select among competing leadership elites.
Either change also alleviates the political powerlessness that may fuel authoritarian populism.
Such treaty changes depend not on the goodwill of the commission but on the will of member states. Union citizens deserve a more democratic EU.
Do their politicians agree?
Andreas Follesdal is a professor of political philosophy at University of Oslo.
Andreas Follesdal is a professor of political philosophy at University of Oslo.