While no one possesses a universally accepted anatomy of what constitutes a successful political party, sound philosophical foundations and a coherent worldview appear indispensable. In democratic environments characteristic of European states, the various parties competing for votes hold equal political standing and enjoy the same legal protections by design. Their ideological postures and distinctive visions, however, may paint a picture far more eclectic than expected—a political carousel of shared philosophical tenets and seemingly unbridgeable divisions of thought.
An excellent embodiment of this diverse political landscape is the European Parliament: a platform beyond the nation-state, currently consisting of a small number of non-attached members and eight party groups organized along the lines of political affiliation rather than nationality. Within these blocks, accommodating a total of 720 MEPs in uneven numbers, differences of conviction are inherent and often place a supposedly unified supranational voice in tension with individual opinion, the latter usually driven by national political priorities. Yet once placed upon the European stage, these groups often succeed in rallying members behind a distinct agenda reflecting their shared guiding principles.
A particularly fascinating example of such an overarching principle is that of the Greens. Although the fundamental importance of protecting and preserving our natural environment cannot be overstated, the average European voter may understandably wonder whether there is sufficient philosophical depth or historical tradition behind this crucial yet comparatively narrow ecological identity. This disproportionate fixation on one aspect among a broader spectrum of similarly important concerns becomes especially striking when measured against the centuries-old lineages of Christian democracy, socialism, patriotism, or reformist traditions. An ideological architecture intended to capture and shape both societal dynamics and the individual human experience simply cannot be built on ecological concerns alone.
‘What must be avoided at all costs is a situation in which the Greens…claim this fundamental issue as their own only to achieve limited progress’
The momentum the Greens enjoyed for several decades, however, raises the uncomfortable question of whether the more established groups truly made the effort to treat environmental challenges with the dedication they demand. The answer seems to be no—and this must change. What must be avoided at all costs is a situation in which the Greens—holding insufficient power to initiate measurable change—claim this fundamental issue as their own only to achieve limited progress, while the larger political monoliths of the European Parliament—fully capable of delivering real results—watch from afar. Some do so out of confidence bordering on hubris; others out of fear that prioritizing an issue associated with an ‘outlier’ group could lead to ostracism within their own circles. Both represent unjustifiable attitudes Europe can no longer afford—and neither can our troubled planet.
Despite such concerns, the 2019 European Parliament elections marked the most significant success in the history of Green politics: the Greens/European Free Alliance secured 9.92 per cent of the seats—70 in total—a result previously unheard of among parties outside the mainstream. Assumptions as to what exactly caused this surge vary, yet it seems likely that the rapid rise of social media and the ideological stances adopted by younger generations played a decisive role in delivering this unexpected outcome. For this reason, many were perplexed when the group performed rather poorly in the 2024 elections, securing a mere 7.36 per cent of the seats—53 mandates in total—a result all the more telling given that the number of seats contested had risen to 720 from 705 in 2019. Certainly, factors such as inflation, rising energy prices, and a war persistently raging on European soil may all have contributed to the erosion of voter trust with regard to the Greens. It seems, however, difficult to avoid the conclusion that the party’s absolutist rhetoric and lack of sober judgment may ultimately bear primary responsibility for this disappointing outcome.
Beyond this provisional conclusion, a range of competing interpretations quickly emerged to account for the sharp fall in numbers. A likely and often cited cause was the Greens’ inherently one-dimensional message, rendering the group exceptionally vulnerable to an ever-shifting zeitgeist. This hypothesis aligns well with the notion that the second half of the 2010s will be remembered as a period characterized by rebellious, often unnecessarily combative social attitudes reminiscent of the late 1960s. Unsurprisingly, this Greta Thunberg-esque milieu soon created circumstances well suited to advancing the Greens’ ambitions for power.
In Central and Eastern Europe, this tension between ideology and pragmatism seems far less abstract: lower average incomes, distinct geopolitical dilemmas, and an energy dependency dictated by historical and geographical realities directly shape the lens through which such issues are perceived. The dividing lines are less clearly drawn across other regions of the continent, which makes it particularly striking that even in historically climate-conscious Western Europe—Germany and France included—support for the Greens declined so sharply.
‘In Central and Eastern Europe, this tension between ideology and pragmatism seems far less abstract’
Another potential reason to consider is a highly divisive attitude among many prominent figures associated with green politics, rooted in absolutist sentiment and inherently alienating large numbers of voters who otherwise care about nature and climate. These voters, while worried about the future of the planet we share, are unwilling to accept the left-progressive rhetoric often linked to such issues. For households burdened by rising energy bills, for industrial workers fearing de-industrialization, or for rural communities dependent on affordable fuel and fertilizer, climate politics presented in moralizing and ambiguous terms may feel painfully detached from reality.
This ‘package-deal’ nature of Green politics—often requiring adherence to hardline leftist convictions disguised as genuine environmentalism—is especially problematic during times when Europe faces economic and geopolitical challenges far more concerning than usual. This infantile, neurotic fixation on force-feeding dogmatic half-truths to Europe’s populace has led to the birth of today’s Greenquisition—a phenomenon of shaming and bullying groups and individuals into quiet compliance.
Swiftly replacing education, agitation now serves as the philosophical cornerstone of this militant moralism. Resentful and destructive on a theoretical level, this approach adopted by Europe’s vigilant Greenquisitors amounts to political suicide on the level of pragmatism: while absolutism may resonate with activist circles, it clearly fails to deliver the electoral success the Greens seek. As the latest voting results from the European Parliament demonstrate, neither the climate nor the quest for electoral victory is well served by sacrificing balanced judgment and political realism on the altar of activism and virtue signalling.
It is time we reflect on certain questions often thought but rarely said aloud: Can a political movement that defines itself primarily as a Green party truly offer a compelling alternative for the majority of society? And is such a movement capable of producing comprehensive, credible, and pragmatic policy responses to the full range of challenges confronting Europe today—ranging from the still-raging war between Russia and Ukraine, through persistent inflation and disrupted supply chains, to Europe’s deepening demographic and identity crises; from recurring upheavals in the Middle East to the task of strengthening industrial competitiveness and managing the complex process of legal harmonization required for countries seeking integration into the European Union—and beyond?
‘Can a political movement that defines itself primarily as a Green party truly offer a compelling alternative for the majority of society?’
Undeniably important climate-policy issues thus all too often become mere instruments of ideology, thereby reducing what should be a trans-European effort to protect our shared environment to little more than a blunt political weapon. While this almost impulsive, immediate-action rhetoric that dominates contemporary political communication is by no means unique to Green parties, in their case it appears with notable frequency in the form of an angrily demanding tone. Accompanying this tone is the ideological appropriation and manipulative use of an issue that concerns all of us equally. Dedication to environmental protection is not the moral monopoly of any single ideological camp: it is an inherent civilizational responsibility we share regardless of partisan identity.
As a consequence, the average, level-headed, and presumably well-intentioned European citizen is likely to begin associating not only the political movement in question, but also environmental protection itself, with negative emotions. Opportunity, after all, cannot be separated from responsibility: a political community that openly places the climate question at the centre of its identity bears a moral obligation to treat this privileged position with integrity. From this perspective, ideological inclusivity becomes imperative. Practically speaking, the topic must not be reduced to a signature progressive cause; it is also an intergenerational duty, a matter of rural livelihood protection, and a deep commitment to defend life as we know it. Accordingly, the exclusion of secular citizens of non-leftist conviction, as well as those guided by Christian or other religious worldviews and by a sense of inherent responsibility toward our created world, is not only irresponsible but counterproductive.
The necessity of this shift is perhaps best illustrated by the simple fact that, unlike politicians issuing directives from moral ivory towers, climate change does not concern itself with political affiliation, does not speculate about parliamentary seats, and certainly does not disguise agitation as education. Sooner or later, its effects will reach everyone—whether in the form of floods, wildfires, desertification, the collapse of entire supply chains, or any number of other natural and economic consequences. The stakes, therefore, are enormous. Yet instead of panic and its deliberate cultivation, the time has come for steadfast and professionally grounded work toward a genuinely greener future—work that reflects a holistic perspective and is capable of constructively integrating differing worldviews.
Related articles:
