A new report published by the think tank MCC Brussels reopens a debate that has been present in European politics for years: to what extent the Union’s institutions can influence national electoral processes without exercising formal control over them.
The study, titled The Managed Ballot, argues that over the past decade an “architecture of pressure” has been built that is capable of shaping the political environment in which elections take place within member states.
The authors recall that the European treaties place national elections within the exclusive competence of the states, protected by the principle of conferral and by respect for national constitutional identity.
However, they argue that, in parallel, the Union has developed a network of regulatory, financial and communicative instruments that can influence political outcomes without intervening directly in the vote.
“The central thesis is not that the EU administers elections, but that there is a growing constellation of supranational mechanisms capable of conditioning electoral conditions,” the report states, mentioning legal pressure, financial conditionality, digital regulation, and coordinated reputation campaigns.
A “playbook of influence” without direct control
One of the key concepts of the study is the idea of a “playbook of electoral influence”—a form of action based not on fraud or direct intervention but on the accumulation of political, regulatory, and media decisions that end up altering the playing field.
According to the document, this influence operates through several simultaneous layers: rule-of-law procedures, the freezing or release of European funds, European Parliament resolutions, regulation of digital platforms or selective funding of NGOs.
The interaction of these elements can generate, in the words of the report, “a political context in which certain outcomes are implicitly favoured while others become structurally disadvantaged.”
The study devotes a detailed section to the case of Poland, analysing how European funding and international foundations contributed to shaping the political ecosystem there ahead of the 2023 elections.
A significant part of the resources was directed to organisations focused on agendas linked to gender equality, migration, or LGBT rights, while conservative associations or groups linked to the traditional family received only a minimal share.
The authors argue that this distribution is not neutral, since “access to funds, platforms and recognition is increasingly conditioned on adherence to a politicised interpretation of European values.”
The report also notes that networks of NGOs financed by European programmes requested international election observation missions before the vote, a measure normally reserved for countries facing serious institutional crises.
Institutional pressure and digital regulation
Another element analysed is the growing use of European regulatory instruments during election campaigns, especially after the entry into force of the Digital Services Act.
The report argues that verification systems, rapid-response mechanisms, and networks of ‘trusted flaggers’ can influence the reach of political messages in real time, making digital regulation a relevant factor during elections.
This is combined with the political weight of the European Parliament and the Commission, which, although they have no direct competence over national elections, can generate pressure through resolutions, reports, or sanction procedures.
“The start of a procedure or even the threat of sanctions already sends a political signal that affects markets, media and voters,” the study says.
The report concludes that the problem is not cooperation between states and the Union, but the lack of a clear boundary between legitimate oversight and political influence.
“The democratic premise is simple: elections must remain sovereign not only in form, but also in substance,” the text states, warning that the combination of legal, financial and reputational instruments can reduce the real margin of decision of voters.
