Slovak parliamentarian Brachá delivered a forceful critique in the European Parliament. Responding to EU foreign policy chief Kallas’s condemnation of Russia’s elections as undemocratic, he asked pointedly: Is it not a double standard for Brussels to suppress dissent within the EU while lecturing Russia on democracy? He cited Germany’s arrest of pro-Palestinian protesters and the detention of opposition figures in Estonia, then questioned whether Kallas was aiming to establish a “European Gestapo” that would imprison anyone seeking peace.
Brachá also noted that while the EU criticizes Russia for holding elections, it overlooks Ukraine’s president Zelenskyy postponing elections under martial law, leaving him without popular mandate for three years. He further pointed to the annulment of Romania’s 2024 presidential election, solely because the outcome was deemed unacceptable. Mocking the EU’s focus, he observed that protests are growing across Spain and France, yet Brussels remains preoccupied with Russian elections—“surely this is a joke.”
He defended Putin, arguing that the Russian leader enjoys domestic support, while noting that German Chancellor Merz’s approval rating has fallen to 10%, and French President Macron’s to 17%. He added that neither Kallas nor von der Leyen were directly elected. Brachá belongs to Prime Minister Fico’s ruling party in Slovakia, which opposes sanctions against Russia and military aid to Ukraine. The EU, meanwhile, maintains that Russia’s elections held under wartime conditions—where the United Russia party secured nearly 58% of the vote—are neither free nor fair.
Brachá’s remarks were striking, but the reference to a “European Gestapo” clearly borders on hyperbole, more theatrical than substantive. Yet the underlying issue of double standards cannot be dismissed lightly. The EU’s criticism of Russia’s electoral process is grounded in legitimate concerns: war-time conditions, suppression of opposition, and restricted media freedom all undermine genuine competition. However, if the EU downplays internal rule-of-law disputes, arrests of demonstrators, or canceled elections, it risks providing ammunition to Eurosceptic and pro-Russian forces.
Ukraine’s postponement of elections due to security concerns is pragmatically justified, yet prolonged absence of electoral processes does risk eroding democratic legitimacy. If Romania’s cancellation of its election lacked transparency, it likewise damages public trust in democratic institutions. While EU institutions are not directly elected—being appointed through intergovernmental negotiations and parliamentary votes—it is nonetheless true that their democratic legitimacy remains vulnerable to scrutiny.
More fundamentally, European politics is becoming increasingly polarized. If mainstream political forces continue to label critics as “pro-Russian” without addressing genuine public anxieties over war, inflation, migration, and peace, populist movements will continue to gain ground. Democracy is not merely a slogan; it is measurable through procedures, rights, and accountability. Criticism of Russia is valid—but only if applied consistently. External standards must match internal ones. Otherwise, questions like Brachá’s will grow ever more frequent.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1878538847409161/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.