Beyond Borders: Assessing the Significance of EU Elections for Eastern Europe

Could a right-shifted European Parliament downgrade democracy promotion initiatives – and would that be such a bad thing?

Boasting an impressive 27,000 followers and over 180,000 likes, the European Parliament’s TikTok profile aims to highlight the tangible impacts of June’s EU elections on Europeans’ daily lives.

The EP joined TikTok as recently as February in anticipation of the elections that many pollsters think will nudge the legislative branch of the EU well to the right.

The EP’s engagement efforts have recently intensified, including on its informative website dedicated to election news and data and its Instagram account, which boasts a robust following of over half a million people. The primary objective of this information drive is to underscore the significance of the European Parliament elections as one of the largest democratic votes globally.

The ramifications of the European elections extend far beyond the confines of the union’s member states, Jeroen Van den Bosch believes. He is the project coordinator for a consortium of universities and think tanks working to map and direct research on dictatorships and compile an open-access repository on the topic, M.O.R.D.O.R. for short.

While topics like the economy, energy, and climate change are understandably seen as having relevance across the EU due to their inherent transnational nature, an equally significant aspect often doesn’t receive the attention it deserves. According to Van den Bosch, it is “the broader concept of European democracy, which impacts not only member states but also countries outside the EU.” 

“The EU’s ability to address democratic erosion internally influences its effectiveness in supporting democratic values beyond its borders. Therefore, encouraging pro-democratic and pro-European voter turnout in EU elections is vital for upholding democratic principles and countering autocratic influences within the EU institutions,” Van den Bosch says.

The EP and other EU bodies actively promote democracy to their citizens and in dozens of countries worldwide. Aside from conservative reservations about this on the grounds that the EU has strayed too far from its trade-bloc origins, a growing chorus of academic critics claim the EU’s support for liberal groups in places from its near neighborhood to sub-Saharan Africa paradoxically works to reinforce autocrats and dictators in many cases.

Good Intentions and Unintended Consequences

“While EU elections may not directly influence EU foreign policy strategies such as supporting Ukraine or dealing with autocratic regimes outside EU borders, they do play a crucial role in shaping the EU’s internal dynamics and their ability to promote democracy effectively globally,” Van den Bosch explains. “A well-informed and actively engaged electorate is fundamental to ensuring democratic resilience and fostering positive democratic developments within the EU and beyond.” 

Polls have consistently found voter sympathies swinging to the right as the EU elections draw near, and it appears likely that the main center-right European People’s Party, together with groups further to the right, will displace the left of center parties as the largest single bloc in the next parliament.

The European Parliament – an elected body, often overshadowed by the unelected European Commission and Council, which wield more power in the EU system – has long supported efforts to promote democracy beyond its borders through a range of initiatives and programs focused on education, media freedom, and opportunities for political engagement, such as the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, the Simone Veil Program, and the Young Political Leaders Program. A standing committee, the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group is tasked with consolidating the parliament’s efforts in promoting democracy beyond the EU’s borders.

However, reality often diverges from the proposed ideals.

“A significant issue arises when foreign aid is applied politically, as is often the case, across various decision-making levels within organizations like the EU,” according to Van den Bosch. “The allocation of funds, distribution mechanisms, and evaluation criteria are all influenced by political considerations, sometimes overshadowing the core objective of democracy promotion, and the original intentions of those policy-makers designing the intervention.” 

This dilemma is not new. He notes that its roots go back to the Cold War era, “where geopolitical interests led to support for autocratic regimes under the guise of anti-communism.”

The impacts of the EU’s democracy policy can vary significantly across different regions and lead to unintended consequences, notably in Eastern Europe, northern Africa, and the Middle East (the eastern and southern “neighborhoods” in EU-speak). In 2018, a study by two Maastricht University researchers argued that EU policy aimed at empowering liberal, reform-minded political groups in areas such as the South Caucasus has, in the past backfired, working to the benefit of illiberal actors who can embrace causes like fighting corruption and turn them to their own ends.

In Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, the authors state, “The EU has been quick to throw its weight behind the newly formed, seemingly reforming governments in all cases. Its unwavering support, however, has been insensitive to the old instincts of power abuse for personal gains and patronage of clientelistic structures of these self-proclaimed liberal elites” – resulting in “public outrage against such corrupt pro-EU elites” and inadvertently boosting support for illiberal political groups.

Ill-judged democracy promotion can “inadvertently reinforce autocracy,” in Van den Bosch’s view, by supporting “pro-European but undemocratic elites in target states or focusing solely on formal electoral procedures without addressing deeper domestic power dynamics.”

He also warns that democracy promoters can unwittingly impose “cultural mismatches” that can trigger a backlash and “hinder organic democratization processes, especially in regions where community-based politics prioritize compromise over divisive electoral systems.”

Researchers have described how EU aid programs may have created rifts within the groups they were meant to help in authoritarian states such as Uganda and Ethiopia. In places such as the Gaza Strip and Tunisia, studies have shown that EU funding prioritizes stability over its stated aim of promoting democracy, in line with policies meant to stem unchecked migration and the threat of terror attacks.

Indeed, most of the EU’s external funding goes to “nondemocratic regimes,” and recipients include governments “guilty of significant human rights abuses” in Africa, East Asia, and Central Asia, democracy activist Ken Godfrey charged in a 2021 article.

“There is actually little overall correlation between EU external financial assistance and democracy, human rights, and the rule of law,” wrote Godfrey, executive director of the European Commission–funded European Partnership for Democracy.

Maintaining a delicate equilibrium between democracy support and state institution strengthening is paramount. As the M.O.R.D.O.R. project coordinator underscores, it’s imperative to strengthen states without inadvertently reinforcing autocratic tendencies. This equilibrium highlights the necessity of fostering a secure environment for democratic processes while upholding the rule of law and democratic principles. While democracy support remains indispensable, so too are tailored strategies that account for the complexities of individual cases.

…

Isabella Neumann is pursuing a doctorate in international politics and conflict resolution at the University of Coimbra. She is spending the year at Transitions as a research associate through the EU-funded CARSI project.