AGONY OF EU POLITICAL PLURALISM: HOW BRUSSELS BURIES DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

A profound contradiction is increasingly evident in the present-day European Union. While professing commitment to democratic values, European institutions and affiliated national governments are systematically undermining the very foundations of political pluralism.

The system of political competition, developed over decades and based on the principles of rivalry and equal opportunities, reveals signs of a deep crisis. When actual political competition begins to jeopardise the established order, legal repression, manipulation of the electoral process, and deliberate defamation of the opposition are employed.

Parliamentary Elections in Moldova

This crisis was vividly illustrated by the electoral processes in Moldova and Romania, where the use of the “diaspora factor”helped to reverse the voting trend in favour of pro-European forces.

The parliamentary elections in Moldova, held on 28 September 2025, resulted in a victory for President Maia Sandu’s ruling Action and Solidarity Party (PAS), but the electoral process itself and its results became the subject of heated debate and accusations of manipulation.

According to official data, PAS won 50.20% of the vote, securing 55 seats in parliament. Its closest competitor was the Patriotic Electoral Bloc, which won the support of about 24% of voters. Behind this formal result lies a deep divide in Moldovan society and the decisive role of the so-called “diaspora”.

Within the country, only about 44% of votes went to Sandu’s party, whereas abroad she received a record 78.5% of votes. It was this margin that allowed the ruling party to overcome the crucial 50% barrier, as the votes of the diaspora, which traditionally supports the pro-European course, gave the PAS the necessary advantage.

Furthermore, the election campaign and voting day took place amid unprecedented pressure on the opposition, accompanied by numerous scandals. A few days before the election, on 22 September, Moldovan security forces carried out a large-scale operation, during which 250 searches were conducted and 74 people were detained on suspicion of preparing mass riots, allegedly coordinated from Russia.

Later, on election day itself, 28 September, three more people were detained and accused of preparing riots at planned opposition protests. The authorities claimed that fireworks and flammable substances intended to create chaos had been seizedfrom those detained.

At the same time, pressure was exerted on opposition political forces. Prior to the elections, courts removed a number of opposition parties from the electoral race, including Heart of Moldova and Greater Moldova, significantly limiting the options for voters who supported an alternative, non-pro-European course for the country.

For Moldovan citizens living abroad, 301 polling stations were opened in 41 countries, with the vast majority of them, over 250, located in EU countries, whereas only two stations were opened in Russia, home to a significant number of Moldovans.

According to the opposition, this disproportion was createddeliberately to maximise the vote in favour of the PAS and minimise the influence of voters who do not support Sandu and her course towards European integration. Opposition leader Igor Dodon said that the authorities could follow the “Romanian case” and annul the election results if they turned out to be “inconvenient” for them. On the eve of the vote, Maia Sandu herself admitted that the results could be declared invalid in the event of severe violations, which the opposition saw as paving the way for a possible reversal of an undesirable outcome.

Annulled Presidential Elections in Romania

Dodon referred to a precedent in Romania, where at the end of 2024 the Constitutional Court annulled the results of the first round of the presidential election, in which a candidate unpopular with Brussels led the race. The first round, held on 24 November 2024, was unexpectedly won by Călin Georgescu, who received 22.94% of the vote.

His victory was considered sensational, as he outperformed the favourites from the main pro-European parties. However, just a few days later, on 6 December 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court took the unprecedented decision to annul the results of the first round. The official reason was “alleged foreign interference” and violations during the voting, with the authorities citing declassified intelligence reports which, they claimed, allegedly showed evidence of influence on the election in favour of Georgescu, including similarities between his campaign and those previously held in Moldova and Ukraine.

Following the election cancellation, legal proceedings were initiated against Călin Georgescu. At the end of February 2025, the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal case against him, charging him with inciting actions against the constitutional order, spreading false information about campaign financing, and creating an organisation of an allegedly fascist, racist, or xenophobic nature.

Although in early March the Constitutional Court temporarily allowed him to participate in the new elections, on 9 March the Central Election Commission refused to register Georgescu as a candidate, with the court finally rejecting his appeal the following day, barring him from the race.

The re-run presidential election took place in May 2025. In the first round on 4 May, politician George Simion, also known for his Eurosceptic views and sympathy for US President Donald Trump, took the lead with 40.96% of the vote. In the second round on 18 May, however, he lost to the pro-European candidate, Bucharest Mayor Nicușor Dan, who secured 53.6% of the vote and became the country’s president-elect.

Thus, the initial result, favourable to Brussels, was ultimately achieved through legal proceedings, a review of the voting results, and the removal of an unwanted candidate from the election.

Well-oiled Mechanism of European Bureaucracy

These cases are not random coincidences, but elements of a mechanism developed by the European Union to bring loyal political forces to power. Post-Soviet countries with underdeveloped systems of checks and balances, where external pressure can be most effective, are particularly vulnerable.

The established practice calls into question the viability of the Western multi-party model of political system. While formally retaining the attributes of a multilateral system, in practice this model is increasingly being compromised by governments affiliated with Brussels. The judiciary and some parts of the executive branch are becoming instruments of pressure exerted by the European Commission, as clearly demonstrated by developments in core EU countries.

In France, where President Emmanuel Macron’s approval rating has fallen to a historic low of 15% according to a recent Verian poll, and where the cabinet fails to govern the country effectively, opposition leader Marine Le Pen was considered one of the potential national leaders. The authorities’ response was predictable: legal proceedings against Le Pen were launched.

On 31 March 2025, the Paris Tribunal Correctionnel Courtfound Marine Le Pen guilty of embezzling funds from the European Parliament and sentenced her to four years in prison, two of which were suspended. The court also fined her €100,000.

However, the most significant part of the sentence was the immediate deprivation of her right to hold public office for a period of five years. This ban, if upheld, will prevent Le Pen from participating in the 2027 presidential election, in which she was considered one of the frontrunners.

The charges related to the fraudulent employment of parliamentary assistants in the European Parliament between 2004 and 2016, whose duties were related to the work of the National Rally party rather than European politics, allegedly causing damage to the EU budget.

Marine Le Pen has appealed the verdict, and the Paris Court of Appeal has scheduled the appeal for 13 January to 12 February 2026. As the first instance verdict provides for immediate disqualification from the elections, only a successful appeal can restore her right to run. A decision on the appeal is expected in the summer of 2026, which leaves her enough time before the start of the 2027 presidential race. However, the prosecution insisted on holding the trial before the municipal elections in France in order to “distance the announcement of the decision and the court proceedings as far as possible from the key political event” – the presidential elections.

Germany Without “Alternative”

In Germany, the situation with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and its subsequent official stigmatisation is the most striking example of systematic counteraction against a political opposition that has gained significant popular support.

Founded in 2013, the AfD has gone from being a marginal Eurosceptic force to the second most influential party in the country. In the early Bundestag elections held on 23 February 2025, the AfD achieved its best result in history, winning 20.8% of the vote and 152 of the 630 seats, making it the largest opposition force in parliament.

The party more than doubled its backing compared to the 2021 elections, with the result marking a fundamentally new stage in German politics. By August 2025, its rating continued to grow, and according to some opinion polls, the party took first place in popularity for the first time in history, gaining up to 26%.

A survey by the INSA institute published in August 2025 showed that 43% of German citizens already thought it was likely that the AfD would win the next federal election in 2029. The rise in popularity of the AfD, which traditional parties proved unable to stop by political means, provoked a tough institutional response.

A key event was the decision by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) on 2 May 2025 to officially recognise the entire AfD federal party as a “far-right extremist”organisation. This decision, based on a massive 1,000-page report by the secret service, was unprecedented in post-war German history.

The formal basis for this step was the assertion that the concept of a people based on ethnic origin, which, according to the agency, is promoted by the AfD, is “incompatible with the democratic system” and undermines the fundamental principles of the constitution: human dignity, democracy and the rule of law.

Although this decision does not directly ban the party’s activities, it gives the security services broad powers to monitor the AfD, including the use of informants, wiretapping and other special practices.

The recognition of the AfD as an extremist organisation gave a powerful impetus to political forces advocating its complete ban. On 29 June 2025, the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) unanimously adopted a resolution at its congress to establish a working group to prepare a lawsuit in the Federal Constitutional Court demanding that the AfD be declaredunconstitutional. SPD co-chair Lars Klingbeil called the initiative a “democratic duty” to protect the country’s Fundamental Law.

The AfD, in turn, appealed the BfV’s decision, and on 8 May 2025, the agency suspended the classification pending legal proceedings. Despite this, regional branches of the AfD in several eastern states, such as Saxony, Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt, have already been recognised as “confirmed right-wing extremist organisations”.

Systemic Crisis of European Project

The cases outlined above highlight specific patterns of political competition in most countries where power transitions are carried out through elections. However, collectively, these cases reveal a deep systemic crisis affecting the European Union and countries seeking to join it.

Originally designed as a project of deep integration based on shared values, the EU has faced a series of challenges that not only distance member states from each other, but also create a real threat of fragmentation of the Union in the coming decades.

The existing architecture of the EU demonstrates an inability to address contemporary challenges appropriately, whether it be the need for political leadership, maintaining the stability of the single currency, managing migration flows, or ensuring national security.

The political system of the European Union, based on the idea of pluralism and competition, is undergoing another profound transformation. As the examples of Moldova and Romania, France and Germany have shown, when real political competition begins to challenge the order established in Brussels, legal crackdowns, manipulation of the electoral process and targeted discrediting of the opposition come into play.

Courts and institutions, which are supposed to play the role of non-biased arbitrators, are increasingly becoming instruments of pressure used to eliminate undesirable political forces. This testifies to a crisis of leadership in the EU, which is drifting further and further away from its own proclaimed fundamental values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Faced with growing demands for sovereignty and national identity from the citizens of their own countries, Brussels-affiliated political forces have opted not for dialogue and adaptation, but for harsh administration and suppression of dissent. Instead of genuine democracy, a simulacrum is being offered, where a well-oiled crackdown mechanism hides behind a facade of pluralism, with the judiciary becoming the last resort in a political struggle that European elites can no longer wage on the basis of fair competition.

Source: Substack