The EU’s Lack of Leadership
Who Runs Europe?
By | Ecaterina Moroz,
MARCH 17, 2025
Spring 2025
A strong hand. A firm grip. Vision. Action. Boldness. Charisma. These might be among the first associations that come to mind when hearing the word “leader”: attributes that define leadership in all its forms, political leadership included. However, the democratic world today aims at building strong institutions rather than vesting power in strong personalities. At the end of the day, institutions are the backbone of democracy, ensuring that the rule of law prevails and preventing any one individual from seizing excessive power.
In this context, is a discussion about individual political leadership still relevant today, or is it a reminiscence of the past? Has the idea of charismatic leadership become a tool used only by authoritarian regimes, resurfacing now and then only to stir the waters in the liberal world? Could it be that citizens in the free world are no longer content with the democratic structures their countries are built upon, but rather aspiring to see someone similar to Putin, Erdoğan, or Xi Jinping in leading roles? It seems that even within the most well-established and institutionally robust democracies, leadership continues to matter, shaping the political discourse and policy direction, therefore managing (or not) to gain public trust.
However, what type of leadership and leaders do we refer to when discussing an organization fundamentally built on the values of democracy and institutional cooperation, as is the case with the European Union? In a system designed to dilute power across institutions and install power-limiting mechanisms so as to avoid authoritarian backsliding, leadership should not be about resounding names or big personalities, but about properly functioning democratic structures. Yet, in an era where politics is often reduced to a show and where strongmen thrive on visibility (there is no such thing as bad publicity), does the EU look rudderless? Should we associate the EU with one single name, the way we easily associate the U.S. with the current president, Donald Trump?
READ MORE
As Henry Kissinger famously put it: “Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?” In the years following the question posed by the former U.S. Secretary of State, the EU went through a series of institutional reforms conditioned by enlargement. While managing to structurally adjust in order to welcome new members, the question of leadership became even more pertinent, as the Union struggles not only to project a coherent voice on the global stage, but also finds it more difficult to articulate a unified stance within its borders.
It might be that the answer (or the absence thereof) to Henry Kissinger’s question holds the clue to the unique character of leadership within the European Union: there is probably no single person to take the call simply because there is an entire structure designed to respond. The EU was never meant to be guided by one voice, but by a complex system that prioritizes cooperation over command and consensus over charisma. While certainly implying burdensome and slower decision-making (as compared to the straightforward stroke of an emperor’s pen), democracy comes with the assumed cost of complex processes, especially when political decisions affect the lives of people in 27 countries. Nonetheless, the unique complexity inherent in the European project should not excuse inaction or indecision; a balance must be struck between having the voices of all members heard and responding to the constantly emerging challenges swiftly enough.
Yet, this complicated framework maintains the need for direction—the Union of (currently) 27 cannot move forward without a vision of where it’s moving and what the means are to achieve its goals. Well-functioning institutions do not necessarily need strong leaders, but certainly require a leadership structure that is able to set a clear direction, have the necessary flexibility to address unexpected difficulties, and ensure that consensus does not paralyze the heavy bureaucratic machine. Without a coherent strategy, the EU risks becoming a reactive rather than a proactive force, constantly trying to find responses to crises as they come up, rather than having a say in shaping the global agenda. At this point, it is worth asking: does the EU truly have the leadership architecture to set and navigate the future, or is it still trying to define one?
The European Union does not elect a single head of state (as there is no state to begin with); rather, it appoints leaders to oversee the main European institutions based on the results of the European Parliament elections. The Commission, the Council, and the Parliament receive their respective heads of office (presidents) based on the vote expressed by European citizens. The 2024 European elections have brought a (somewhat) new leadership team to charge of the Union for the next five years.
Ursula von der Leyen, Roberta Metsola, Kaja Kallas, and António Costa have emerged as key figures in representing and shaping the bloc’s future. Experienced at the national level, the four key figures from across the EU pledged to defend Europe-wide interests. And while landing in these positions was conditioned by the vote cast by European citizens in the EU elections, it is not clear how recognizable these names really are beyond the Brussels bubble. This lack of recognition is symptomatic of a broader issue: the disconnect between EU institutions and the people they serve.
While Europeans generally know their national leaders, naming the key figures in the EU might be a more complicated task for an ordinary European citizen. This disconnect seems to be based on a certain level of mistrust in European politics and the European project as a whole, as shown by the rise of nationalist and Eurosceptic movements across the continent. The skepticism displayed by some Europeans may have legitimate reasons, as the EU is facing tumultuous times: economically, the Union is navigating a fragile recovery, the Green Deal faces pushback, and the threat of Russia has not vanished from the Eastern border.
This lack of recognition is symptomatic of a broader issue: the disconnect between EU institutions and the people they serve.
In this context, is the EU’s leadership structure fit for the Herculean tasks, or does its fragmented decision-making leave it struggling to respond when a clear answer is needed? A leadership crisis is not just the absence of strong personalities—it is rather a failure of direction, coordination, and the ability to secure public trust. In the context of the European Union, a leadership crisis manifests itself when institutions lack the ability to project authority and inspire confidence and stability. It is not about the lack of a single, charismatic figure, but rather about whether the EU’s decision-makers can both provide clear and effective governance and bring Union-level politics closer to the citizens.
And while the European Union was never designed to be led by a single figure, certain leaders in its history have played a key role in shaping its direction and serving as “faces” of the EU. Jacques Delors, the President of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995, possessed the vision to lay the groundwork for the modern EU, the Single Market, and the euro. Leaders like the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, though primarily a national figure, exerted perceivable and, most importantly, recognizable influence over EU affairs, contributing to steering Europe through crises such as the eurozone meltdown. These well-known names represent examples of how leaders can set direction but, most importantly, build trust internally and represent the EU externally.
Yet, over the years, the European Union’s leadership has arguably become less visible and more fragmented. This is not entirely accidental—as the EU expanded from its founding members to the current 27 nations, decision-making became increasingly complex, requiring a redefinition of power sharing. The more voices involved, the harder it became for any single figure to emerge as the face of European leadership. The 2009 Lisbon Treaty reshaped the EU’s governance, creating new positions such as the President of the European Council, aimed at limiting the prominence of the Commission President. While successfully distributing power more evenly, the EU also made its leadership less recognizable. The rise of populism and nationalist movements across Europe has weakened the authority of EU institutions even further, as some national leaders frame Brussels in dictatorial terms, antagonistic to the national interests of member states.
Instead of contributing to building a stronger EU leadership, some members have grown more reluctant even when it comes to competencies already given to the EU, leading to decision-making gridlock, as in the current case of enforcing sanctions against Russia and continuing to offer support to Ukraine. And while this political strategy brings short-term electoral gains at the national level precisely by exploiting the existing disconnect between the Union and EU citizens, it ultimately undermines the already weakened foundation of European cooperation, alienating Europeans further from the EU. While populist national leaders in some member states pledge to “regain” sovereignty at the expense of acting at the Union level, the EU continues to face problems that cannot be solved by individual action but instead require an EU-wide response.
Decisions on defense, the leveling up of strategic autonomy, migration, and financial reform often become trapped in prolonged negotiations. The lack of clear leadership has direct geopolitical consequences as well, eroding the global influence that the EU tried to build over the last decades. One of the very recent examples of this can be observed in the approach of the new U.S. administration towards the peace talks on Ukraine. The cabinet of Donald Trump has chosen to speak directly with Russia, sidelining Brussels completely and leaving the EU to warn against a “quick fix” and a “dirty deal” that cannot be implemented without the involvement of Ukraine and the EU, as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, put it.
Leadership in the EU has always been a balancing act between institutions and national governments. But when leadership is too diluted, the system risks stagnation. The challenge ahead is not just about finding strong personalities but also about creating a structure that allows for decisive action while maintaining the unparalleled complexity of the EU. The Union has strong institutions to act; what it might need could be a representative of the whole institutional structure—not a leader vested with extensive powers, but rather a powerful and coherent presence, especially on an international level.
The lack of clear leadership has direct geopolitical consequences as well, eroding the global influence that the EU tried to build over the last decades.
Beyond leadership development, structural reforms are necessary to eliminate systemic obstacles to decisive action, as the EU’s decision-making process is often slow and fragmented due to excessive reliance on unanimity. Transitioning to more qualified majority voting in areas of security and foreign policy would allow for swifter, more coordinated responses. The EU also needs stronger crisis-management mechanisms that empower leaders to act decisively when urgent situations arise, without getting lost in a bureaucratic labyrinth. However, this would involve a leveling up of the Union’s competencies, to which member states might be reluctant to consent.
The problem of the EU is not the lack of leaders, but rather a lack of leadership resulting in political fragmentation, waning global influence, and low public engagement. Without proper reforms, the EU risks becoming increasingly vulnerable to internal division and external sidelining. A European Union with a clear leadership structure, backed by functional institutions and genuine public trust, would not only be able to respond more effectively to crises but also reclaim its position as a decisive actor in world affairs. The challenge ahead is not just about strengthening institutions but also about revitalizing the European project in a way that forges trust, unity, and resilience. Leadership in the EU is not about strong figures; it is rather about strong institutions and people with a strong presence to represent them.