EU enlargement can benefit democracy and the rule of law, but the process often excludes citizens from decision-making and cost-benefit framing. For Giselle Bosse, this raises questions about legitimacy — and whether the process truly reflects the priorities of member states and candidate countries
National governments and EU institutions are the drivers of EU enlargement. While the European Parliament plays a role, unanimity in the European Council reinforces a top-down process. Citizens, meanwhile, have minimal direct involvement.
Citizens' exclusion shapes the framing of enlargement’s costs and benefits. Key narratives — economic opportunity, labour mobility, security — are controlled largely by political elites, limiting public input. During the 2004 enlargement, public concerns in 'older' member states about labour competition and migration were sidelined in favour of elite-driven enthusiasm for enlarging the Union.
The divergence between institutional narratives and citizens’ perceptions in framing the costs and benefits of enlargement can exacerbate EU scepticism and polarisation. If citizens take no part in the decision-making process, enlargement may not fully resonate with those it seeks to benefit.
Referendums are one of the few avenues for direct citizen engagement in enlargement, particularly in candidate countries. In Croatia’s 2012 referendum, 66% of the population approved EU membership. Low voter turnout, however, — just 43% — revealed the limited public enthusiasm for enlargement.
Referendums expose tensions between elite narratives and public sentiment, but they often reduce enlargement to oversimplified debates. In 2016, 61% of Dutch voters opposed the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. But this figure reflects broader dissatisfaction with the EU rather than citizens' opinions on Ukraine itself. Such votes often serve as proxies for general discontent rather than informed enlargement debates.
Referendums often fall prey to populist narratives that amplify fears, rather than fostering constructive dialogue
Referendums are democratic in principle. Yet they often fall prey to populist narratives that amplify fears or grievances rather than fostering constructive dialogue. Without mechanisms to ensure informed citizen engagement, the question of whether enlargement is good or not remains highly susceptible to polarising, populist perspectives.
The democratic blind spots of the enlargement process are also evident in candidate countries. Compliance with the acquis communautaire and institutional reforms remains a cornerstone of EU membership. These reforms, however, are frequently implemented through a top-down approach, with limited involvement from citizens.
In countries like Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, EU-driven reforms emphasise governance, anti-corruption, and judicial independence — undoubtedly critical priorities for accession and democratisation. However, it is often EU institutions shaping the framing of these reforms. This leaves little room for local voices to influence which areas should be prioritised. While the EU focuses on bureaucratic and institutional benchmarks, citizens in candidate countries may see more immediate concerns — such as poverty, unemployment, or access to healthcare services — as more pressing and relevant in their assessment of the costs and benefits of EU enlargement.
While the EU focuses on bureaucratic benchmarks, citizens may see poverty, unemployment and access to healthcare as more pressing and relevant
This potential misalignment between EU priorities and local-level priorities risks creating a sense of 'superficial Europeanisation', in which member states formally implement reforms to meet EU conditions, but lack broader societal support. Furthermore, when citizens perceive that reforms are externally defined rather than grounded in local contexts and framings, it can undermine their long-term sustainability. This erodes trust in EU institutions and in efforts towards democratic reform.
The democratic blind spot in the enlargement process has potentially far-reaching consequences:
To determine whether enlargement is ultimately beneficial, it is vital to address its democratic blind spots. We must also think more critically about who is framing the costs and benefits of enlargement, and how. Citizens in member states and candidate countries should take an active role in shaping the narratives, decisions, and outcomes of enlargement.
In member states, national governments and the EU should foster inclusive public debates on enlargement. They should engage civil society, media, and citizens in meaningful dialogue, and design mechanisms enabling the systematic and effective participation of citizens in the process. The European Parliament could also play a greater role, ensuring citizens’ voices receive better representation in the decision-making process.
Member states' governments should foster inclusive public debates on enlargement, involving civil society, media, and citizens
In candidate countries, the EU should shift from its technocratic, and now also increasingly geopolitical approach and place greater priority on grassroots engagement. Supporting civil society organisations, local governance initiatives, and public forums can enable broader citizen participation in discussions on the benefits and challenges of EU membership. Pairing EU conditionality with societal engagement, for example, could better ground reforms democratically, and reemphasise democratic principles in times of geopolitical enlargement.
In her foundational blog for this series, Veronica Anghel claims that EU enlargement is a strategic necessity. Yet, whether the EU should enlarge or not depends also, and fundamentally, on whether the process can overcome its democratic deficits, ensure legitimacy, and engage citizens in shaping its costs, benefits, and outcomes. Enlargement is not merely technocratic or geopolitical. It is a project with social, cultural, and political implications for citizens in EU member states and candidate countries alike.
Citizen participation must take a central role. Yet, expecting broader support simply through formal engagement mechanisms is misguided. Public debate can also expose costs, fuelling scepticism. Instead, democratising enlargement would foster a more nuanced, evidence-based discourse, allowing citizens to assess its merits, and make informed choices.
