‘What authority do supranational or international bodies have to prevent a member state from going to hell, if a majority in a member state wishes to do so?’ Jan-Werner Müller (2016, 263) poses this provocative question in a review of militant democracy. On this normative model, liberal democracies are allowed to act in illiberal ways against citizens that set out to undermine the democratic system itself. However, supranational and international bodies are not straightforwardly relatable to the will of a sovereign people. This raises questions about their authority to enforce democracy.
In this paper, we explore the authority of the European Union (EU) to intervene in national affairs of its Member States. This case is particularly interesting due to recent developments in, for instance, Hungary, Poland, and also France’s extended state of emergency. These developments undermine the democratic credentials of EU Member States, but is there a justification for the EU to intervene?
Our approach relies on the realist analysis that collective rule should reflect the beliefs of the subjects living under it. Normative principles should thus not be wrested from the context they are seeking to guide, they should, rather, be developed through an engagement with it. As such, the relation between action-guiding principles and the political or social realm they are seeking to guide is not just a question of implementation, but rather a question of justification.
We combine Eurobarometer data and the analysis of the MEPs rhetoric to explicate widespread beliefs. We argue that a widespread commitment to democratic self-governance offers a prima facie justification for the EU’s authority in enforcing democratic rule in its Member States. We conclude that this justification is particularly attractive, because it avoids the EU’s current liberal authoritarian tendencies. It so by being grounded in actual democratic commitments rather than abstract liberal ideals.
