Lithuanian MEP Dainius Zalimas: 'Democracy must have its teeth'

As Europe faces rising populism, democratic fatigue, and geopolitical tension, the idea of liberal democracy is being tested both from within and beyond the European Union. Lithuanian MEP Dainius Zalimas, Lithuania’s former Constitutional Court chairman and now Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM), sees this moment as pivotal for the continent’s democratic resilience. Representing the EP’s Renew Europe Group, Zalimas argues that democracy must be both principled and capable of defending itself in times like these. “Measures that may not appear liberal are sometimes necessary to counter disinformation, broader forms of aggression, and other hybrid threats,” Zalimas told The Baltic Times Magazine.

Recently, in the European Parliament, I noticed that in conversations and debates among MEPs – and even in EU documents – the key words “liberal democracy” are mentioned less frequently. Do you observe the same trend? What do you make of it?

An interesting observation. Perhaps some associate liberal democracy only with liberalism as an ideology, although I believe that, by the term, many refer to a quality democracy – a democracy where each individual and his or her dignity are respected, and where the majority in power respects the rights of minorities. So, democracy is not just about the mathematical majority when voting and adopting decisions – it is about the ability to balance the legitimate interests of minorities while adhering to the key principles of what democracy is all about: respect, plurality, and human rights.
Yet, speaking figuratively, democracy – including liberal democracy – must have its teeth. Measures that may not appear liberal are sometimes necessary to counter disinformation, broader forms of aggression, and other hybrid threats. Such realities have led some to describe this form of governance as a “militant” or “defensive” democracy – one that allows a democratic state to protect itself from forces seeking to undermine or abolish it, even when those forces initially operate within democratic rules.
Finally, liberals are apparently becoming nemeses not only of foreign enemies but also of some radical domestic political organizations.

In the European Parliament, you represent the Renew Europe Group. How does this political group fundamentally differ from other political groups in the European Parliament? Which of its political principles would you particularly emphasize?

Our core distinction is liberalism and, therefore, our policies are liberal. Along with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) (EPP) and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D), we have played a significant role in forming the new European Commission (the governing body of the European Union – TBT). 

What singles us out is our adherence to the supremacy of law, democratic values, and human rights, although my colleagues from the Renew Europe Group would undoubtedly state that it is our Group that is their staunchest defender.
In comparison with the Conservatives (the European People's Party (Christian Democrats), it is evident that our principled stance in defending individual human rights – such as gender equality, women’s rights, and those of the LGBTQ community – is unwavering and consistently applied, while the Conservatives tend to exercise more caution, emphasizing freedom of religion and belief, as well as other historically embedded conservative values.
Besides, considering other differences between us, the liberals stand out as the staunchest opponents of Russism – the Russian worldview that is now being promoted as the defender of “true values.” In supporting Ukraine and Ukrainians, we possibly outdo the Conservatives, underscoring that the aggression spills out beyond – in the form of Russism – against the entire Western world.
Let’s not forget that, for Russia, the next enemy after Ukraine is the LGBTQ community, which is deemed an extremist organization by the Russian authorities, and women speaking of their rights. Paradoxically, the Russism narrative resonates with some of the radical Lithuanian Conservatives who, positioning themselves as tireless defenders of traditional values, in fact, embrace Russian propaganda.
Russia clearly seeks not only to destroy Ukraine but also the entire Western world and the values it has long been known and respected for.
If compared with the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D), our Group is not as collectively minded as the Socialists – we emphasize and prioritize the rights of the individual. Yet, when it comes to economic activities and their regulation, we firmly stand for deregulation or simplification and for reducing the administrative burden on businesses. For us, that, I’d say, is more important and of greater value than for them.

As the European Union will likely expand – possibly up to 34 member states if all six aspiring countries are admitted to the bloc – do you believe that will strengthen it economically and geopolitically? Unfortunately, we must admit that the claims of the Union’s waning economic and geopolitical influence are substantiated. Where are you and your Group on this?

Unequivocally, our Group and I stand for a strong Europe abiding by the rule of law and human rights – one that is an equivalent economic and geopolitical partner for the United States of America, whose course has become less predictable. So, accepting new members is not only a challenge but also an opportunity.
I am hoping that Ukraine and Sakartvelo, which veered off the European road recently, and, looking into a more distant future, Armenia, which has recently reached a peace accord with Azerbaijan, will someday join the European Union as well.
However, much needs to be done in preparing for that – both on our side and on the part of the candidates.
As a Group, we are for Europe being economically competitive and autonomous in supplying resources for European industries, as well as being able to withstand the influence of China and other countries that do not abide by democratic principles. To increase our competitiveness, we need to simplify our regulatory and administrative policies, which are excessive in the European Union, so that business can be done here faster, more efficiently, and yet transparently.

In the summer, the Renew Europe Group published a document titled “Reforming the European Union to Unite Europe,” and earlier, a manifesto called “Priorities for 2024–2029.” You speak about inevitable institutional changes. What reforms are you proposing? Have these ideas gained support in the European Parliament?

Returning to your previous question on EU expansion – to have an expanded Union that is more manageable and efficient, capable of facing external pressures and internal stresses – we are inclined to reform its institutions.
Reforming decision-making procedures (more majority voting vs. unanimity) and changing the composition or powers of key EU institutions (e.g., the Commission, Council, Parliament) are all on the table.
In our vision, the principle of unanimity in voting should remain only in cases of admitting new member states, adopting key defence policies, or, for example, launching military operations under the EU flag.
To ensure that the EU remains efficient and strong – both economically and geopolitically – we must remove internal hurdles, especially in the legislative and regulatory fields.
Among other proposals, we seek to enhance the representation of European citizens in the European Parliament, giving it greater legislative powers and, importantly, granting it the right of legislative initiative. Currently, it is the European Commission that acts as the initiator – sometimes individual member states do that – but we aim to reverse that.
Another issue we are concerned about is EU member states’ adherence to the core principles and values of the Union and the fulfilment of their obligations.
I reckon that member states, like Hungary, for example, must be held more accountable for decisions that run against the bloc’s principles and policies – to an extent where those member states are sanctioned, suspended from voting rights, or withheld from EU funding.
We have a special term for that – conditionality – which refers to the principle that access to EU funds depends on respecting certain conditions, particularly the rule of law, democratic standards, and sound financial management.
The EU operates as a union of shared principles and values, and there should be no room for those who attempt to destroy that from within.

With the jaundiced eye toward the topics of climate change and the green course on both sides of the Atlantic, the Renew Europe is encouraging the continued development of the European Green Deal, which envisions making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 and reducing emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030, even though the EU has signalled that it might be reviewed. Which amendments of the course would your Group consider debating, and which not?

Undoubtedly, our Group was and remains a supporter of the European green course. My observation is that its opponents are usually backers of fossil fuels, which increases the European Union’s dependency on fossil fuel exporters, including Russia. What makes the green course extremely important is our strategic energy autonomy – the realization of the green course is a credible way to achieve it. Besides, the technologies related to its implementation are the technologies of the future, based on breakthrough innovations – and the winner in this race of innovation will prosper and lead globally.

You are Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM). Do women have reason to believe that their rights are facing a setback in an increasingly radicalized world?

I look at the Committee’s agenda through the lens of the fight against Russism, which accentuates conservatism – in its negative sense, I’d say – where women are treated as inferior beings and stereotyped throughout. Women’s rights, as part of gender equality, have become the target of Russia-led disinformation campaigns and attacks. The best example of that is the Istanbul Convention. Our Committee aims to combat obsolete stereotypes and spousal violence against women, highlight issues of women’s reproductive rights – especially embedding the right to artificial insemination, which in Lithuania is denied to single women – menstrual leave, and other related matters. On top of that, we continue to see wage gaps between men and women, as well as persistent stereotypes regarding parental obligations and the fair sharing of responsibilities in raising children. Only by empowering women can we achieve gender equality.
Unfortunately, Lithuania remains the only Baltic state not to have ratified the Istanbul Convention as we speak (the interview took place on October 15, 2025; on November 5, Latvia's parliament, the Saeima, decided to postpone the final decision on whether to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention until late next year, leaving it to the next Saeima – TBT).

It is also the only Baltic state that, unlike Estonia or Latvia, does not have same-sex partnership legislation – gay couples have just recently achieved a breakthrough in Lithuania, when the Constitutional Court granted them such a right. As a former member of the Court, I am happy that the LGBT community received this right judicially, but I wish Lithuania would not lag other European nations on the front of human rights.