The Shadow of Supranationality over Democracy

At the heart of the current European crisis lies a profound paradox: while the continent’s nations pride themselves on being bastions of liberal democracy, their political systems show clear signs of decay. This degeneration is not an isolated phenomenon, but the result of a progressive cession of sovereignty to supranational structures such as the European Union (EU), NATO, the UN, and the World Health Organization (WHO). These entities, initially designed to foster cooperation and stability, have evolved into mechanisms of control that undermine national autonomy, limiting the ability of elected governments to respond directly to the demands of their citizens.

From a political-philosophical perspective, this loss of sovereignty evokes the warnings of thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who in The Social Contract (1762) emphasized that sovereignty resides in the general will of the people, not in abstract treaties or transnational bureaucracies. When key decisions—from migration policies to health responses—are subordinated to external directives, democracy is emptied of content, becoming a formal ritual without real substance.

This erosion not only weakens the legitimacy of states but also fosters the rise of populisms as a defensive reaction, a vicious cycle that threatens the very quality of democracy.

In this article, we will explore how these supranational interferences attack national sovereignty, illustrated with concrete examples from recent elections in Hungary, Slovakia, Moldova, and the Czech Republic. We will conclude with an analysis of the 1978 Spanish Constitution, which exemplifies how domestic provisions facilitate this subordination. The central argument is clear: supranationality, far from strengthening democracy, perverts it by prioritizing global agendas over the popular will, generating a democratic deficit that could lead to the implosion of European systems.

Supranational Interference: A Systematic Attack on Sovereignty

Supranational organizations operate under the principle of the “primacy of Community law,” established by the Court of Justice of the EU in cases such as Costa v. ENEL (1964), which affirms that European law prevails over any national law, even constitutional law. This doctrine, extended to NATO in defense matters (where military spending quotas force national budget cuts) and to the WHO in public health (as during the COVID-19 pandemic, with guidelines that limited autonomous responses), transforms states into mere implementers of foreign policies.

Philosophically, this resonates with Carl Schmitt’s critique in The Nomos of the Earth (1950), which warned that the universality of international norms dissolves sovereign political decision-making, essential to democracy. The EU, for example, has frozen funds from countries that do not align their policies with Brussels, as in the case of Hungary and Poland, citing violations of the “rule of law.” However, this economic coercion amounts to blackmail that undermines electoral independence, turning sovereignty into a conditional privilege.

The impact on democratic quality is devastating: citizens vote for governments that promise change, but these governments are bound by prior commitments. This generates frustration, polarization, and a withdrawal from the polls, as evidenced by the rising abstention rates in European elections. NATO, for its part, imposes security agendas that prioritize Russian containment over domestic needs, while the UN and WHO impose global frameworks that ignore local contexts. Ultimately, these structures do not “protect” democracy; they dilute it into a post-national technocratism that Schmitt would call “total depoliticization.”

Emblematic Cases: Elections Under Supranational Pressure

Recent electoral processes in Eastern Europe illustrate how supranational interference distorts the popular will, eroding sovereignty and democratic quality.

Hungary and Viktor Orbán: The “Sovereignty Law” as a Shield Against Brussels In the 2022 Hungarian elections, Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party won a landslide victory with 53% of the vote, reaffirming their parliamentary supermajority. However, this democratic expression was immediately questioned by the EU, which accused Orbán of eroding the rule of law through judicial and media reforms.

Former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana even tweeted about Orbán, saying, “Something must be done about him,” which, coming from a freely elected leader, is controversial, to say the least.

In response to these concerns, the Hungarian Parliament passed the “Sovereignty Protection Act” in December 2023, which criminalizes foreign financing of political campaigns with up to three years in prison and explicitly targets “interference” from the EU and NGOs like those of George Soros.

This law, criticized by the European Parliament as a “national sovereignty protection package” comparable to Russia’s “foreign agents” law, reflects the tension between national sovereignty and supranationality. The EU reacted by freezing billions of euros in cohesion funds, making them conditional on reforms that dilute Orbán’s control.

The result: a besieged Hungarian democracy, where the electorate supports nationalist policies, but the government must negotiate with Brussels to survive economically. This dynamic doesn’t strengthen democracy; it turns it into a game of submission, where sovereignty is negotiated based on subsidies, degrading popular representation.

Slovakia and Robert Fico: Populism as a Response to European Coercion

The Slovak parliamentary elections in September 2023 saw the triumphant return of Robert Fico and his Smer-SD party, with 23% of the vote, promising to halt arms shipments to Ukraine and criticizing EU sanctions against Russia. Fico, a pro-Moscow pragmatist, accused NATO and the EU of threatening Slovak sovereignty by pushing for alignment with Kyiv, even comparing German NATO soldiers to the Wehrmacht.

The EU responded with threats to freeze cohesion funds, similar to Hungary, and the Party of European Socialists temporarily suspended Smer. In January 2025, Fico even threatened a “Slovak exit” from the EU and NATO if Brussels does not respect “national sovereignty.” This external pressure not only limited the new government’s agenda—forcing adjustments to anti-corruption reforms under threat of sanctions—but also radicalized domestic discourse, fostering an anti-EU populism that divides society. Democratic quality suffers: free elections produce governments that are “illegitimate” in Brussels’ eyes, perpetuating a cycle of confrontation that weakens national institutions.

Moldova: The 2024 Referendum and the Battle for European Integration

In October 2024, Moldova held presidential elections and a constitutional referendum to establish European integration as an irreversible objective. Maia Sandu won reelection with an initial 42% vote, and the “yes” vote on the referendum was narrowly approved by 50.46%.

However, the EU and NATO exerted massive influence, with aid packages of €2 billion to counter Russian interference, but also to push for reforms that would align Chisinau with Brussels. NATO, through its eastern flank in Romania, was accused by the Kremlin of preparing a post-election “occupation,” but in reality, Western pressure limited sovereign debate: the referendum, although popular (63% in pre-election polls), was framed as a mandate to cede powers to the EU, including in defense, undermining Moldova’s constitutional neutrality.

This illustrates how supranationalism “protects” peripheral democracies not through empowerment, but by conditioning their sovereignty to geopolitical agendas, such as Russian containment, which reduces democratic quality by prioritizing external loyalties over internal dilemmas.

Czech Republic: ANO’s Triumph and the Rejection of Brussels’ Hegemony

The 2024 European elections in the Czech Republic saw the rise of ANO, led by Andrej Babiš, with an intergovernmentalist approach defending Czech sovereignty against “European elites” on issues such as the Green Deal and migration. In the October 2025 parliamentary elections, ANO obtained around 35%, positioning itself as the winner but without a majority, promising to restore sovereignty vis-à-vis the EU. Supranational interference was evident in campaigns that simultaneously featured pro-Russian campaigns, but also in EU pressure for sanctions against interference, which ANO denounced as “censorship” under the Digital Services Act.

This reflects a trapped Czech democracy: voters choose national sovereignty, but Brussels and NATO impose “collective defense” narratives that constrain domestic policies, fostering a Euroscepticism that erodes democratic cohesion.

The Spanish Constitution of 1978: A Trojan Horse of Supranationality

The Spanish Constitution of 1978, approved in a referendum with 91.81% support, represents a paradigmatic case of how nations voluntarily incorporate mechanisms that subordinate their sovereignty. Article 93 allows for the transfer of powers to “international organizations,” which facilitated EU accession in 1986 and the primacy of EU law over national, even constitutional, law. This provision, influenced by the Treaty of Rome, implies that European norms prevail over the Constitution in areas such as the single market and foreign policy, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court in its doctrine on the “limited integration” of sovereignty.

This provision, influenced by the Treaty of Rome, means that European norms prevail over the Constitution in areas such as the single market and foreign policy, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court in its doctrine on the “limited integration” of sovereignty. The effects are profound: during the 2008 crisis, EU-imposed cuts (through Article 135, amended in 2011) prioritized eurozone stability over constitutional social rights, generating protests such as the 15-M movement and a rise in populism.

Philosophically, this contradicts Article 1.2, which states that “national sovereignty resides in the Spanish people.” By ceding irreversible powers, Spain illustrates Schmittian “depoliticization”: key decisions escape democratic control, turning the Constitution into a subordinate framework. The quality of democracy suffers, as elected governments act as mere transmitters of Brussels’ directives, eroding citizen trust and fostering peripheral nationalisms.

Towards a Restored Democracy or Inevitable Collapse

The decline of European democratic systems is not an inexorable fate, but it requires recognizing that supranational structures, in their pursuit of integration, have become vectors of national disempowerment. The examples of Hungary, Slovakia, Moldova, and the Czech Republic show how interference—economic, legal, and geopolitical—distorts elections, while the Spanish Constitution exemplifies an internal concession that perpetuates this dynamic.

From Rousseau to Schmitt, political philosophy reminds us that democracy without sovereignty is a farce. To revitalize it, Europe must transition toward a model of “pluralistic sovereignty,” where supranationality is consensual and reversible, not imposed. Otherwise, the cycle of erosion will continue: hollow democracies, reactive populisms, and an EU increasingly disconnected from its people. The future depends on whether states regain their agency or resign themselves to being satellites of a post-democratic order.