What is the most serious evil that is destroying Europe today: populism, nativism or sovereignism? Most point the finger at populism and nativism, but I believe that sovereignism is even worse. Sovereignism prevents Europe from effectively dealing with the main problems of this century, which are transnational in nature. Think about the series of recent crises — from financial to migration, from Covid-19 to the security crisis caused by Russia. None of these could be dealt with effectively by a single State.
When governments prove inadequate, if not ineffective, citizens look for scapegoats to blame for their unhappiness and miracles to improve their lot. This explains why populists and nativists thrive. Your success is not the disease, but the symptom of a deeper illness. One would hope that these arguments would lead liberal politicians to unite against sovereignism, but they prefer to attack populism and nativism. Populism is clearly harmful and nativism is openly racist, but sovereignism enjoys appeal even among liberal politicians. Why? The answer has a lot to do with the model of democracy and European integration we currently have.
The nation-state continues to be the main site of democracy, where the people — whether French, German or Dutch — must be sovereign and free from external interference. European integration, from its inception, was designed to rescue, not dismantle, nation-states after the devastation of two world wars. That’s why the Council, not the Commission or Parliament, has the upper hand when it comes to all important EU decisions. It is not surprising, therefore, that at the table where key decisions regarding Europe are made, we only find sovereignists obliged to defend their respective national interests. Some believe strongly in the sovereign power of their states, while others are more hesitant, but none want to be pressured by the Commission or other Member States.
Brussels’ convenient scapegoat
If sovereignism is the rule of the European game, why are so many politicians promising to bring power from Brussels back to their respective capitals? They do so because it is convenient to blame Eurocrats for their own failures to control migration, rising debt, financial speculation, climate change, security vulnerabilities and foreign disinformation campaigns. However, they are knocking on the wrong door. The United Kingdom left the EU several years ago and none of these problems have disappeared — on the contrary, they have intensified.
After witnessing the price of Brexit, none of the continental leaders are interested in leaving the EU, but are trying to transform it into a flexible conglomerate of self-governing states with few or no restrictions imposed by Brussels. This policy is not only carried out by politicians like Viktor Orbán or Geert Wilders. Supposedly liberal and pro-European leaders, such as Prime Minister Donald Tusk or Chancellor Friedrich Merz, also play the sovereigntist game. How else can we explain the reintroduction of border controls between Germany and Poland? Have you noticed how these supposedly European leaders talk so much about defending their selfish national interests when it comes to security, migration and the economy?
There is a perverse paradox here. The more nation-states prove incapable of containing transnational flows and the disruptive results of interdependence, the more their leaders insist on going their own way, ignoring the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization and even the EU. The only actor they are not willing to ignore is the United States of America, governed by the most unpredictable, transactional and greedy president in the history of this great country.
The European Union is currently in a precarious situation. The sovereignists managed to neutralize, if not undo, their emblematic projects, such as the green agenda or the migration pact. The EU talks a lot about its new role in the field of security, but little progress has been made in practice. Member states simply committed to spending more money on purchasing American weapons, which can only be used with the consent of the United States, as Ukraine recently learned.
Even the “coalition of the willing” determined to confront aggressive Russia is haunted by mutual suspicion, lack of resources and dependence on Uncle Sam. This decision-making paralysis, which leads to sub-optimal cosmetic solutions to mounting challenges, is not new. We have seen a similar pattern during previous crises, with Member States struggling to implement optimal solutions due to national risk policy. Optimists would say that this risky policy does not lead to war between European states, as has historically happened, but given the serious situation in the Union today, it is only a matter of time before the Hobbesian ghost enters the EU’s doors due to internal conflicts and external interference.
What can be done to secure the future of Europe and the future of its frightened, disoriented and progressively impoverished citizens? The answer usually given is well known: we must finally create a European federal superstate. As Josep Borrell, Guy Verhofstadt and Domènec Ruiz Devesa recently stated: “We must become a true federal union, finally freed from the constraints of unanimity and endowed with powers in matters of foreign and security policy.” However, this is easier said than done, at a time when promising to restore a proud and sovereign nation-state seems to be the recipe for winning national elections. A federation of sovereignists is a contradiction in terms.
Beyond the monopoly of the nation-state
The federation also faces resistance from Europe’s liberal heads of government, who consider their states to be the strongest and most legitimate actors. But can nation-states still perform traditional state functions in areas such as social, monetary and defense policy? Is democracy in nation-states strong enough to provide solid legitimacy? I have serious doubts.
The data shows that the democratic legitimacy of our States is at its lowest point in history. For example, a recent survey carried out by Sciences Po revealed that only 26% of French people say they trust politics, while 71% say that democracy is not working well in France. Another survey revealed that more than half of Europeans want to replace lawmakers with artificial intelligence. The ability of states to deal with social and economic problems effectively is also at its lowest point in history, with minimal variations between countries.
As numerous articles in Social Europe show, public services in many countries are on the brink of collapse. States pride themselves on defending their borders against migrants, but this is hardly borne out by available data. And it is now clear that none of the European states are capable of providing an effective defense against a resurgent Russia or of having a significant impact on the conflicts raging on Europe’s southern flank, the Middle East and North Africa.
This does not mean that States are completely useless, much less that they are withering away. It just means that European states are not as capable and democratic as they claim to be. Not only the EU, but also European cities, regions and countless NGOs often have a better track record in delivering public goods than states, even in such sensitive areas as migration, security and diplomacy. And these non-state actors enjoy higher levels of trust than states.
The spring 2025 Eurobarometer revealed that 52% of Europeans trust the EU, while only 36% trust their national government and 37% trust their national parliament. Eurobarometer data from the previous year revealed that around 60% of Europeans declared that they trust their regional or local public authorities. What then justifies the virtual monopoly of States over decisions and resources? Perhaps we should finally force states to share sovereignty and resources not just with the EU, but with a broader group of actors that I call the fifth power of democracy. Perhaps we should give real meaning to the term European multi-level governance.
The problem is that the fifth power is dispersed and disconnected. It also lacks a unified voice. The EU mainly serves states, treating NGOs, regions and cities as clients rather than indispensable partners. Some regions want to form their own state, while others mainly try to get more money from the EU. Cities, unlike regions, are not interested in sovereignty games, but their concerns are practical and not political, local and not European.
NGOs fight for noble but distinct causes and compete for public support. There is no platform that unites the different branches of the fifth power, which is why they are subject to manipulation and marginalization. The Committee of the Regions and the Social Platform are poorly cohesive and ineffective organizations. The European Citizens’ Initiative, which allows EU citizens to suggest new legislation, has so far had no practical impact and tends to focus on specific issues such as cage farming or regional languages.
Until the different actors of the fifth estate join forces to demand a major reorganization of Europe’s decision-making space, nation-states will refuse to share any significant powers and resources with them. Power is rarely shared voluntarily; power is conquered. Therefore, the recommendation is simple and clear: those who contribute effectively to public goods must unite and make their voices heard.
Europe needs a big change, and that change is now being driven by sovereignists. If mayors, non-governmental activists and pro-Europeans believe in a different continent, they must come together and promote their own vision. Let’s call it: Europe of networks.
Article originally published on Social Europe