The challenge for European Union (EU) leaders in reconciling the promotion of human rights and democracy abroad with the struggle against rising nationalism and illiberal trends at home is one of the most significant credibility crises facing the bloc.

EU leaders attempt to reconcile this dichotomy through a multi-layered approach that separates external policy instruments from internal institutional mechanisms, while simultaneously seeking to reinforce the common normative core that underpins both.

The consensus is that the internal democratic backsliding—characterized by weakened judicial independence, constrained media freedom, and curtailed civil liberties in some member states—significantly undermines the EU's legitimacy and moral authority as a "normative power" on the global stage.

I. The Global Commitment: The 'Silver Thread' of External Action

Externally, EU leaders maintain a steadfast commitment to democracy promotion and human rights, arguing that these values are not optional but are Treaty obligations and a strategic priority enshrined in EU law (notably Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union). This foreign policy stance is pursued largely independent of domestic political turbulence, creating a functional separation between internal and external narratives.

A. Treaty-Based Mandate and Policy Frameworks

The core reconciliation strategy relies on the formal, legal obligations of the Union:

• The Strategic Framework and Action Plan: The EU's external action is guided by the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (2020-2027). This plan dictates that human rights must be a "silver thread" running through all EU external policies, including trade, development, security, and migration.

• The European External Action Service (EEAS): The EU's diplomatic corps, along with the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, continues its work on the ground through human rights dialogues with nearly 60 partner countries, trial observations, sanctions, and development projects aimed at empowering civil society and human rights defenders globally.

• Conditionality in External Relations: The EU continues to use instruments of conditional engagement, particularly in its enlargement and neighbourhood policies. Accession to the EU is strictly conditional on adherence to the Copenhagen Criteria, which demands stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. This external leverage is largely unaffected, at least overtly, by internal rule-of-law issues.

B. The Argument for Global Stability

The external promotion of democracy is also framed as a matter of pragmatic self-interest and global stability. EU leaders argue that:

• Europe's Security Starts Abroad: Promoting a global system based on multilateralism, human rights, and the rule of law is seen as the best way to secure the EU's long-term interests and prevent conflict and irregular migration toward Europe. This narrative allows them to pursue democracy promotion as a security and stability measure, less vulnerable to ideological attacks from domestic nationalist factions.

• Economic Liberalism: The human rights and democracy package is often intrinsically linked to the promotion of a liberal market economy. This combination appeals to mainstream political and economic interests within the EU, even in countries with nationalist governments, as it aligns with free trade and global market access goals.

II. The Internal Challenge: Confronting Nationalism and Illiberalism

The internal struggle to uphold liberal democratic values against nationalist and populist movements is where the contradiction becomes most acute. Nationalist parties typically campaign on platforms of anti-EU sentiment, anti-immigration policies, and a focus on national sovereignty over supranational integration, directly challenging the Article 2 values (human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law, and respect for human rights) that the EU exports.

A. Institutional and Legal Tools for Internal Defense

The EU's primary strategy for reconciling the internal-external tension is to strengthen its internal institutional mechanisms, attempting to safeguard the foundations of its external credibility:

• The Rule of Law Mechanism (Article 7 TEU): This is the EU's most severe sanctioning procedure for breaches of fundamental values by a member state. While it exists, its effectiveness is often limited by the requirement for unanimity (excluding the accused state), which is difficult to achieve as nationalist governments often protect each other.

• Rule of Law Conditionality: A more recently adopted and powerful tool is the mechanism that allows the EU to withhold funding from the EU budget (e.g., cohesion funds, NextGenerationEU) from member states found to be in breach of rule of law principles that affect the sound management of EU funds. This mechanism creates a direct, financial incentive for compliance.

• Infringement Procedures and the CJEU: The European Commission consistently uses its role as the "guardian of the Treaties" to launch infringement proceedings against member states that violate EU law, especially regarding judicial independence, media freedom, and anti-discrimination policies. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) then rules on these cases, often compelling member states to reverse illiberal reforms.

• The European Democracy Action Plan (EDAP): This internal action plan focuses on strengthening democratic resilience within the EU by protecting the electoral sphere, fighting disinformation, and strengthening media freedom. The adoption of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) and measures against abusive litigation (SLAPPs) are direct responses to the nationalist trend of silencing critical media and civil society at home.

B. Reasserting the Normative Narrative

EU leaders also engage in a rhetorical battle to reassert the positive, unifying narrative of European integration against the divisive rhetoric of nationalism:

• The Need for Resilience: The narrative shifts from simply promoting democracy to building democratic resilience. This concept highlights the need for strong, inclusive, and pluralistic societies with a robust civil sphere, independent media, and judicial independence to withstand both domestic populist pressures and foreign interference.

• Promoting Citizen Engagement: Initiatives like Citizens' Assemblies and targeted programs for youth and civic education are used to foster a bottom-up sense of European values, aiming to bridge the perceived disconnect between EU decision-making and ordinary citizens that nationalists exploit.

• Economic Security: By using the NextGenerationEU recovery fund, the EU demonstrates that supranational solidarity is necessary for economic security in times of crisis, an argument that partially counters the nationalist focus on pure self-interest.

III. The Credibility Gap: The Unresolved Tension

Despite the robust instruments and strategic efforts, the most significant challenge to reconciliation remains the credibility gap created by the internal crisis.

A. Undermining External Authority

When the EU criticizes a non-member state for restricting judicial independence or media freedom, its message is weakened if member states like Hungary or Poland face similar accusations. This allows authoritarian leaders abroad to deflect criticism by accusing the EU of hypocrisy or a double standard. This is a central theme in scholarly debate: the perception of the EU's internal crisis is expected to undermine its external credibility to inspire and demand democratic change.

B. Institutional Paralysis

The rise of nationalist governments directly impacts the functioning of the EU's foreign policy. Since most Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) decisions require unanimity, member states with nationalist or illiberal tendencies can veto or dilute strong EU actions (such as sanctions or firm diplomatic statements) against non-democratic regimes abroad, often due to shared ideological affinity or pragmatic business interests. This internal divergence can lead to an EU foreign policy that is less decisive and coherent than its stated values would suggest.

In conclusion, the reconciliation is an ongoing, two-front battle. EU leaders attempt to promote human rights abroad by relying on the formal structure and legal weight of external policy frameworks, which are less directly exposed to domestic populist influence. Simultaneously, they employ a complex array of institutional safeguards, financial leverage, and legal procedures to address the illiberal surge at home. While the external machinery continues to operate, the enduring presence of illiberal regimes within the bloc consistently threatens to erode the moral legitimacy and effectiveness of its democracy-promotion efforts on the global stage.

The video below discusses the challenges the EU is dealing with in its work outside Europe due to the current threats to democracy, a core issue in the internal-external policy dilemma. The state of democracy in the world and EU's strategy to support it