This interview with Nicholas Aiossa, Director of Transparency International EU, offers a critical perspective on the state of democracy and the rule of law within the European Union and globally. Aiossa reflects on his journey from civil rights advocacy to his current role, highlighting his observations of ethical shortcomings within EU institutions and the increasing threats to democratic norms, both internal and external. He argues that the most significant danger lies in the inaction of EU institutions to effectively utilise existing mechanisms to address these threats, often due to a lack of political will and deference to Member States. The discussion delves into the EU’s complex relationship with safeguarding democracy, suggesting that while it possesses the potential to be a solution, its inaction often renders it part of the problem. Aiossa examines the effectiveness of the EU’s rule of law enforcement tools, finding them underutilised despite their development. He also critiques the transparency and accountability deficits within EU institutions, particularly the Council and trialogue negotiations, which hinder citizen engagement and fuel distrust. While acknowledging some progress, notably the impact of the conditionality regulation on Hungary, Aiossa emphasises the persistent need for greater political will, transparency, and consistent application of available tools to effectively counter the erosion of democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

‘Inaction Is Perhaps the Biggest Threat to Democracy’. Interview with Nicholas Aiossa

  • Ioanna Christodoulaki

摘要

This interview with Nicholas Aiossa, Director of Transparency International EU, offers a critical perspective on the state of democracy and the rule of law within the European Union and globally. Aiossa reflects on his journey from civil rights advocacy to his current role, highlighting his observations of ethical shortcomings within EU institutions and the increasing threats to democratic norms, both internal and external. He argues that the most significant danger lies in the inaction of EU institutions to effectively utilise existing mechanisms to address these threats, often due to a lack of political will and deference to Member States. The discussion delves into the EU’s complex relationship with safeguarding democracy, suggesting that while it possesses the potential to be a solution, its inaction often renders it part of the problem. Aiossa examines the effectiveness of the EU’s rule of law enforcement tools, finding them underutilised despite their development. He also critiques the transparency and accountability deficits within EU institutions, particularly the Council and trialogue negotiations, which hinder citizen engagement and fuel distrust. While acknowledging some progress, notably the impact of the conditionality regulation on Hungary, Aiossa emphasises the persistent need for greater political will, transparency, and consistent application of available tools to effectively counter the erosion of democracy and the rule of law in Europe.