Europe: The political indifference of the citizens and the mediocrity of the leaders

Europe and Democracy: The Dual Crisis of Indifference and Dependency

Victor Ângelo

It could be said that Europe is going through a period of crisis. Across much of the EU, citizens appear to have lost confidence in the political class and institutions. The reason is clear: a lack of satisfactory responses to social issues deemed essential. These include affordable housing, the growing malfunction of public services—especially in the areas of health, education, justice, and security—and political opportunism. More generally, all of this is compounded by the negative impact of the rising cost of life, which is linked to decisions made on the other side of the Atlantic. In the view of many citizens, the leaders of our Europe appear to lack sensitivity and courage.

When hope is lost, democracy does not collapse—it deteriorates silently. Byung-Chul Han, a Korean thinker long based in Germany, states that our societies have reached a phase of "fatigue": citizens are saturated, overwhelmed, and alienated by the digital flow, whether true or false. They feel isolated and incapable of mobilizing the energy required to carry out the changes that politics demands. The incompetence of institutions and the incoherence of politicians push citizens toward egocentrism, toward the solitary management of survival, and toward withdrawal from the public sphere. When the State fails, each individual retreats into their own microcosm. Politics ceases to be a space where hope is built. For many, it is merely a distant noise.

Digital disinformation is one of the instruments of democratic erosion. Algorithms optimized to maximize emotional reactions and content manufactured by artificial intelligence corrode public trust in a structural way. A survey from Special Eurobarometer 568 (2025) leaves no room for doubt: 79% of Europeans fear that voters will cast ballots based on false information, and 70% fear foreign interference. The credibility of national parliaments and governments hovers around 35%. In the case of political parties, the figure is even lower. In Portugal, the European Union maintains some credit, but the Assembly of the Republic and the parties follow the same downward trajectory seen in other European states.

In several societies, immigration, managed for years without a coherent strategy, has become the catalyst for social anxiety. Over time and with mass entries, unease has turned into resentment. It is in this terrain that the Rassemblement National (France), the AfD (Germany), Fratelli d'Italia, Vox (Spain), and Chega (Portugal) thrive. They grow because they exploit the vacuum left by traditional parties—yet they offer no realistic alternatives. Merely demagoguery. Furthermore, they generally ignore the axis that determines the viability and autonomy of the modern State: technological sovereignty. They discuss symbols, borders, and identities while the infrastructure sustaining democracy is in the hands of third parties.

Europe operates today based on digital systems that it does not control. Technological sovereignty means that a State controls the essential elements for its proper functioning: data, networks, software, hardware, AI platforms, and sources of information regarding major events with global impact. Europe is far from mastering these pillars.

The risk is not theoretical. If access to Microsoft and Google services were to fail—due to technical causes or even external retaliatory decisions—or if the supply of microchips from Taiwan's TSMC were interrupted—even if only for a short period—hospitals, businesses, schools, and public administration would grind to a halt. If Chinese electric vehicles were remotely shut down—for a political motive or diplomatic tension—logistics and our daily lives would collapse. A democracy dependent on foreign infrastructure and hardware is not sovereign: it is simply vulnerable. This fragility does not result from geopolitical fatality, but from decades of omission and false priorities in European policy.

Gaia-X, launched in 2019, is the European attempt to recover some control. It is not a "European Google." It is fundamentally a framework of rules, certifications, and standards. In parallel, the Regulation on the Development of Cloud Computing and AI seeks to build physical capacity—data centers, common infrastructures, and requirements for public administration. Gaia-X defines the protocols; the Regulation tries to build the material support.

However, these steps are insufficient. They are slow, timid, and decided by people from the legal field rather than from engineering, mathematics, or economics. They do not reduce, in the short term, the dependency on hardware, submarine cables, semiconductors, and base software originating from abroad. And the political problem is even more serious: these are orphan projects, forgotten, much like the Draghi report (2024). Neither traditional parties nor populists treat technological sovereignty as a priority. They prefer the comfort of easy narratives to the effort of building the strategic capacity that the present and future demand.

Thus, Europe remains a hostage—not by imposition, but due to flawed policies. Technological submission is not a mere backdrop to democratic fatigue: it is one of its most relevant causes. And this situation drags down the discredit of democracy and politics.

Reserves of resilience still exist—visible, for example, in the relative trust that the European Union maintains in countries like Portugal. But the future of our democracies demands clear and urgent decisions on two fronts: in the human dimension—housing, immigration, public services, functional governance, social protection for the most vulnerable, and the promotion of a democratic culture; and in the technological dimension—accelerating Gaia-X, building a sovereign cloud, investing in cutting-edge infrastructure, and mobilizing financial and technical resources at a supranational level.

The fatigue or indifference of citizens and the technological submission of States are the two sides of the same coin of crisis. Political incompetence generates social atomization; social atomization feeds political incompetence and populism. This is the vicious circle that we will have to break.

Poor leadership

Europe is again building borders and walls. The leaders decided this week that the external borders of the Union will remain closed for another month or so. I see this decision as an inept response to the problem. Airports and land passage points could be equipped to check travellers’ temperatures and identify the individuals that might require further health scrutiny. Worse, the internal borders between the Member States continue to be blocked for people’s travel. And the governments cannot agree on a timetable and a phased approach to deal with that. There is no news about the matter, besides the closure. That is the best way to feed the nationalistic feelings. It is also one of the direct roads towards a fragmented Europe. Populists must feel excited.

I am shocked by the lack of coordination within the EU. I am also amazed by the timidity of the European institutions’ leaders. They are silent and so afraid of proposing anything. They have become the obedient functionaries of the national leaders and little else.

The world’s recovery, as well as the European one, calls for renewed cooperation, complementary and strategic alliances. We should be debating that in the G20 or a similar forum. All that is yet to be seen. There is no international conference being prepared to agree on a framework for action. No leader speaks on behalf of a greater project, of a different future, of anything else but of his or her own national square mile. It is disappointing and more, it is the wrong approach to build the post-covid world.

Some national leaders and some published opinion have now concluded we cannot depend on China or elsewhere when it comes to medical items, including masks. They put the blame on the Chinese and on the corporations that have established their workshops in the Far East or in India. That is an excuse. I do not accept it. The fact of the matter is that we forgot the concept of strategic health reserves. The national health services were not given enough means and attention. They have been undersupplied; the emergency stores were depleted. It is so much so that in Belgium some of the initial health supplies came from a big bank, that had understood early enough what was going on and created a substantial reserve of masks and so on. That happened with other governments as well. Politicians forgot the old and wise adage that one of the key roles of the government is to foresee impending crises and be prepared for them. To govern is to predict.

Well, the new adage, the one that is now being applied, is different: to govern is to react, a day at a time.

Responding to President Trump

Some people say that when it comes to the Donald Trump presidency, the right approach for the Europeans is to stay far away. That means to limit the contacts to the formal and the diplomatic exchanges. It is another way of saying, ignore and move on.

I am not sure that is the best response. We are friends and friends should talk in all frankness. If we disagree, we should say it. If we have a different view, who should express it. No need to be either rude or confrontational. But the European leaders should be true to themselves and to their American friends.

Silence will be interpreted as fear. In the end, it will open the gate for more errors and arrogance. Firmness, clarity and elegance are better rejoinders. Both across the Atlantic and for the European citizens as well.

Disappointed by current European political leadership

Audacity combined with balance make the difference between leaders and run-of-the mill politicians. 

Code of conduct for intelligence agencies

The on-going row over the US espionage practices should become an opportunity to discuss intelligence cooperation between the two sides of the Atlantic. It should also be used by the Europeans to better define the potential threats to their national and economic security and take the appropriate protective measures.

As I say it, I also recognise that intelligence remains one of the key features of a country´s sovereignty. But this should not prevent the EU countries from integrating better those dimensions of the services that have to do with responding to common threats. And, at the same time, they should protect themselves from intrusion, including when that spying comes from a friendly ally.

It is also time to have a code of conduct and a list of best practices that would guide information collection in a democratic environment. And get national parliaments to appoint independent ethics commissions that would be charged with the overseeing of intelligence activities in their respective countries. These commissions would then be guided by the above-mentioned code of conduct. 

Turkey and the EU

Leaders in the European Union look with perplexity at the sentences passed on top Turkish military officers and other civilian personalities, all of them accused of attempted coup d’état. But, as it has become the practice, they have decided to remain silent. It is however a silence that will weight a lot when the matter of Turkey’s accession to the EU will be on the table again. 

Weak EU leadership

It is becoming fashionable in some of the European leading circles to blame the IMF for the failure of some financial adjustment programmes such as the Greek or the Portuguese. It is as if the EU Commission and the European Central Bank, the two other members of the Troika that has negotiated such programmes on behalf of the international creditors, had just been compelled to go along with the IMF.

Nothing is less true. In many ways, it has been the EU Commission that had shown up to recently the most dogmatic approach to programme design and its implementation. They have been the ones pushing some very single-minded ideas such as labour cost reductions and a short-term approach to fiscal corrections. Now, having realised that the public opinion is turning in large numbers against these measures, they backtrack and blame the weaker member of the group.

This shows again that the European leadership feels corralled against the wall and has no guts to fight back for their position.  

EU needs to change coaches

A man that knows the EU well told me this evening that the high rates of unemployment are turning people against the European project. The first line of attack is against the Euro currency, he added. More and more people are looking at the common currency as an impediment for “their” nation’s recovery.  He also told me that there is serious concern in the leading circles of the EU as they see public opinion turning gradually against the Euro in a number of countries.

I told him if the common project were a football team the solution would be very clear: let’s fire the coach and get a new one. 

Italian politics: some good news

Seen from where I sit, the new Italian government looks good. It has a broad basis, its outlook is modern and it seems to be able to have a strong voice in the affairs of Europe. One should be a little optimistic about its future performance and also about its contribution to balancing power within the EU.

I am also convinced the markets will react positively to the composition of this cabinet. 

EU Commission should be more daring

You ask EU Economic Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn and his team what is the solution for country A or B or C to return to growth and you always get the same prescription. They seem to know only one mantra. It has three lines: augment your exports; lower your labour costs; cut your public debt.

I wonder.

If every EU should boost its exports, where are the import markets?

How far should one lower the labour costs to be competitive with China or Bangladesh?

Why should we cut public debt so dramatically at a time of recession? Why can’t we get the European Central Bank’s statutes changed in order for it to be able to do some quantitative easing? Is Rehn afraid of saying that because he does not wish to offend Berlin?

The point here is very simple. We expect the EU Commission to tell the citizens of Europe what should be done effectively, together and on a country by country basis. They at the Commission are paid to produce an independent advice.

Then, Berlin, The Hague, and other capitals and their national politicians will respond if, yes or no, they want to do it.

A Commission that only recommends what the EU political masters want to hear is useless.  

France's frustations

The new French leaders feel very frustrated. This is now the talk in town, within the top power circles of Europe.

There are two main reasons for such frustration. One, it has to do with the very low approval ratings President François Hollande is getting when the voters are polled. He is now just over 30%. This is a very weak satisfaction level for a president that is still very much at the beginning of his mandate. Hollande and his advisors do not understand why the French public opinion is not responding more favourably. They are genuine when they say they do not understand the voters ‘reaction. Last week’s television interview of the President had no impact on the ratings. That has been an extremely discouraging reality check for Hollande and his people.

The other reason is related to the role of France within the EU. Hollande is very distressed he has not been able to fill the European shoes left by his predecessor. He knows Germany and other think-alike countries, such as Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands pay no attention to his views. The President of France has been reduced, in many ways, to the level of second line leaders, such as Spain or Poland. And he is not happy. But he has no idea how to turn this situation around.

I am one of those who think this state of affairs is pretty dangerous for Europe. France’s frustration will end up by bursting out. And the consequences might seriously contribute to further split and fragment the EU. 

EU silence

The EU top leaders have now adopted silence as public information technique. They let the sidekicks take the micro and express what they do not dare to say.