- Populism seeks to embody the mass belief of a national population.
- Professor Cesare Pinelli at Sapienza University of Rome, and Substitute Member of the Venice Commission, Italy examines the reasons why the European Union (EU) considers populism a threat to its core values.
- Populist governments and parties accuse the EU of delimiting democracy.
- The EU is an easy target, since its actual governing body is spread out between different authorities. Pinelli argues that the need of the hour is for the EU to build a true government with a view to combat the populist threat.
Populism broadly refers to a political outlook that emphasises the importance of the collective people in a given nation, often pushing back against the ruling elite that seemingly work beyond the average person’s understanding. Naturally, there are some conceptual issues surrounding populism, such as how ’the people’ ought to be defined. However, the common enemy within populism is usually attributed to the political and financial elite of a country, who are seen to favour their status over the wellbeing of the masses.
Cesare Pinelli, professor of constitutional law at Sapienza University of Rome and Substitute Member of the Venice Commission, Italy argues that populist beliefs are considered a threat by institutions in the European Union (EU) and leaders of the EU nations who are more closely aligned with values synonymous with the EU itself, such as liberty and democracy. The reason for this threat, Pinelli argues, is that leaders of nations with populism at its core often target the EU under claims that the EU’s bureaucratic tendencies, dictated by unidentifiable head figures, delimit the power and imperative of the ordinary person.
Politics of fear
As Pinelli highlights, the EU is not actually a government in its own right, but rather a broad political entity with a suggestive overarching control over its member states. While the EU has a parliament and an independent court of law, the actual governing body is spread out between different authorities. Pinelli points out that this form of governance makes it especially difficult to precisely identify the key decision-makers within the EU, affecting all the citizens across the member states. This lack of transparency makes the EU an easy target for populist nations.
This form of governance makes it especially difficult to precisely identify the key decision-makers within the EU, affecting all the citizens across the member states.
A glaring consequence of this smoke-and-mirrors-bureaucracy is that national governments can leave the EU parliamentary council to make important political decisions, while feigning innocence when the effects are at the expense of the finance and quality of life of the greater populace within their own country. This notion of mysterious unidentifiable rulers plays into the hands of governmental leaders in populist nations as it reinforces the idea that impactful decision-making is largely beyond their control. The ‘Brussels myth’ is an easy one to construct and assimilate into the hearts and minds of the average citizen.
This ‘politics of fear’ of a masked enemy is an easy outlook for populist governments to disseminate under the banner of it being for the greater good of the will of the people. The irony is that the attacks made against the EU often deflect the blame that is placed on the real instigators of public unrest – the member nation’s governments. Pinelli argues that for the EU to defend itself against the populist surge, the Union must first consider changing its internal structure.
The Eurozone crisis and the blame game
After the Eurozone crisis, due to the influx of debt that several EU member nations, such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain, were unable to pay between 2009 and the late 2010s, the EU became further susceptible to attacks from populist nation governments. The European Central Bank, one of seven institutions within the EU, had to financially assist the indebted nations, highlighting the importance of the EU itself.
When national governments shift the blame back onto the EU policies that are ‘beyond their control’, the only institution subject to criticism is the EU.
This move, however, led to the understanding that the EU largely wanted to reduce spending within its member nations, inevitably lowering citizen welfare. Subsequently, the populists were more likely to redirect their attacks from the EU to the actual member nations that agreed to its policies in the first place. Regardless, the idea of the EU being the common enemy of the democracy has always been firmly reinforced by populist governments. When national governments shift the blame back onto the EU policies that are ‘beyond their control’, the only institution subject to criticism is the EU. Thus, it is predictable for the EU to consider populism as a big threat to its political foundation.
Law and order – transparency is key
There is another consequence to the populist belief that the EU ought to be criticised for the way it ‘dictates’ the legal and political decision-making of its member nations. Sometimes, national governments actively breach the guidelines set out by the independent judiciary and the EU. These governments are largely backed by the citizens of the nation states due to their firm belief in their governments’ rebellion against a projected threat to both their democracy and financial wellbeing. Pinelli states that the EU has dealt rather well with such breaches of EU law so far, but this is largely due to the lack of the governmental rebellion from its member nations.
There is certainly a threat to the legal and political milieu of the European Union. These threats stem from the beliefs of citizens of member nations with populism at its core and the governments of such nations. The EU appears to be in a constant tussle with populist nations despite some successful attempts to nullify their obfuscated democratic power. As Pinelli concludes, until the EU institutions can perhaps justify the overarching legal ramifications and precisely identify the decision-makers, the threat is likely to persist, especially as populism gains more traction in the years to come.
How is the media used to disseminate and perpetuate the ‘Brussels myth’?
The ‘Brussels myth’ considers the EU as a seat of technocratic government whose decisions affect the people without being accountable before the electorate. This narrative was born when ‘Brussels’ was only a community of states aimed at establishing a common and then a single market (Economic European Community, EEC), having the burden of political decisions for its member states. It persists with the creation of the European Union (1993), that has embodied the EEC with a view to establish a political union, given the enduring relevance of national politics. Both parties and media are still mainly organised at the national level. Media, in particular, do play a leading role in representing politics as the affair of national institutions. To this end, the ‘Brussel myth’ is still necessary, notwithstanding everybody knows that national governments, gathering together in Brussels in the diverse formations of the Council and in the European Council, maintain a very important function in the EU decision-making process. That myth is indeed part of a broader representation of the dangers ‘coming from outside’ national borders, which include very different elements going from immigration to global markets together with the EU.
Do you think that Brexit is a good example of this kind of ‘politics of fear’?
Brexit is indeed a good example of such ‘politics of fear’. It is true that large sectors of the UK population were particularly prone to accept and further fuel the ‘Brussels myth’ for geographical and historical reasons. The divide from ‘the continent’ can be only British. However, there are no doubts that the success of the populist propaganda aimed at describing the EU as a seat of inaccessible technocracy is far more recent and goes beyond the electoral fortunes of Nigel Farage’s party. After all, one has to remember that the 1975 referendum on the United Kingdom European Community membership gave an opposite result to that of 2016.
Is the European Union under the threat of losing member states, especially as a result of populist beliefs?
To answer this question, it is worth premising that the EU member states whose governments are explicitly directed by populist leaders, such as Hungary and Poland, owe a lot to the EU for the financing aids they receive through the cohesion policy funds and other forms of subsidy for their economy’s development. A withdrawal from the EU is therefore highly unlikely. This does not imply, however, a softening of their attacks to the EU ‘common values’ enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), departing from the rule of law. To the contrary, non-compliance with the common values has become for them an ideological choice. With various techniques, these governments have dismantled all kinds of constitutional rule-of-law safeguards, without being sanctioned as could be possible under Article 7 TEU. The compliance mechanisms contained in that provision have so far turned out to be largely ineffective, due to the reluctance of the national governments, as represented in the Council and the European Council, to apply them.
Could you suggest ways in which the European Union might counteract populism in the future?
The creation of a true EU government remains undoubtedly decisive for counteracting populism. But it can be possible only to the extent that its creation is strongly endorsed by a European public opinion whose formation still needs to be verified. Hence derives a vicious circle: populism can be counteracted by the very people that is partly influenced by the populist mantra against the EU. Nevertheless, things may change. In the last years, the EU has successfully met big challenges, such as those of the financial crisis, COVID-19, and the Russian aggression to Ukraine. None of these challenges have really jeopardised the Union’s unity. To the contrary, each of these challenges has turned out to be a good reason for increasing the EU powers and competences in a series of fields. It remains to be seen whether these will finally require the establishment of an EU government.
