At a moment of acute institutional strain, Ursula von der Leyen “handsomely” escaped political censure, surviving a motion of no confidence in the European Parliament with 360 votes against, 175 in favour, and 18 abstentions — a verdict less indicative of leadership than of a bureaucratic order unwilling or unable to confront its own fragilities. Her absence from the Chamber, followed by a perfunctory online declaration invoking nebulous appeals to unity and values, encapsulates a leadership style more preoccupied with appearances than with substantive reckoning.
Strategic imagination
The EU now resembles a project in arrested development — extolling democratic principles while perpetuating a widening democratic deficit; aspiring to strategic autonomy while remaining entangled in economic dependencies and paralysed by internal divisions. This erosion is not merely conceptual but material. As JP Morgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon remarked in Dublin last Thursday, “Europe has gone from 90 percent US GDP to 65 percent over 10 or 15 years. That’s not good… You’re losing.” This exposes the bloc’s diminishing relevance not only in global markets but in the strategic imagination of its own allies. Von der Leyen’s political survival, far from a vindication, is emblematic of a Union incapable of self-correction — procedurally functional, yet intellectually exhausted and increasingly peripheral in a world that has moved beyond its normative pretensions.
von der Leyen’s defence in Parliament last week showed the Union’s current predicament. She said: “Europe is a Union of values. It is a Union of solidarity and democracy, and it must remain so. We are confronting immense challenges — from war at our doorstep to energy shocks, inflation, and global uncertainty. Now is the time for unity, not division.” Yet, her call for unity reverberates vacuously across a polity fracturing under the strain of its internal contradictions.
This no-confidence vote is only the third such motion ever launched against a European Commission President, and the first in over a decade, accentuating its extraordinary character. The last comparable case occurred in 2005, when the Barroso Commission narrowly averted censure amid controversies over appointments. These rare motions serve as diagnostic instruments of profound institutional unease, symptomatic of systemic crises transcending mere personalities.
The censure motion, spearheaded by Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and a cadre of far-right MEPs, crystallises this endemic malaise. Orbán’s declaration — “this is the moment of truth: on one side the imperial elite in Brussels, on the other patriots and common sense” — resonates deeply with a swelling constituency disillusioned by what they perceive as the Commission’s hegemonic overreach. The Commission’s punitive suspension of EU funds to Hungary exemplifies this dynamic — not merely a budgetary measure but a symbol of political coercion wielded under the guise of “rule of law.”
von der Leyen responded with a familiar rhetorical shield: “We will not be distracted or derailed by baseless conspiracy theories aimed at undermining public trust in our institutions.” This labelling of political dissent as “conspiracy” attempts to insulate the Commission from scrutiny, fostering an epistemic impasse that fractures trust and breeds cynicism throughout the Union.
Undermining transparency
von der Leyen’s tenure has faced allegations ranging from questionable pandemic dealings to interference in member states’ democratic processes. In May 2025, the Court of Justice ruled that the Commission unlawfully withheld text messages between her and Pfizer’s CEO during vaccine negotiations, undermining transparency. A criminal complaint filed in Belgium accusing her of corruption and usurpation of office remains pending.
The vaccine procurement saga, involving Pfizer—whose CEO is under investigation in the US for data manipulation—has fuelled widespread mistrust, compounded by withheld contract details and extensive pharmaceutical immunities. Opposition MEP Iratxe García Pérez condemned the Commission for sacrificing transparency to corporate interests, asking, “Who do you want to govern with? Those who seek to dismantle Europe, or those committed to building it?”
Such indictments expose the EU’s profound democratic deficit. The Commission’s outsized agenda-setting authority, coupled with circumscribed parliamentary scrutiny, renders it a quasi-executive body wielding power often detached from democratic sanction. Jürgen Habermas’s notion of the EU as a “post-national constellation” remains apposite; yet the current impasse exposes the perils when supranational technocracy outruns political legitimacy.
Economically, the Union teeters on a precarious edge. The post-pandemic recovery remains fragmented and fragile, buffeted by inflationary pressures, a disjointed energy strategy, and disrupted supply chains. von der Leyen’s insistence that “Europe must stand united and strong in the face of these challenges” clashes with the stark reality of divergent national priorities and widening economic disparities. The ongoing war in Ukraine has laid bare the EU’s strategic vulnerabilities, notably its dependence on external energy suppliers. The Commission’s responses — oscillating between sanctions, diversification initiatives, and emergency funding — have often appeared reactive and incoherent.
German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer astutely said that political communities perpetually navigate the tension between unity and particularity. He posited that genuine understanding emerges not from the dissolution of difference but through a “fusion of horizons,” where diverse perspectives engage while preserving their distinctiveness. The European Union’s persistent failure to harmonise these poles is evident in von der Leyen’s leadership, which oscillates between bureaucratic centralisation and defensive opacity.
Instead of bridging this divide, her Commission’s deployment of “rule of law” mechanisms against member states labelled as “illiberal” exacerbates centrifugal tendencies, fostering alienation among both citizens and Governments.
Critics said that von der Leyen’s European People’s Party has engaged in duplicity — covertly collaborating with hard-right factions to secure parliamentary majorities while publicly condemning them. García Pérez’s accusation that the EPP has been complicit in “destroying Europe” even as it claims to defend it exposes the fractured political landscape and undermines the moral coherence the Union claims to uphold. Leyen’s decision to absent herself from the Strasbourg vote, evading direct confrontation, symbolises a leadership style marked by detachment and institutional insulation.
This vote transcends procedural formality; it is a profound litmus test for the EU’s capacity to confront its entrenched contradictions or descend further into fragmentation and disenchantment. That hard-right factions — despite their own contentious views — spearhead the motion speaks volumes about the Union’s fractious condition. von der Leyen’s repeated insistence that “Europe’s strength lies in our values, democracy, and unity” increasingly resembles an invocation of a fragile ideal divorced from institutional realities.
The censure motion’s allegations – from “misuse of EU funds” to “interference in member states’ elections” and “undermining democratic processes” – if substantiated, may mark a nadir in the Union’s legitimacy.
Paradoxical existence?
Can the EU transcend its paradoxical existence? Can it reconcile supranational governance with the democratic agency of member states, or is it condemned to remain entrapped in Ursula’s Wonderland — a realm where performative unity, bureaucratic opacity, and political fragmentation prevail?The answer shapes not only von der Leyen’s fate but the trajectory of the Union itself.
Will the European project embrace genuine democratic renewal, or entrench technocratic authoritarianism that alienates its peoples and fractures irreparably? Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s critique — “Europe tends to see its problems as the world’s problems, but in reality, they are internal problems requiring internal solutions” — resonates sharply. Europe’s grand narrative falters less from external threats than from an inability to reform its internal political, economic, and institutional architecture.
