The Hypocrisy of Democracy Advocacy: When "Democratic Values" Become a Tool for Influence
The real threat to Eastern European democracy isn't just Russian interference - it's the assumption that Western institutions know what's best for sovereign nations.
ANALYSIS | In a recent Euronews opinion piece, Ieva Cesnulaityte argues that Eastern Europe needs "new defences against attacks on its democracies." While correctly identifying external pressures on national sovereignty, the article conveniently overlooks a crucial aspect of the discussion: the systematic attempts by Western institutions, including the EU itself, to influence democratic processes in sovereign nations.
"Moscow's tactics are clear: divide, disrupt, and destabilise. It floods social media with misinformation, exploits societal fractures, and backs anti-democratic movements, all to undermine the region's democracies."
Indeed, Russian interference in democratic processes is concerning. However, this singular focus obscures an uncomfortable truth: the EU and Western institutions employ similar tactics, albeit with different branding. When Brussels funds NGOs, "civil society organizations," and various initiatives that align with its integration agenda, is this not also an attempt to influence democratic outcomes in sovereign nations?
Consider the author's own position. DemocracyNext, where Cesnulaityte serves as Head of Research and Learning, receives funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society Foundations, and One Project. These are precisely the kind of Western institutional actors that have long worked to shape political outcomes in Eastern Europe according to their preferred vision of "democracy."
The article promotes citizens' assemblies as a solution:
"Citizens' assemblies, which bring together randomly selected, representative groups of citizens to deliberate on pressing issues worldwide, are proving to be an antidote to polarisation and a bridge over widening social divides."
Yet who decides the framework for these assemblies? Who funds them? Who sets their agenda? The very institutions advocating for them often come with their own ideological baggage and predetermined notions of what constitutes "democratic values."
The False Universalism of Western Democratic Models
The fundamental flaw in this approach is the assumption that there exists a universal model of democracy that can – or should – be applied across vastly different societies. What works in Amsterdam or Brussels may be entirely inappropriate for Tbilisi or Warsaw. Each nation has its own historical context, political culture, and social dynamics that shape its democratic development.
When Western institutions speak of "defending democracy," they often mean defending a specific interpretation of democracy – one that aligns with progressive, globalist values and supranational governance. This approach dismisses the legitimate desire of nations to develop their own democratic models that reflect their unique cultural and historical circumstances.
The EU's Democratic Interference
The EU's own track record of respecting democratic outcomes is questionable. When referendums go against Brussels' preferred direction – as seen in Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands – the typical response has been to either force repeated votes or find ways to circumvent the results. The EU regularly funds campaigns and organizations that promote European integration while labeling opposing viewpoints as "anti-democratic" or "populist."
This creates a troubling dynamic where "democratic values" become a rhetorical tool to delegitimize political positions that challenge the establishment's preferred narrative. When citizens vote for policies that prioritize national sovereignty or traditional values, they are often dismissed as victims of "disinformation" rather than being recognized as expressing legitimate democratic choices.
The Path Forward: True Sovereignty and Democratic Diversity
The solution to protecting democracy in Eastern Europe isn't to replace Russian influence with Western influence. Instead, we should recognize and respect the right of each nation to develop its own democratic model. This means:
Acknowledging that democratic systems can and should vary between nations
Respecting the outcomes of national democratic processes, even when they don't align with Western preferences
Allowing genuine grassroots movements to emerge without external manipulation
Recognizing that sovereignty means the freedom to choose paths that differ from the Western consensus
Conclusion
While Cesnulaityte's article raises valid concerns about external interference in democratic processes, it fails to acknowledge the broader context of how "democratic values" have become a tool for influence by various actors, not just Russia. True democracy requires respecting the right of nations to chart their own course, even when that course diverges from the preferences of Brussels or Washington.
The path to stronger democracies in Eastern Europe lies not in implementing Western-designed solutions or submitting to oversight from supranational bodies, but in allowing each nation to develop its own democratic traditions and institutions. This means accepting that democracy can take different forms in different societies, and that true democratic values include respecting these differences rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all model.
Only when we move beyond the hypocrisy of selective concern about democratic interference can we have an honest conversation about protecting national sovereignty and genuine democratic development in Eastern Europe.
â–
On Sovereign Europe, I provide in-depth analyses that go beyond surface-level reporting to examine the true implications of European political developments. These analyses are complemented by timely comments on current events and educational pieces to give you a comprehensive understanding of European politics from a sovereignty-focused perspective.