European polarization: specific facets of a global phenomenon

The public’s anticipation and engagement leading up to the European Parliament elections was at a fever pitch. People were worried about the future direction of European policies and the overall European integration project. The traditional coalition of conservative, socialdemocratic, and liberal parties that has been in charge of Europe seemed to be at risk. There was a decision to be made about whether to include the Greens in the coalition or to expand the support base by reaching out to the far-right, and it seemed like a make-or-break situation.

The election results, however, were better than expected. While anti-government sentiment ran high in some countries like France and Germany, the major European political families held their ground. The conservatives performed well, and the social democrats broke even, while the losses for liberals and Greens weren’t severe enough to destabilize the pro-European majority.

What matters most here isn’t the outcome but the root cause: the unique characteristics of populism and polarization within the European sociopolitical context. This isn’t just about geography but about Europe as a political project in flux, balancing between a traditional nation-state model and a supranational entity with federal characteristics.

This evolving model explains some populist tensions in Europe and how they manifest as social polarization.

The dilution of national sovereignty into a larger political project has created resistance that national leaders have not handled well. As nation-states struggle to respond to global challenges, a supranational model like the EU seems advantageous. Yet those same leaders often blame Europe for decisions they don’t want to take responsibility for, using the EU as a scapegoat, which fuels anti-European polarization, particularly in countries in Central and Eastern Europe, which only recently regained political autonomy after the fall of the Soviet Union.

European institutions, such as the Commission and Parliament, play a part in this division. Sometimes, they appear disconnected from national discussions and may create laws without taking into account the perspectives of all member states or their various communities. However, striving for common rules and regulations across the European Union inevitably leaves some viewpoints out.

The dilution of the nation-state within an integrative political project generates resistance that national leaders have failed to manage effectively.

The ongoing debate between “Yes to Europe, No to Europe” is further complicated by the absence of a unified European public discourse. Instead of a cohesive European public opinion, discussions are often dominated by national and local issues, overlooking the broader global context. The lack of interest shown by many media outlets and political leaders in European matters adds to a feeling of irrelevance among the public. For some, the frequent meetings in Brussels and the spectacle of European Council gatherings appear to be much ado about nothing.

We witnessed this firsthand at LLYC while analyzing social media discussions prior to the most recent European Parliament elections. Our study (1) revealed that the loudest voices in the debate often came from those most opposed to European integration. These nationalist groups, from various political spectrums, dominated discussions in “anger zones” about issues important to their compatriots. During elections, this anger can translate into a magnified protest vote driven by the perceived irrelevance of European electoral politics—a direct consequence of the lack of attention to European-level democratic representation.

The European Union often faces a delicate challenge: being seen as a layer of values imposed on national identities. This issue is deeply rooted in the structure of the EU itself. If we think of Europe as a community built on shared values, the balance between individual national identities and collective European ideals becomes worth protecting. Nevertheless, pushing too hard to magnify what we have in common can trigger resistance. On the other hand, if we undervalue our shared interests, the European project starts to lose meaning. The treaties and rulings from the European Court of Justice clearly define our shared identity, but putting those principles into action is where things get tricky. Here is when this often proves more complex than it seems on paper.

The nostalgia for lost sovereignty, the perceived arrogance of European institutions, the lack of attention to European political processes, and the resistance to shared values are key factors shaping Europe’s polarization.

Looking at a structural level, we can see how European and national voting patterns differ. The underlying causes of polarization, which Miguel Lucas’ report for this magazine addresses effectively, are the same. However, its reflection on voter behavior has nuances, as discussed above.

The European political process is often treated as peripheral when, in reality, it plays the most decisive role in shaping the future of the continent’s citizens.

Other factors also influence voter behavior, causing the same voter to act differently in national versus European elections. Among all these factors, one stands out and concerns society as a whole: the inconsistency of leaders, political parties, the media, social agents, and citizens in addressing the European political process. This issue is often overlooked, but in reality, it is the one that most decisively shapes the future of European citizens.

 

(1)LLYC report: Social conversation analysis – European Union