The EU must boost its democratic safeguards

Holding the EU’s six-month rotating presidency is an honour that even its largest members take seriously. For newer members from central and eastern Europe, it can showcase not just their ability to manage the bloc’s agenda but their progress in making the post-communist transition to full, market-based democracies. Unfortunately, the honour has just passed to a country whose progress has gone into reverse: Romania. This is not the first time the EU finds itself in such a political bind. It underscores the need for much tougher monitoring and enforcement of its fundamental values.

The EU first faced this conundrum eight years ago. Hungary took over the presidency just days after the nationalist-populist government of prime minister Viktor Orban passed a media law that threatened to undermine press freedom. As 2019 dawns, Mr Orban is still in power, and many of the worst fears of Hungary’s partners over the fate of media pluralism, democratic safeguards and rule of law in the country have been realised. Similar problems have spread to Poland and, in slightly different form, Romania.

Even more regrettably, the reversal in Romania has taken place despite the fact that the country has been subject to a special EU surveillance mechanism of its progress on anti-corruption and judicial reforms for the dozen years since it joined the EU. For a decade, albeit in fits and starts, it seemed to be moving forward. New bodies, including an anti-corruption agency led by the dynamic Laura Kovesi, started to take effect, winning dozens of convictions against senior officials.

But the Social Democratic party, or PSD, government has since 2016 weakened anti-graft measures and institutions, including firing Ms Kovesi. Much of the effort appears designed to protect particular PSD figures, including Liviu Dragnea, the party leader, who is attempting to overturn convictions for electoral fraud and abuse of office that bar him from serving as prime minister. Even protests by Romanians, and the efforts of the president, Klaus Iohannis, to act as a restraint have failed to stick.

Now, somewhat ironically, Bucharest is taking over running an EU agenda that includes infringement procedures triggered against both Poland and Hungary over rule of law. Given the political prestige at stake, Romania is hardly likely to seek to stymie these cases. Yet both are unlikely, anyway, ever to reach their ultimate conclusion — which could see Budapest or Warsaw having their EU voting rights suspended — since that would require unanimous approval by the 27 other states. The case for reforming the way the bloc handles rule of law issues is now overwhelming.

One element should be to submit all EU members to an annual review of respect for judicial independence, democracy and human rights. This would neutralise complaints of double standards from newer member states. It would also help to ensure potential violations are flagged up earlier — including in older EU members, where populist parties are set to make gains in May’s European Parliament elections.

Such scrutiny should be backed by a more flexible range of penalties. In particular, payment of EU cohesion funds should be linked to the observance of rule of law and fundamental values, provided this can be done in a way that is fair and complies with EU treaties. The likely shift in political balance at the European elections will not make securing agreement on such steps any easier. But if the EU’s nature as an organisation built on rules-based liberal democracy is to be protected, it will make them even more urgent.