Countering the Phenomenon of Populism as a Pathology of Democratisation in the European Union

  • Post category:Issue XXV

Viktor Matviienko
Doctor of History, Full Professor, Head of the Department of International Organisations and Diplomatic Service, Educational and Scientific Institute of International Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv;
Taras Prodaniuk
St. Hugh’s College Master’s Student, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford

DOI:

Abstract. This article examines the latest trends in populism’s development in the European international political arena and the mechanisms for countering the ‘erosion of democracy’.
The authors note that the phenomenon of democratic backsliding in the European Union is quite controversial. On one hand, since its inception, the European Union has upheld the principle of ‘the rule of law’ as one of its main pillars. On the other hand, the EU creates conditions that allow member states to backslide democratically.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the EU faced its most ‘ironic’ problem — the institution that promotes democracy must fight against growing anti-democratic trends among its members. The most obvious examples are Hungary since 2010 and Poland since 2015, where the undemocratic actions of their governments have drawn the attention of all of Europe. Thus, in this article, the authors seek to answer the question: how can the European Union combat the erosion of democratic values?
The authors outline three main approaches: (1) political pressure, (2) financial sanctions, and (3) legal prosecution for deviations from the principle of the rule of law. These three deterrent mechanisms closely link and require joint application to prevent democratic backsliding among new members.
Studying the factors contributing to such backsliding shows that the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the European Court have recently adopted more radical measures to contain anti-democratic regimes through economic and political pressure.
The conclusions state that to ensure institutional stability, the European Union must continue to improve its influence mechanisms to effectively combat anti-democratic and populist trends and uphold the rule of law among its members.
Keywords: European Union, democracy, Hungary, Poland, rule of law, European Parliament, European Commission, European Council.

Download Article (ukr)

References:

  1. Bozóki, A. and Hegedűs, D. (2018) ‘An externally constrained hybrid regime: Hungary in the European Union’, Democratization, 25(7), pp.1173–1189. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2018.1455664
  2. Cianetti, L., Dawson, J. and Hanley, S. (2018) ‘Rethinking “democratic backsliding” in Central and Eastern Europe — Looking beyond Hungary and Poland’, East European Politics, 34(3), pp. 243–256. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2018.1491401
  3. Emmons, C. and Pavone, T. (2021) ‘The rhetoric of inaction: failing to fail forward in the EU’s rule of law crisis’, Journal of European Public Policy, 28(10), pp. 1611–1629. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1954065
  4. Kelemen, R. D. (2020) ‘The European Union’s authoritarian equilibrium’, Journal of European Public Policy, 27(3), pp. 481–499. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1712455
  5. Kochenov, D. and Pech, L. (2016) ‘Better Late than Never? On the European Commission’s Rule of Law Framework and Its First Activation’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(5), pp. 1062–1074. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12401
  6. Krekó, P. and Enyedi, Z. (2018) ‘Orbán’s Laboratory of Illiberalism’, Journal of Democracy, 29(3), pp. 39–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2018.0043
  7. Levitsky, S. and Way, L. (2020) ‘The New Competitive Authoritarianism’, Journal of Democracy, 31(1), pp. 51–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0004
  8. Magyar, B. (2016) Post-communist mafia state: the case of Hungary. Budapest: Central European University Press. Available at: https://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/permalink/44OXF_INST/35n82s/alma990205971840107026
  9. Csipkés, M. and Sándor, N. (2018) ‘Development of Migration Potential in Hungary from 2000 until Today’, Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, 3(1), pp. 32–45. Available at: https://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/permalink/44OXF_INST/ao2p7t/cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_1bd93ae690174ff5ac2a08254a4c5a43
  10. Ovádek, M. (2022) ‘The Making of Landmark Rulings in the European Union: The Case of National Judicial Independence’, Journal of European Public Policy, 30(6), pp. 1119–1141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2066156
  11. Pech, L. and Scheppele, K. L. (2017) ‘Illiberalism Within: Rule of Law Backsliding in the EU’, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 19, pp. 3–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2017.9
  12. Sadurski, W. (2019) ‘Polish Constitutional Tribunal under PiS: From an Activist Court, to a Paralysed Tribunal, to a Governmental Enabler’, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 11(1), pp. 63–84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0078-1
  13. Thoreson, R. (2022) ‘“Discriminalization”: Sexuality, Human Rights, and the Carceral Turn in Antidiscrimination Law’, California Law Review, 110(2), pp. 431–488. doi: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z381V5BF2Q
  14. Mudde, C. (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/permalink/44OXF_INST/ao2p7t/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_58787697
  15. Pappas, T. S. (2019) Populism and liberal democracy: A comparative and theoretical analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/permalink/44OXF_INST/ao2p7t/cdi_askewsholts_vlebooks_9780192574909