As the EU progresses with its enlargement agenda, the democratic legitimacy of this process has not been sufficiently addressed by policy-makers and scholars. Although it aims to support and to foster democracy and the rule of law in the countries concerned, enlargement is marked by limited citizen involvement in member and accession states. This raises significant questions about the democratic integrity of the process and highlights the need for greater participation in it by citizens, national parliaments, civil society organisations (CSOs), and local governments.
Simultaneously, public confidence in political institutions continues to erode and citizens express a growing desire for more direct involvement in decision-making processes. The new commissioner for enlargement, Marta Kos, acknowledged this challenge in her responses to the European Parliament during her confirmation hearings, emphasising the importance of enhancing communication strategies and engaging more closely with citizens and civil society. However, concrete proposals for ensuring their meaningful participation in decision-making processes related to enlargement are still lacking. This presents an opportunity for Kos to more effectively address the democratic integrity of the enlargement process during her tenure.
Limited citizen participation in enlargement decision-making
The enlargement process is primarily driven by national governments in collaboration with the European Commission, with final decisions taken by consensus in the European Council. The European Parliament, national parliaments, CSOs, and local governments have limited opportunities to provide input in the process or to shape its outcomes. For the EU, this contrasts starkly with its goals of democratic inclusion and transparency: it seeks to promote democratic standards abroad while risking to neglect these values in its enlargement process. With EU publics weary of the potential negative implications of enlargement for living standards, social cohesion, labour mobility, or broader geopolitical security, populist and Eurosceptic sentiments are likely to gain traction. Enlargement is inherently a political process: citizens should have opportunities to express their views, concerns, and expectations, and even to challenge or to contest certain enlargement-related decisions. While greater participation might lead to increasing contestation of enlargement, a participatory approach would nevertheless help to foster greater ownership of it in the longer run and enhance its democratic legitimacy. The early participation of citizens would also be essential for building mutual understanding between member states and with accession countries, particularly on contentious political issues.
The EU already offers a multitude of participatory instruments for citizen engagement but these form a fragmented and disconnected array rather than a coherent and accessible infrastructure for participation. More can be done to develop a unified approach to citizen participation across EU institutions, consolidating these instruments on a single, accessible platform, or interconnecting various ones, including innovative digital solutions to process citizen input effectively. It is important that citizens can more easily understand, navigate, and access the available tools, while EU institutions should ensure that citizens’ recommendations are taken into account in decision-making and that the impact of these is clearly communicated back to citizens.
National parliaments and local and regional governments, which are the primary representatives of citizens within the member states, should also play a more prominent role by reviewing enlargement-related proposals, hosting open debates, or facilitating broader public participation. For example, Denmark’s parliament has frequently organised debates on EU matters, involving citizens in discussions through in-person and digital town halls.
Referendums on enlargement: democratic expression or populist tool?
National referendums on EU membership are among the few mechanisms through which citizens can directly participate in the enlargement process. For example, Croatia held a referendum on joining the EU in 2012, with 66% of voters approving. However, a turnout of 43% raised concerns about the depth of citizens’ engagement. This suggests that, even when offered the opportunity, many people may not feel sufficiently motivated or informed to participate in making an enlargement decision.
Referendums in general can be vulnerable to populist rhetoric and political manipulation. Therefore, an exercise intended to focus on enlargement can be turned into an expression of broader grievances against the EU or the political state of affairs in general. For example, the 2016 referendum in the Netherlands on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, which 61% of voters rejected, became a platform for expressing discontent with the EU as a whole. The complexity of enlargement issues often invites populist narratives that divert citizens from substantive debates on EU membership benefits and risks.
To maintain focus on what is at stake with countries joining the EU and to facilitate informed decision-making, national parliaments and local governments could organise public forums and educational campaigns in the lead-up to referendums and throughout the enlargement process, ensuring that citizens receive balanced, comprehensive information. Switzerland’s cantonal governments often hold informational sessions before national referendums to help citizens understand the issues at stake. EU member states applying a similar approach could mitigate populist tendencies by fostering well-informed public debate.
Citizen participation in accession countries: strengthening democratic accountability
In accession countries, citizen participation in the enlargement process also remains a challenge. Reforms to achieve compliance with the EU’s membership criteria and the acquis communautaire are mostly implemented in a top-down fashion, with limited consultation with and participation by citizens, civil society, local governments, or parliaments.
The provision of mechanisms for greater participation by citizens from the accession countries in the enlargement process could not only help to create greater ownership but also to align EU-driven reforms with local needs and priorities, and to more effectively counter disinformation about EU enlargement. For example, local governments in Bosnia and Herzegovina have collaborated with civil society to establish community forums that invite citizens to discuss EU-related reforms, which helps increase grassroots participation in the accession process.
Citizen participation in accession countries also requires a tailored approach, especially in contexts where the democratic functioning of parliaments and local government is curtailed or not guaranteed. CSOs will play a significant role in holding governments accountable for enlargement-related decisions and in engaging the public in the process. Here the role of the EU is critical to ensure a fair, transparent, and sustainable level of participation across a broad spectrum of CSOs, while putting effective pressure on governments to implement democratic reforms. With its focus on security, the new European Commission should carefully balance geopolitical considerations and democratic-reform conditionality in the accession countries.
Towards a more democratic and secure enlargement process
The legitimacy of enlargement depends not only on meeting technical criteria but also on ensuring the meaningful participation of citizens in member and accession states. A more inclusive approach to enlargement, embedding accountability through stronger parliamentary roles and grassroots participation, would also help to better align the process with citizens’ concerns such as the high cost of living and social inequalities.
It would, however, be naive to believe that the EU could simply boost support for enlargement by introducing mechanisms for systematic citizen participation. After all, public information campaigns may also highlight the costs and challenges associated with enlargement. Nevertheless, democratising the process would encourage a more nuanced, evidence-based public discussion on its advantages and drawbacks, ideally equipping citizens with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions about whether to support it.
Moreover, seen in a broader context, citizen participation is but one essential element in the enlargement process. In many accession countries – in particular Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine – pursuing EU membership and democratic reform is not merely a political or economic choice. It is inextricably entangled with existential questions about their security. Therefore, the EU and NATO need to provide an adequate security environment and guarantees for enlargement – and citizen participation therein – to succeed.
Author
Prof. Giselle Bosse is a Full Professor and holds a personal chair in EU External Democracy Support, as well as the Jean Monnet Chair in EU International Relations at Maastricht University. Her research focuses on EU democracy promotion and civil society support through the Eastern Partnership, with an emphasis on the role of values in EU foreign policy. She is work-package leader in two EU Horizon-funded projects, EMBRACE and INVIGORATE, which examine EU democracy promotion in the European neighbourhood. Bosse has published her research in many international journals and books and has contributed to several commissioned studies for EU institutions. She is co-director of the Centre for European Research in Maastricht, and visiting professor at the College of Europe and the Diplomatic School of Armenia.
This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.
Photo credit: © MilesAstray, Adobe stock
