Bridging the Gap: The Case for Political Engagement in Complex Environments and the Merits of Staged Integration 

By Fjona Merkaj, Project Officer at European Liberal Forum 

When EU officials travel to countries with politically sensitive contexts such as Serbia and Georgia, these are not mere ceremonial gestures. Rather, these official visits are essential for grasping the realities on the ground. Both countries present significant challenges: Serbia’s oscillation between the EU and Russia, and its military neutrality, continually test the sincerity of its European aspirations. Georgia, meanwhile, has drawn sharp criticism for recent legislative moves that diverge from core EU values, particularly regarding democratic openness and the influence of foreign actors. 

Despite diplomatic discomfort and the potential for missteps, direct engagement remains indispensable. Avoiding these regions only emboldens anti-European narratives, plays into the hands of Putin and other actors seeking influence in the region while eroding the standing of reformist forces on the ground. 

The Stakes of Engagement 

Serbia and Georgia exemplify the complications that can stall EU enlargement. Serbia’s geopolitical balancing act and Georgia’s legislative backsliding highlight the fragility of democratic reform. Yet, disengagement is not a viable option. It risks leaving these societies susceptible to misinformation and undermining public confidence in the European project at crucial moments, such as during elections, mass protests, or when controversial legislation is passed. These are the very instances when EU presence is mandatory and should strengthen the argument for phased and sustained integration alongside supporting democratic resilience. 

An adaptable framework for EU accession is necessary, one that acknowledges the fluctuating political will and reform capacity of candidate countries. 

Staged Integration: A Practical Alternative 

The concept of staged or phased integration, advocated by platforms such as the European Liberal Forum, offers a pragmatic solution. Unlike the traditional binary model, this approach envisions phased access to EU benefits, contingent on demonstrable reforms and sustained accountability. It neither dilutes the EU’s standards nor lowers its ambitions; rather, it recalibrates the process to align with political realities on both sides. While gradual integration refers to a general step by step accession, staged integration introduces more structured phases with clearly defined rights and responsibilities at each stage. 

This model provides clarity for both EU policymakers and candidate countries, enabling a stepwise progression that is easier to communicate to the public and more resilient in the face of setbacks. An advantage of staged integration that has received less attention is the model’s ability to align different stages of integration of candidate countries with EU electoral systems. Using staged integration can allow voters in EU Member States to respond to backsliding or progress in different candidate countries via electoral cycles.  

Empirical Insights: Theory Meets Practice 

Field visits and policy workshops in Serbia and Georgia, organised by ELF illustrate the utility of having a phased integration. Reform-oriented actors have responded positively to transparent and incremental framework, recognising the value of tangible progress even in the absence of the immediate promise of full membership. Nevertheless, there is an inherent risk: if the EU’s engagement appears inconsistent, it can quickly erode trust among both citizens and civil society leaders. 

Lessons from Kosovo 

Kosovo provides another valuable lesson in the EU’s engagement strategy in the Western Balkans. The country’s recent political developments underscore the importance of continuous EU engagement in the Western Balkans. Kurti’s victory signaled a public demand for genuine reform and accountability, demonstrating that local democratic movements can chart a national course even without explicit EU membership guarantees. This case serves as a reminder that sustained support for democratic resilience is vital, and that the EU must reward such progress with clear, achievable pathways forward. 

However, Kosovo’s path continues to be difficult because of its political recognition challenges within the EU, alongside the sensitive politics of its status. The EU needs to focus on strengthening democratic institutions and promoting political inclusivity. Kosovo’s situation seems to advocate for enticing, defined options for achievement which the EU could offer in the form of benefits that can be accessed through steps that strengthen democracy. 

Such a strategy would not only increase stability in Kosovo but also strengthen the perception of the European Union as a credible actor in the wider region, especially in supporting democratic change and fostering economic and political change. Economic integration cannot be fully accomplished as such but should ideally be accompanied by political stability and resilience. In the case of Serbia, for instance, President Vučić seems to entertain the idea of enjoying the economic benefits from ties with the EU while undermining democratic standards, thus stressing the importance of an urgency-driven, more coherent, and conditional approach from the EU. 

Conclusion: Embracing Complexity as Opportunity 

While countries like Serbia, Georgia, and Kosovo will continue to challenge the EU’s enlargement strategy, they also present significant opportunities for the Union to reaffirm its relevance and credibility. Tools such as staged integration, coupled with a willingness to engage constructively in difficult environments, can strengthen democratic transformation and regional stability. 

Rather than shy away from complexity, the EU should adopt frameworks that reflect it. Only by doing so can the Union foster an integrated, stable, and democratic neighborhood, aligned with its foundational values and strategic interests.