In recent years, the European Union (EU) has faced mounting challenges related to the erosion of fundamental democratic principles within some of its member states. In particular, countries such as Hungary and Poland have come under scrutiny due to a phenomenon frequently referred to as “democratic backsliding.” This troubling trend involves systematic attacks on the independence of the judiciary, curtailment of press freedoms, and the weakening of constitutional checks and balances. Given that the EU’s identity is deeply rooted in a shared commitment to democracy and the rule of law, this degradation of democratic norms poses an existential dilemma for the union.
Political scientists from the University of Konstanz’s Cluster of Excellence, "The Politics of Inequality," have conducted a comprehensive study exploring how EU citizens perceive democratic backsliding and what they expect from the EU’s institutional response. Published in the Journal of European Public Policy, their research offers compelling quantitative evidence that the citizens of the EU are not only deeply concerned about the state of democracy within individual member states but also overwhelmingly supportive of concrete measures to uphold democratic standards.
Central to the study’s findings is the impressive level of public support for sanctions against member states that deviate from accepted democratic norms. Researchers Max Heermann, Sharon Baute, and Dirk Leuffen carried out surveys across four key countries—Germany, Italy, Poland, and Sweden—to gauge public attitudes. They report that a significant majority of respondents endorse the idea of the EU imposing penalties on countries that undermine judicial independence or engage in other undemocratic practices. This consensus transcends national boundaries and political ideologies, suggesting a shared commitment among Europeans to safeguarding the EU as a community of democratic states.
The implications of this research are multifold. First, it challenges any assumption that enforcement of democratic norms at the EU level lacks popular support. On the contrary, it appears that citizens view such enforcement not as punitive hostility but as a necessary mechanism to preserve the integrity of the union. Political scientist Max Heermann elaborates that citizens understand the interdependence inherent in the EU framework: for the community to function effectively, all member states must abide by common democratic and constitutional rules agreed upon during accession.
Moreover, the study draws inspiration from behavioral economics, particularly regarding how groups enforce social norms. Historically, behavioral economics has demonstrated that groups respond strongly to norm violations through sanctioning behavior to maintain cohesion and ensure cooperation. Applying this insight to the EU context, the researchers argue that the union operates similarly to a social group: when a member state transgresses shared democratic rules, other states and citizens support corrective sanctions to realign adherence to the group’s norms.
Dirk Leuffen, co-author and Vice Rector for Research at the University of Konstanz, highlights the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in political science. He underscores how integrating findings from behavioral economics provides valuable theoretical lenses to understand the dynamics of inter-country relationships within the EU. This cross-pollination of academic disciplines enriches the analytical frameworks needed to tackle complex political challenges such as democratic backsliding.
Another revealing outcome of the research is the diminished solidarity citizens express towards member states that breach democratic norms. Sharon Baute, a junior professor and one of the study’s authors, emphasizes the political ramifications of these findings. She explains that countries which violate the EU’s core democratic agreements risk long-term damage not only institutionally but also in terms of reputational and social capital within the union. Loss of solidarity could translate into reduced cooperation, fewer benefits, and increased isolation on the international stage.
The urgency to take corrective action is heightened by the escalating political and social instability in affected countries. Democratic erosion tends to weaken checks and balances, erode legal protections, and increase vulnerability to authoritarian tendencies, which can further destabilize both domestic and regional politics. The study thus serves as a clarion call for EU policymakers to enact and enforce sanctions decisively rather than merely issuing warnings or symbolic resolutions.
Among the possible sanctions that the EU could adopt are financial penalties, suspension of voting rights within EU institutions, and stricter monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance with democratic norms and the rule of law. The study’s evidence-based approach supports the notion that such measures would find broad public backing and could catalyze reforms in member states exhibiting democratic backsliding.
Transparency and communication are also critical. The authors recommend that the EU clearly articulate the criteria and procedures for sanctioning errant member states. This transparency would enhance the legitimacy of EU actions and further reinforce public trust across the union. The perception that the EU acts fairly and consistently strengthens the political will to confront violations of democratic principles.
While the enforcement of democratic norms is daunting, the researchers caution against viewing dissenting member states merely as antagonists. Instead, there is recognition of the delicate balance between respecting national sovereignty and preserving collective democratic values. The findings suggest that EU citizens desire a cooperative yet firm response that encourages member states to return to compliance, rather than fostering antagonism or isolation.
Furthermore, the study contributes to ongoing debates about the future of the EU itself. It raises pertinent questions about how the union can evolve institutionally to better prevent and respond to threats against democracy. In an era marked by rising populism and authoritarian challenges globally, the resilience of liberal democracy within the EU’s framework is of paramount importance for both regional stability and global democratic governance.
In conclusion, the research from the University of Konstanz’s Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality” reveals a striking convergence of public opinion in favor of robust EU action against democratic backsliding. Citizens across multiple member states endorse sanctions to uphold the shared democratic values that define the European project. This provides crucial democratic legitimacy for the EU to enhance its mechanisms for safeguarding the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, reinforcing the union’s foundational identity and its future prospects.
Subject of Research: Democratic backsliding in EU member states and public support for EU interventions to protect democracy.
Article Title: Democratic Backsliding and Support for Public Good Provision in the European Union.
News Publication Date: 2025.
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2025.2503973
References: Heermann, Max, Baute, Sharon & Leuffen, Dirk (2025), Democratic Backsliding and Support for Public Good Provision in the European Union, Journal of European Public Policy.
Image Credits: University of Konstanz, Ines Janas.
Keywords: Democratic backsliding, European Union, rule of law, political science, behavioral economics, sanctions, judicial independence, freedom of the press, EU governance, populism, political stability, public opinion.
