Europe continues to trap itself in a permanent state of political emergency. From geopolitical instability and economic uncertainty to climatic-pandemic breakdowns and democratic backsliding, crisis management has become the dominant mode of governance. Yet rather than strengthening democracy and citizen participation, this permanent emergency is increasingly used to justify the centralisation of power, weakened parliamentary scrutiny, and the normalisation of national-populist agendas across Europe.
Is the EU shielding itself from its citizens?
According to US President Trump, European civilisation is in decline. This is a typical argument of anti-democratic forces. CTOE thinks that it is exactly in times of distress that European democracy needs to be reinforced. CTOE therefore welcomes the purposes of the European Commission’s Democracy Shield. The Joint Communication rightly identifies a number of main challenges to democracy, including the rise of extremism and authoritarianism. Unfortunately, the Democracy Shield fails to develop a strategy that addresses the most pressing challenge head on: the ever-greater presence of anti-democratic political forces in the European institutions themselves. The US strategy is to actively support member states such as Italy and Austria to distance themselves from the European Union. The main interlocutors of the Trump administration are right-wing and far-right political parties within the European Union. By not explicitly naming these forces and failing to develop a strategy of neutralising anti-European actors within national and European parliaments and governments, the Democracy Shield risks becoming an empty shell.
The European Democracy Shield is thought of as a response to disinformation, foreign interference, and attacks on electoral integrity. CTOE questions whether the threats from US privately owned big tech and mainstream press are sufficiently recognised.The proposed weakening of the Digital Markets Act as part of the US Trade negotiations is a further undermining of the EU’s commitment to the Charter of Fundamental rights, What is missing is a strong role for citizens as democratic actors. Without clearly embedding bottom- up participatory and deliberative mechanisms – including citizens’ assemblies organized locally and stronger parliamentary oversight – the Democracy Shield risks reinforcing a model in which democracy is something confined in distant institutions rather than practised by citizens. Democracy cannot be protected sustainably without being deepened.
Threats to democracy are clear in several institutional dynamics which need to be addressed by greater involvement of citizens.
One of the most striking institutional developments is the growing ‘presidentialisation’ of the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. The Commission President has accumulated unprecedented political authority. This concentration of power undermines the collegial nature of the Commission and weakens democratic accountability. The EU was never designed to operate through executive personalisation, and this trend further distances decision-making from citizens and representative institutions.
EU defense
A democratic deficit is particularly evident in the debate on a European Common Defense. While calls for deeper defence cooperation are multiplying, little attention is paid to the need for democratic control, especially the role of the European Parliament. Security is once again treated as an exceptional domain, largely insulated from democratic accountability. History offers a powerful reminder that such moments can instead become engines of political integration. In the 1950s, Spinelli, Monnet, De Gasperi, and Adenauer sought to use the project of a European Defence Community to advance a European Political Community endowed with democratic institutions and parliamentary control.Their insight remains valid: common defense without common democracy is unsustainable. Today’s security debate could once again open a constitutional moment for Europe.
This dynamic is reinforced by the erosion of the European Parliament’s prerogatives, particularly through the Commission’s increasing use of Omnibus legislative packages. By bundling multiple reforms into fast-tracked proposals, parliamentary scrutiny and democratic debate are significantly curtailed, fundamental rights put at risk and EU law itself may be compromised. Transparency is reduced, deliberation compressed, and power shifted away from the only directly elected EU institution. In the name of efficiency, democratic oversight is being quietly eroded. A clear example of this is the simplification of the DSA and AI Act which comes in contrast to the Democracy Shield’s own statements on the dangers of digital technology. The Omnibus evidently undermines various of those fundamental rights (https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/omnibus-ai/45576).
At the same time, the political balance within the European Parliament has clearly shifted to the right. Ad-hoc majorities increasingly align conservatives and far-right nationalist forces, especially on migration, privacy, civil liberties, and environmental regulation. The consequences are tangible: the progressive weakening of the European Green Deal, the reduction of protections from the AI Act and GDPR, the dilution of civil rights and the growing normalisation of nationalist narratives, the closing of borders and externalisation of migration management to third countries where asylum seekers are in danger as well as the increasing use of intra-schengen border controls. Rather than acting as a democratic counterweight, the Parliament risks becoming a space of short-term political accommodation.
Against this backdrop, some positive developments deserve recognition. The European Parliament has adopted a resolution framing the Draghi Report on European competitiveness within a broader call for democratic governance and institutional balance. Crucially, the Parliament has reiterated its demand – dated 4 May 2022- that the Council should convene a Convention for Treaty reform, following the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe. This demand directly reflects citizens’ recommendations from the Conference and amounts to a clear call for the constitutionalisation of European Union – moving beyond permanent crisis management and intergovernmental paralysis.
ECI & Democracy
The recent vote of the parliament in favour of the European Citizens Initiative My Voice My Choice to make abortion accessible to all people in Europe is also a very positive sign. Of course, this will only make a difference to the lives of women and Europeans if the Commission is courageous in the way it follows up on the initiative.
The record of the Commission in responding to the mandatory duty of responding to successful petitions under the ECI is weak. Over the past 14 years the Commission has delivered legislative follow-up on only two ECIs—and even then only with respect to secondary objectives. The Right2Water initiative after a delay of seven years, failed to meet the core demands—keeping water supply fully outside liberalisation rules and recognising access to water as a human right. Similarly, as a result of the Ban Glyphosate ECI, the EU refrained from banning glyphosate.
The case of the End the Cage Age initiative underscores these concerns even more dramatically. In 2021, the Commission made an unprecedented promise to fully implement the ECI. Yet as of 2025, no legislation has been adopted and no concrete timeline has been presented, largely due to massive lobbying by the meat industry as was revealed by investigative journalists. This prolonged inaction raises profound doubts about the credibility of the ECI as a democratic instrument and about the Commission’s seriousness and willingness to honour its own commitments, and its vulnerability to the impact of commercial lobbyists.
Taken together, these developments increasingly risk turning the EU into a façade democracy at its core. Constitutionally enshrined institutions – the European Citizens’ Initiative and the directly elected European Parliament – are being by-passed and effectively neutralised through executive capture and industrial lobby veto. This is not just a technical malfunction but a fundamental power shift away from democratic mandate. When citizen initiatives and parliamentary majorities can be ignored without consequence, participatory democracy collapses. In this context, it is highly welcomed that both ECI organisers and the European Parliament are going to court against EU executives [ECI case against Commission] [EP case against Council of EU] to protect their treaty-based democratic rights and to re-establish the rule of democratic accountability. Judicial intervention has become the only remaining procedural safeguard for democracy under the Treaties.
The continued experimentation with European Citizens’ Panels by the European Commission – during and beyond the Conference- represents an important, albeit insufficient, step towards institutionalising deliberative democracy at EU level and preparing the terrain for a permanent European Citizens’ Assembly, as long advocated by Citizens Take Over Europe. However, major shortcomings persist. The vast majority of Europeans remain unaware of the existence of these panels, revealing a profound failure of political communication and ownership. Non-European citizens living in the EU are excluded totally. It remains unclear how the panels’ recommendations will be translated into binding political outcomes. Without reliable implementation mechanisms and structured follow-up, deliberation risks remaining symbolic rather than transformative – a concern repeatedly raised by our coalition of more than 70 NGOs from all over the continent.
The European Citizens’ Panels should become instruments of genuine democratic steering, not merely consultation. They could be for instance used to deliberate priorities and social impacts linked to the implementation of the Draghi Report, the Letta Report on the Single Market, and the Niinistö Report on security and preparedness. These far-reaching agendas profoundly affect Europe’s economic, social, and security model and should not remain the exclusive domain of technocratic decision-making.
Deliberative democracy and citizens’ assemblies could hold significant potential in preparing the next phase of EU enlargement. As the Union moves towards the accession of new Member States, democratic deepening must accompany institutional and economic alignment. Citizens’ assemblies can play a crucial role in fostering democratic culture, social trust, and informed public debate in accession countries, helping to anchor European integration in citizen participation rather than elite-driven processes. Transnational deliberative formats involving citizens from both current and future Member States could prepare societies for enlargement through dialogue, mutual understanding, and shared democratic standards. In this way, enlargement can strengthen – rather than dilute – European democracy.
Europe will not overcome its permanent crisis by concentrating power, weakening parliamentary democracy, or accommodating national or foreign power agendas. Instead, this moment must be seized as a political opening. As citizens clearly expressed during the Conference on the Future of Europe, the continent needs a democratic constituent process leading to the constitutionalisation of the European Union – strengthening democratic control over economic transformation, public spending, security, and integration. Citizens Take Over Europe will continue to advocate for a democratised, constitutional Europe – shaped with and by its citizens – as the only credible response to permanent crises and the rise of national-populist forces which are putting the continent in existential danger.