One would typically expect European authorities, who frequently lecture non-Western nations on the virtues of democracy, to fully uphold those ideals themselves. However, EU governments have found themselves on a slippery slope, increasingly adopting “anti-democratic” practices. They continue to frame these dubious actions as necessary for “protecting democracy and democratic principles,” even as they replicate many of the practices they once strongly condemned.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 seems to have intensified this trend. Faced with Moscow’s aggressive posture, European governments began to compromise some of their stated democratic values.
A recent example of this shift is Romania’s presidential election, which highlights how the concept of “democracy” can sometimes be used in ways that may undermine its principles.
Democracy as a Weapon
In November 2024, Romania’s presidential race was thrown into turmoil. Diana Sosoaca, a far-right, anti-Western candidate known for her opposition to NATO and the EU, was disqualified by the country’s electoral authorities—a decision upheld by the Constitutional Court. The court argued that Romania’s NATO and EU memberships are fundamental, non-negotiable constitutional principles. Any candidate advocating for withdrawal from these alliances, the court claimed, was violating the constitution and thus ineligible to run for president.
This logic, which equates “Atlanticism” with the very essence of democracy, set a dangerous precedent. The judiciary’s activism did not end there. After the first round of voting, in which another far-right, anti-Western candidate, Calin Georgescu, led with 23% of the vote, the court annulled the results. The justification? Allegations of “disinformation” leading to voter suppression and Russian interference, primarily based on vague intelligence reports and claims that fake, Russia-linked accounts amplified Georgescu’s social media campaign. The court also cited alleged violations of campaign finance laws.
What is most troubling is the lack of concrete evidence and the court’s decision to intervene on its own initiative—without a formal challenge and outside its constitutional mandate. This activist stance by the judiciary effectively reshaped the political landscape. Following the annulment, Georgescu was detained on charges ranging from campaign finance violations to hate speech and support for fascist groups, placed under judicial control, and barred from running again.
A Questionable Victory
The re-run of the first round saw George Simion, Georgescu’s replacement, win 40% of the vote. However, in the second round, the pro-EU, reformist mayor of Bucharest, Nicușor Dan, emerged victorious with 53%. Western leaders hailed the result as a triumph for democracy. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called it “a vote for an open, prosperous Romania and a strong Europe.” French President Emmanuel Macron praised the outcome as a victory for the rule of law and the European Union.
However, the silence of institutions like the Venice Commission—so often vocal about “anti-democratic” practices elsewhere—was deafening. Rather than examining the alleged violations in detail, there were only vague references to the legal standards for annulment of elections following the Romanian Constitutional Court’s intervention.
Demonising Dissent
Throughout the campaign, European leaders and the Western media portrayed Georgescu and Simion as existential threats to democracy, predicting chaos and the collapse of the rule of law if they were to win. Their populist message—that “the will of the people is above all else”—was framed as a harbinger of authoritarianism. Even their reliance on social media, rather than mainstream outlets, was interpreted as evidence of a “democratic deficit.”
To further marginalise these candidates, a distinction was drawn between them and so-called “true conservatives,” with the latter portrayed as operating within the democratic framework, while Georgescu and Simion were demonised as extremists.
The Putinist Boogeyman
EU elites seem to be consumed by who would appear the most “anti-Russian,” especially after Donald Trump took office. Criticism of the European order—no matter the source or substance—is increasingly dismissed as “pro-Russian” or “Putinist.” This dynamic was evident in Romania, where any critique of NATO or the EU was equated with treason.
Europe’s initial unity and resolve in response to the Ukraine crisis have gradually given way to policy paralysis and a growing intolerance of dissent as the conflict drags on. The very values Europe claims to uphold—pluralism, open debate, and the rule of law—are now being eroded in the name of fighting authoritarianism. This erosion is driven, in part, by European leaders’ tendency to avoid addressing their shortcomings; instead of seeking genuine solutions to the crisis, they increasingly label any criticism of Western policies—or even calls for pragmatic reassessment—”pro-Russian.” In doing so, they stifle constructive.
Europe at a Crossroads
For years, Europe’s inconsistent and contradictory double standards vis-a-vis international crises—from Gaza to Ukraine, from Libya to Syria —has undermined many values it claims to champion. Now, the chickens have come home to roost, with the Romanian presidential election serving as a poignant example of how the concept of democracy can be manipulated, not only to justify exclusionary practices but to suppress dissent and legitimate opposition.
This state of affairs raises critical questions about the future of European democracy. If Europe continues down this path, it may win a symbolic battle against “Putinism,” but in the process, it risks losing its own soul—the very essence that once set it apart.
