Based on the latest debates on geopolitical tensions surrounding Ukraine and the emerging modus operandi of the current U.S. administration, the European Union (EU) appears to face a pressing need to adapt to a new phase of international cooperation and alliances. In this context, the concepts of strategic autonomy and coordination have become highly salient to the EU’s agenda. Yet this strategic objective cannot by any means be classified as straightforward, especially within a multi-level polity, such as that of the EU, characterized by multiple and overlapping centers of authority. In this context, the existence of Eurosceptic, anti-systemic and far-right political actors may shape and potentially constrain the prospects for advancing strategic autonomy and deepening collective securitization. Taking this into consideration, how could the EU minimize internal shocks and reduce the destabilizing potential of Eurosceptic narratives?
This is a complex and wide-ranging topic and thus the present analysis offers only a concise discussion and a set of general policy-oriented suggestions. To provide a certain degree of analytical structure, the current arguments will focus on two critical and entangled spheres: the institutional and the societal level.
Institutional Level
A substantive body of scholarship has examined various structural constraints inherent to the EU’s multi-level polity, including informational asymmetry and asymmetry of authority. Past crises, in particular, have highlighted the EU’s recurrent difficulty in anticipating the trajectory and effects of systemic shocks. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that EU institutions can respond more rapidly and cohesively than is often assumed. This mixed record allows Eurosceptic alliances to contest the EU’s capacity for effective decision-making and policy implementation. In this era, frequently described as ‘polycrisis’ or ‘permacrisis’, institutional reforms should prioritize not only the capacity to manage crises once they occur, but also the ability to anticipate and mitigate a range of possible scenarios across policy domains, such as that of security and specifically in matters of strategic autonomy and coordination.
On a similar note, experiences from previous crises indicate that Eurosceptic mobilization often intensifies due to distributional injustices. If the pursuit of strategic autonomy is to be implemented and defended, the EU should establish mechanisms of distributional settlement. Consequently, compensation mechanisms should be treated not as the endpoint, but as the initial stage towards a more substantive allocation of responsibilities among EU institutions and member-states. This could be done by joint defense initiatives, not through technocratic impositions but through active engagement by the member-states.
Finally, structural parliamentary oversight can help counter-Eurosceptic dynamics. Populist narratives tend to thrive when authority appears detached from representative institutions and concentrated in unelected bureaucratic bodies. It is also true that during periods of great instability, democratic procedures are often compressed in the name of rapid crisis management. However, given the EU’s institutional particularities and domestic sensitivities of its member-states, granting the European Parliament a more robust role could contribute to strengthening legitimacy and transparency and reduce the resonance of claims that ‘Brussels’ governs without democratic control and acts positively on further efforts of collective securitization on strategic autonomy.
Societal Level
At a sociological level, it is crucial for governments to be able to integrate contestation into structured democratic dialogue. This does not entail legitimizing populist narratives. On the contrary, it requires acknowledging that segments of the electorate may turn towards anti-systemic, Eurosceptic or far-right political actors in response to insecurity and uncertainty, whether economic, social or geopolitical. Recognizing these drivers, instead of engaging in polarizing politics and dismissing voters as irrational or scapegoats, can enable governments to communicate policy choices more persuasively and to explain the necessity of measures associated with the need for further strategic autonomy in the light of contemporary geopolitical tensions.
Concluding Remarks
As noted at the outset, the issues considered here form a complex and interdependent set of challenges that require a fuller policy brief to address them comprehensively. Nevertheless, the analysis offers a framework of general directions that EU institutions and national governments can adopt to minimize the momentum of any Eurosceptic insecurities and to provide a more substantive justification for further strategic autonomy and coordination. This is likely to remain a consequential policy choice in a context where the war in Ukraine shows no prospects of imminent resolution and where the United States appears increasingly oriented towards alternative strategic priorities and where the EU’s various centers struggle to coordinate.
Written by Georgios Tsialas, a PhD candidate in Politics at King’s College London