In response to the accession of the postcommunist states from Central-Eastern Europe (CEE), as well as the subsequent rise of illiberal democracy in this region, the EU has developed mechanisms of supranational democratic defense. As a result, recent scholarship has started to recognize the EU as a supranational militant democracy. I agree that the EU has certain militant characteristics. However, I argue that the EU is actually promoting a historically specific regime developed in Western Europe after 1945, which is liberal first and democratic second. Focusing on the illiberal challenge from CEE, I add to the literature on the varieties of constitutionalism and constitutional tolerance in Europe by arguing that the EU should adopt a more procedural, less substantive definition of democracy that takes the lessons of communism seriously. Building on Seyla Benhabib’s cosmopolitanism, I argue that the EU can overcome this divide by adopting a more flexible, sociologically informed approach that takes memory and the claims of culture into account. While I recognize the dangers of illiberal democracy, I conclude that liberal democratic principles can best be defended by respecting the basic disagreements over the constitutional foundations of democracy that exist in Europe today.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter J. Verovšek (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: