Europe should use its mega-deals to turn the democratic malaise

Euractiv

14 hours ago

Sam van der Staak is Director for Europe at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). Kevin Arceneaux is Director of Sciences Po's Centre for Political Research (CEVIPOF).
The European Commission is preparing its Democracy Shield amid overall citizen gloom about democracy. Poll after opinion poll shows that ever fewer people, including young people , support democracy – only about a third of youth according to a recent survey .
Support for illiberal populists continues to rise in Europe , while 35% of Gen-Z and millennials lean towards strongman government. This begs the question: Will the EU's Democracy Shield be protecting what citizens relish or what they reject?
As is so often the case with surveys, there's more than meets the eye. Research shows that populist-leaning citizens prefer not less but more democracy, albeit a more efficient version of it. When asked if they want strong leaders who listen to ordinary people, it turns out that many of them agree. But they also support seeking consensus with opponents.
Such populist voters – about a quarter of Europeans – stand out from the ten percent of authoritarian-leaning Europeans, who equally desire strong leaders but abhor the idea of obeying the average folk. In other words, although populist voters are less satisfied with democracy than mainstream democrats, they are not opposed to it. What they do want is elected leaders to be in control, especially on the economy.
And there's the surprise. Over the past months, European leaders have made unprecedentedly large economic choices. Last week's EU-US trade deal alone includes €700 billion in energy purchases and €550 billion in economic investments. Europe's rearmament plan of last March pumps €800 billion into the security sector. And the EU's new multiyear budget rigorously shifts €410 billion from farmers and regions to innovation and economic competitiveness.
If ever in its eighty-year existence Europe was being decisive, it is now. Still, citizens feel that politics is a stacked deck where 'There is no choice'. How come?
It is because of something social scientists call 'relative deprivation'. When citizens feel their group is worse off than others, and that ordinary people are taken advantage of by a corrupt elite, they open up to populist leaders. This yearning for democratic fairness has little to do with absolute wellbeing. Even when their own prosperity stays unaltered, the mere sense that others gain more provokes a desire for strong leadership with fewer checks and balances.
President Von der Leyen knows this. One year ago, she presented her second mandate's political guidelines with the bold title ' Europe's Choice '. Yet, on stage with President Trump in Scotland, she presented their trade deal as merely 'delivering stability and predictability' to Europe. Meanwhile, she depicted her populist opponent as a 'tough negotiator' and 'dealmaker'.
Commentators , while acknowledging the outcome was the best Europe could get, reviled the submissive tone and ' Europe's humiliation '. In other words, Europeans did not dislike the deal but hated that Trump won more. Such letdowns risk losing voters for the very cause the EU's trade deal aims to sustain, its arms purchases try to protect, and its Democracy Shield hopes to revive: representative democracy.
To reverse this sense of malaise, Europe should show citizens that democracy delivers, and that there is, in fact, a choice. The EU previously tried through citizen panels in its Conference on the Future of Europe. But reviving trust in democracy is not just about placing citizens in the driving seat. Most people want to know that there is an able driver at the steering wheel.
The European Democracy Shield can help. First, by providing better democratic information. It can systematically collect citizen views on democracy in all member states, to inform leaders in making their decisions. Politicians should better understand the democratic expectations of their citizens, as well as the health of their democratic institutions. Second, the Shield could establish continuous leader-citizen communication on the state of democracy, at various political levels and across the twenty-seven member states. An annual pow-wow between EU leaders and the democracy community, backed by all the academic firepower of Europe's top researchers, would help keep EU leaders committed.
Restoring trust in democracy is possible but requires more than a communication strategy. Politicians should better know what shapes voter trust. And voters should understand the tough choices leaders make to uphold their democracies. The Democracy Shield can serve that purpose.