RevDem Podcast

Since the beginning of the year, the Trump administration has been trampling on different sectors of the U.S. state. Numerous commentators, both from the U.S. and abroad, have argued that the issue of a potential “constitutional crisis”—one that could pave the way for authoritarianism—essentially hinges on whether the government complies with court orders. In contrast, Professors Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn have argued that this focus is, at the very least, misplaced. So far, rather than protecting democracy, the courts have helped pave the way for the current situation. This raises important questions about the right pro-democratic strategy—not only in the U.S., but also in European countries such as Germany, where the far-right is on the rise and the judiciary is widely seen as the bulwark against authoritarianism. In this conversation, Samuel Moyn explains the dangers of placing too strong a focus on legality in the fight against authoritarianism. Drawing on the work of Judith Shklar on legalism, Moyn argues that lawyers often tend to believe that the law operates independently of politics, that its interpretation is straightforward, and that simply following the rules is sufficient to fulfill their duties. These beliefs carry the risk of discouraging critical reflection on whether the rules themselves are just, and they also pose the danger that, when progressives lose in the political arena, they may rely too heavily on the law in the hope that it will offer protection. This, however, is far from guaranteed, as the law is a domain where opponents of democracy and human rights also hold power. In the context of the United States, Moyn points out that debates about “reclaiming the judiciary” may overlook a deeper issue: that institutions like the Supreme Court have evolved into overly powerful policymakers, contributing to phenomena such as the rise of Donald Trump. He argues that disempowering the courts could not only return policymaking authority to elected officials but also help avoid placing excessive hope in an institution that is unlikely to meet such expectations. The second part of the discussion shifts to current events in Europe. Moyn raises doubts about whether militant democracy—particularly the party ban procedure—is an effective tool to counter the rise of right-wing politics in Germany. He suggests that militant democracy may only be viable when it is unnecessary, and unworkable when it is truly needed. After also addressing the possibility of Marine Le Pen being barred from running in France's next presidential election, the conversation concludes with a reflection on what a progressive political strategy against the far right might involve. Here, Moyn argues that attempting to imitate right-wing politics in order to win back voters is likely to fail, as people tend to prefer the original. Instead, he suggests that for progressive parties, the more effective path may be to move left.Samuel Moyn is the Kent Professor of Law and History at Yale University, where he also serves as head of Grace Hopper College.The conversation was conducted by Konstantin Kipp. Alina Young edited the audio file.

In this interview Review of Democracy political economy editor Kristóf Szombati speaks with Vincent Liegey— degrowth activist, essayist, lecturer and editorial advisor of the new Routledge Handbook of Degrowth — about the roots, trajectory, and challenges of the degrowth movement.Beginning with the rise of degrowth from activist origins in early 2000s France to a now-global intellectual and political project, the wide-ranging conversation engages withdegrowth as an intellectual project and as a social movement, focusing on its breakthrough into mainstream discussion and the hurdles to it building up its influence. Liegey, who is originally from France but has been living for a long time in Hungary, touches on the erosion of trust in mainstream politics, the psychological cost of economiclife, and the political ambivalence of youth. Despite an admittedly grim outlook for a politics of solidarity, he highlights the power and autonomy of networked grassroots communities and insists that “everything is already here”to build a livable post-growth future. To get there he calls for a three-pronged strategy based on survival, resistance, and readiness. 

In recent years, the EU's increasingly right-leaning discourse on migration has given rise to a new narrative: the instrumentalization of migration. EU member states strivefor lower human rights standards, arguing that Belarus, under the authoritarian rule of Alexander Lukashenko, deliberately sends individuals who have fled countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq to the EU's borders in order to overwhelm them, at times even accusing these individuals of collaborating with Belarusian authorities. Currently, three cases related to this situation are pending before the European Court of Human Rights. In this conversation, Prof. Nora Markard examines the origins of the narrative of the “instrumentalization of migration” and the legal challenges it presents—particularly with regard tothe principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion in the pending cases. She argues that these cases pose a serious threat to the rule of law, as EU member states increasingly disregard their obligations undermigration law and seek exceptions before the court. The discussion then shifts to broader challenges in human rights protection, including the misappropriation of rights and the question of whether a strong focus on the legality of state actions might actually undermine human rights. ]Prof. Markard notes that, while human rights are being questioned today in ways that might not have occurred a decade ago—and despite legitimate criticisms of the humanrights framework—it remains essential to make the most of it.

In the latest episode of our monthly special incooperation with the Journal of Democracy, Francis Fukuyama and Beatriz Magaloni discuss why democratic legitimacy increasingly hinges on governments' ability to deliver tangible results.Drawing on their co-authored article with Chris Dann, “Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter” (April2025, Vol. 26, No. 2), Fukuyama and Magaloni examine how unmet expectations around infrastructure, security, and economic opportunity are fueling distrust in democratic systems and possibly opening the door to authoritarianalternatives. The conversation explores the performance–legitimacy nexus, whether democracies can overcome their “vetocratic” hurdles without compromising their core values, and what reforms might help reverse the global democratic malaise.

In the new episode of our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy, Serhii Plokhii discusses the key aspects of Russia's war in Ukraine, the clash between democracy and autocracy.Serhii Plokhii, Mykhailo S. Hrushevs'kyi Professor of Ukrainian History and Director of the Ukrainian Research Institute at the Harvard University, analyzes the development of Russian and Ukrainian political cultures, considers democracy as a factor of international relations, and assesses the impact of the war.In the framework of this partnership, authors discuss outstanding articles from the latest print issue of the Journal of Democracy. The conversation is based on Serhii Plokhii's article “David vs. Goliath: Defeating Russian Autocracy” which has been published in the April 2025 (36/2) issue.

In this episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, Alexandra Medzibrodszky speaks with Patricia Owens,renowned professor of international relations at Oxford, about her bold and revelatory new book, Erased: A History of International Thought Without Man (Princeton University Press, 2025). Owens exposes the hidden foundations ofinternational relations in Britain, not as a field founded solely by elite white men, but one deeply shaped by the intellectual work of women—figures such as Margery Perham, Merze Tate, Eileen Power, and Susan Strange—whose ideas andinfluence have long been buried under layers of academic erasure.Owens shares the story behind her archival detective work, the personal and professional struggles of these women, and how their exclusion from the canon fundamentally weakened the intellectual foundations of IR. This is more than a story of forgotten contributions—it is a powerful call to confront the gendered and racialised roots of scholarly disciplines. Tune in for a compelling discussion that challenges the way wewrite and remember the history of ideas.

In this conversation with Professor Vamsi Vakulabharanam, we explore the relationship between democracy and economic inequality by examining the divergenttrajectories of China and India, as detailed in his recently published book, Class and Inequality in China andIndia, 1950-2010 (Oxford University Press, 2024). Through a comparative lens, Vamsi probes how political regimes—one authoritarian, the other democratic—shaped theeconomic responses to inequality in each country.While both nations began their postcolonial histories with ambitious visions of development, their political systems produced markedly different outcomes. In India, democraticgovernance allowed for broad participation but was also shaped by elite consensus.Post-independence reforms, though grounded in democratic ideals, often took a top-down form that prioritized the interests of rural capitalists and dominant castes. This constrained the potential for deep structural transformation,despite the formal mechanisms of political inclusion.China, on the other hand, undertook radical redistributive measures—land reforms, massliteracy campaigns, grassroots healthcare programs, and gender-focused initiatives—under an authoritarian regime that bypassed electoral accountability but implemented egalitarian policies more decisively. These interventions, Vamsi argues, laid a durable foundation for China's latereconomic growth and relative success in reducing inequality.Rather than viewing democracy as inherently egalitarian, Vamsi invites us to consider how democratic systems can reproduce hierarchies if they are not grounded in strongredistributive commitments. By situating economic shifts within their political contexts, Vamsi offers a nuanced view of democracy—not as an automatic guarantor of equality, but as a contested terrain where class interests and institutional design deeply influence economic outcomes. This conversation reframes the question: not simply whether democracy matters for development, but what kind of democracy can enable just and equitable economicfutures.

In this episode, investigative journalist and historian Isaac Stanley-Becker discusses his revealing new book, Europe Without Borders: A History (Princeton University Press). Drawing on newly accessible archives and in-depth interviews, Stanley-Becker sheds light on the little-known origins of the Schengen Agreement—long celebrated as a cornerstone of European integration and free movement. Yet, as this conversation uncovers, the story behind Schengen is far more complex. The book reveals how the agreement was forged through diplomatic secrecy, reinforced surveillance systems, and the tightening of external borders, often at the expense of migrants from former European colonies. The podcast explores how these contradictions were built into Schengen from the start, how postcolonial activist movements like the sans-papiers challenged its exclusionary logic, and whether the original vision of a borderless Europe can survive in the face of renewed nationalism, migration crises, and the erosion of trust in European unity. It's a conversation that opens up vital questions about the meaning of freedom, belonging, and mobility in today's Europe.

In the new episode of our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy, Dan Slater discusses the authoritarian origins of the third wave of democratization.Dan Slater – who is James Orin Murfin Professor of Political Science and the director of the Center for Emerging Democracies at the International Institute at the University of Michigan – explains what inspired him to critique Samuel Huntington's influential interpretation of the third waveof democratization; discusses the rise and fall of left-wing and right-wing authoritarian waves in the 1970s and 1980s; examines how the democratization of countries thatexited left-wing authoritarian regimes may have differed from those leaving behind right-wing ones; considers the extent to which geopolitics might explain politicalchange; and reflects on what might be new and distinct  about the current wave of right-wing authoritarianism– and how the authoritarian waves of the recent past might help us grasp it better.In the framework of this partnership, authors discuss outstanding articles from the latest print issue of the Journal of Democracy. The conversation is based on Dan Slater'sarticle “The Authoritarian Origins of the Third Wave” which has been published in the April 2025 (36/2) issue.

In this wide-ranging conversation on hydrology and climate change, Dr. Dipak Gyawali, former Minister of Water Resources for Nepal, offers a series of crucial insights into the often indifferent, selectively inadequate, and politically compromised responses to the climate crisis. Arguing for a more sophisticated, multipronged approach, Dr. Gyawali critiques dominant Western scientific paradigms for failing to recognize the climate crisis primarily as a crisis of water. He highlights how these frameworks not only marginalizewater-related concerns but also frequently dismiss indigenous hydrological knowledge systems as unscientific or primitive, thereby reinforcing global hierarchies of knowledge and power.Urging communities and policymakers alike to rethink the prevailing narratives that frame climate change, Dr. Gyawalisituates his critique in the context of Nepal—a landlocked country with an estimated 6,000 rivers and the world's second-largest reserve of fresh water. For Dr. Gyawali, Nepal serves as a powerful case study of how globalized,technocratic approaches often overlook the political and democratic dimensions of water governance. He argues that genuine sustainability cannot be achieved without broad-based equitability over governance. Drawing from his ownexperiences both as a field researcher and as a minister navigating the political complexities of water policy, he underscores how centralized, top-down management of water resources often exacerbates existing inequalitiesand undermines democratic decision-making processes. In this light, he calls for a radical rethinking of global “hydro-hegemony”—the political domination of water resources by powerful interests—and urges a shift toward more inclusive,community-driven models of hydrological governance. Dr. Gyawali challenges the international community to move beyond tokenistic gestures and to engagemeaningfully with the democratic potential embedded in local and indigenous approaches to water stewardship.

Since the seminal 2018 Portuguese Judges case, it has been established that violations of values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) can be litigated before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Currently, proceedings are ongoing in the European Commission's infringement action against Hungary, the argument being that its anti-LGBTQI+ laws breach provisions of the internal market, several Charter rights, and, importantly, the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The case, known as Valeurs de l'Union, has been hailed as the “largest human rights battle in EU history.”In this RevDem Rule of Law podcast episode, our co-managing editor, Dr. Oliver Garner, discusses the enforcement of the Union's values at the Member State level as well as at the Union's institutional level with Dr. Luke Dimitrios Spieker.Dr. Spieker is Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and Postdoctoral Researcher at Humboldt University in Berlin. In his monograph, EU Values before the Court of Justice, published by Oxford University Press, he analyzes the foundations, potential, and risks of the mobilization of Article 2 TEU.

In this episode of the Democracy After 2024 series, Zsuzsanna Végh and Daniel Hegedűs examine transatlantic cooperation between state and non-state actors in the United States and Hungary. They analyze commonalities in narratives and shared practices, assessing their impact on democracy in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond.Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this episode are solely those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the German Marshall Fund of the United States or any institutions or organizations with which they are affiliated. Zsuzsanna Végh is a program officer at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and an associate researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Her analytical focus is on the populist radical right in Central and Eastern Europe, its impact on foreign policy and democratic quality, and the foreign and EU policies of the Visegrád countries.Daniel Hegedüs is a German Marshall Fund of the United States regional director, Transatlantic Trusts Central Europe. His focus is on populism and democratic backsliding in Central and Eastern Europe, and the European and foreign affairs of the Visegrad countries.Lilit Hakobyan edited the audio file. Cover image: Polina Fedorenko

Debates about the politicization of constitutional courts are as old as the institution itself. The concept's originator, Hans Kelsen, emphasized the importance of preventingmembers of the government and parliament from sitting on constitutional courts, “because their acts are the acts to be controlled by the court.” While this idea is deeply entrenched—at least to the extent that simultaneous membershipin the executive or legislative and judicial branches is widely prohibited—the same does not hold true across other temporal dimensions. In his new book Ex-Ministersas Constitutional Judges, published by Oxford University Press, Prof. Mathias Möschel examines the effects—both negative and positive—of this practice, focusing on theconstitutional courts of France, Italy, Austria, and Germany.Ex-Ministers as Constitutional Judges takes a unique and unprecedented comparative approach in the debate about the politicization of constitutional courts, drawing oninterviews with more than 30 current or former constitutional judges. Möschel explains that his interest in the phenomenon — the appointment of politicians to constitutional courts — arose from observing this practice in the differentcountries covered in the book, all of which he knows through either his work or his personal background. The final decisionto write a book on this topic was prompted by the affair surrounding Wolfgang Brandstetter, a former Austrian Federal Minister of Justice who became a judgeof the Austrian Constitutional Court with virtually no gap after serving as a member of the Executive. Following ascandal in which sensitive chats between Brandstetter — by then a judge — and employees of the Ministry of Justice became public, he resigned from his position.The conversation then turns to the findings of Möschel's book — specifically, the risks and benefits of appointing former ministers as guardians of the constitution.Although all the courts analyzed are located in mainland Europe, their design and institutional culture differ substantially, which leads to varying outcomeswhen politicians are appointed. As for the potential benefits, Möschel explains that strong political personalities can lend courts both prestige and political stamina — qualities that have been historically important, as theconstitutional courts were not always the widely accepted institutions they are today. Other important benefits include a deeper understanding of political processes — often greater than that of career judges or legal scholars — aswell as, in some cases, specific expertise in relevant fields. However, as Möschel points out, these advantages also come with risks — the “flipside of the coin.” Former politicians on constitutional courts not only pose an inherent challenge to the separation of powers but may also find themselvesruling on legal matters in which they were previously involved, raising concerns about the respect for a principle as old as ancient Rome: nemo iudex in causa sua — no oneshould be a judge in their own case.The conversation then turns to the question of whether the risks or the benefits outweigh the other. While Möschel's Austrian interviewees clearly argued that the risks aretoo high to be considered acceptable, in Italy and Germany the prevailing view is that “only the quantity makes the poison” — meaning former ministers areacceptable as long as they are not too numerous. In contrast, in France, it almost seems natural for a judge of the ConseilConstitutionnel to have previously been part of the executive. Weighing the risks and benefits he has identified, Möschel concludes that the former outweigh the latter. However, this issue does not seem to play a significant role in the context of democratic backsliding — at least not inPoland under the PiS Government or in Hungary under Fidesz, where the appointees aimed at capturing constitutional courts had different profiles.

Populism is often framed as a challenge to democracy. Butwhat about anti-populism? Does opposing populism protect democratic institutions, or does it risk pushing politics toward elitism and exclusion, eroding social cohesion and deepening polarization? With the latest global developments, including Donald Trump's resurgence in the United States and the growing influence of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, these questions have never felt more urgent. In this episode of the Review of Democracy Podcast, our editor Ece Özbey sits down with Dr. Giorgos Venizelos to unpack the complexities of the populism vs. anti-populism debate and explore what this struggle means for the future of democracy worldwide.

Historical Archives of the EuropeanUnion - a Space of Knowledge ProductionAdrian Matus interviews Jacqueline Gordon (Communication Specialist at the Historical Archives of theEuropean Union, Florence) and Anastasia Remes (Archivist at the Historical Archives of the European Union, Florence).Archives are vital for knowledge formation. Historians and social scientists rely on these spaces to shape new narratives and question the past. Yet, archives often seem to be unveiled in a sort of mystery, which might be partly due to the access restrictions for the specialists and broader public alike. However, not all thearchives follow this restrictive approach. On the contrary, many institutions started to favour openness and transparency. Rather than limiting access forthe researchers and the larger public, they encourage interactions on different levels. Such institutions provide primary sources for specialized researchers, create workshops for university and high-school students and also engage the broaderpublic through exhibitions and online presence. In doing so, archives provide a fresh understanding of their own role in the 21st century.One example of such space favouring openness and transparency is the Historical Archives of the European Union (HAEU), based in Florence. In this episodeof Open Space(s), we speak with JacquelineGordon, Communication Specialist at the HAEU, and Anastasia Remes, Archivist at the same institution. Throughout this podcast, they share themultiple reasons that make this archive unique, highlighting its defining features and current challenges. Unlike national archives, the HAEU does not belong to any state. Instead, it is a transnational one that preserves documents created by various EU institutions,collects private papers of individuals, movements and international organizations that lead to the European integration, stores oral historyinterviews, and engages with the larger public throughout its educational projects. By reading the documents, one can have a unique insight into the personal experiences, negotiations, as well as informal decisions that shapedthe EU. The location of the archives also plays a crucial role, as Florence is not one of the EU's main political centers. Instead, the founders chose this place because of the proximity of the European University Institute (EUI), where scholars often focus on the history of European integration. Although its geographical location might pose particularlogistical challenges, many of the HAEU's archival materials can also be consulted online or through on-demand digitization programs, as Anastasia Remesmentioned in the podcast:“ (…) we are creating digital copies for preservation and foraccess. During the COVID-10 pandemic, this became very important, as people were not able to travel to Florence to consult the original documents.” In this way, the physical space of the archivenaturally extends into the digital realm by facilitating researchers' access to primary sources.

We are thrilled to bring you the next episode of our monthlyspecial in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy. In the framework of this new partnership, our editors discuss outstanding articles from the newest print issue of the journal with their authors. In this conversation with Nomi Lazar, Professor of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, and Jeremy Wallace, Professor of China Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, we engagewith their spirited defense of democracy in the face of calls for the deployment of emergency powers to come up with solutions to the worsening climate crisis. Nomi and Jeremy highlight the pitfalls of emergency legislation and spell out the key resources that in their view democracies andonly democracies bring to the table in the combat to prevent climate breakdown.The conversation also touches on China's impressive climate record, the shortcomings of liberal democratic government, the need for more egalitarian forms of democracy, and some of the ways in which well-designed emergency legislation could still prove useful. The conversation is based on their joint article, “Resisting the Authoritarian Temptation,” published in the January 2025 (36/1) issue of the Journal of Democracy.

The European Council brings together all of the heads andstates of government of the European Union in order to drive policy.  In the last decade the EU has faced crises of the economy, membership, values, and migration. This conversation between our co-managing editor Oliver Garner and Dr .Martina Vass considers these issues through the lens of the latter's monograph "LeadershipStyles in the European Council: How Leaders Behave Behind Closed Doors" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024).

Is democracy sustainable without informed, virtuous, and engaged citizens? Can political institutions shape the kind of citizenry democracy needs? These questions lie at the heart of Democracy Tamed: French Liberalism and the Politics of Suffrage, the compelling new book by political theorist Gianna Englert, who joins us in this episode of RevDem.As contemporary anxieties grow over the future of liberal democracy and the rise of populism, Englert turns our attention to 19th-century France, where liberal thinkers grappled with similar dilemmas in the wake of the French Revolution.Englert reconstructs how a generation of French liberals—including Benjamin Constant, François Guizot, Alexis de Tocqueville, Édouard Laboulaye, and Ernest Duvergier de Hauranne—sought to chart a path toward democraticinclusion that did not compromise their liberal commitments to individual freedom, institutional stability, and rational governance. Central to their efforts was the idea of political capacity: the belief that suffrage should be tied to a citizen's ability to exercise it responsibly. Englert argues that political capacity emerged as a flexible and evolving standard—shaped by France's shifting social and economic realities—which enabled liberals to reconcile democratic expansion with their core political principles.In our conversation, Englert reflects on the transnationalinfluences that shaped this capacitarian discourse, the moral and educational ambitions of liberal reformers, and the ongoing relevance of their ideas in an age of democratic uncertainty. Tune in for a rich exploration of a forgottenliberal tradition that still speaks to the challenges confronting democracy today.

What happens when war leaves millions stranded, stateless, and unwanted? In this episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, host Imogen Bayley discusses with renowned historian Sheila Fitzpatrick her latest book, LostSouls: Soviet Displaced Persons and the Birth of the Cold War. Drawing from newly uncovered archival research, Fitzpatrick explores the lives of Soviet displaced persons—those who found themselves outside the USSR at the endof World War II and refused to return, despite intense Soviet pressure. Their fates became entangled in Cold War politics, as Western governments redefined them from war victims to symbols of anti-communist resistance. From forcedrepatriations and identity manipulation to the geopolitical power struggles that shaped global refugee policy, this discussion reveals how history's displaced individuals exercised agency in ways that continue to shape modernmigration debates. Listen to our podcast on exile, political propaganda, and the lasting impact of Cold War resettlement strategies. Sheila Fitzpatrick is the author of many books, including On Stalin's Team: The Years of Living Dangerously in Soviet Politics (Princeton), The Shortest History of the Soviet Union, and The Russian Revolution. She is professor of history at the Institute of Humanities and Social Science at the AustralianCatholic University and Distinguished Service Professor Emerita at the University of Chicago. Imogen Bayley: Imogen Bayley is a historian and migration studies scholar who earned her PhD in ComparativeHistory from Central European University and is currently, as a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. Her book, Postwar Migration Policy and the Displaced of the British Zone in Germany, 1945–1951.Fighting for a Future, was recently published by Palgrave Macmillan.

In this conversation with Paul McGarr, we discuss hislatest book, Spying in South Asia (Cambridge, 2024). From the influence of espionage on international relations to the role of conspiracy and rumor in shaping domestic politics, McGarr highlights the complexities of intelligence dynamics between the West and India. He reveals how during theCold War, democratic aspirations in the Global South were often dismissed by American and British intelligence and foreign policy establishments.Challenging the widely held belief that the Western powers championed democracy in the region, McGarr argues that Cold War geostrategic priorities frequently undermined democratic movements in South Asia. Yet, despite these external pressures, local actors and political institutions in India played a crucial role in shaping intelligence outcomes, resisting imposed narratives, and asserting their own democratic agency.  

In the latest episode of our Democracy After 2024 series, Karolina Wigura discusses Poland's currentrole in Europe and the changing polarization between liberal and illiberal forces; analyzes the role of emotions in contemporary liberal politics; reflects on how we distinguish between agendas of accountability, onthe one hand, and of retribution and revenge, on the other; and explains what she will watch particularly closely in the coming months.Karolina Wigura is a historian of ideas, sociologist, and journalist. She is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Liberal Modernity in Berlin and a member of the Board of the Kultura Liberalna Foundation in Warsaw. She is alecturer at the Institute of Sociology at Warsaw University and a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations. In her research, Karolina Wigura focuses on the political philosophy of the 20th century, on emotions in politics as well as on the sociology and ethics of memory and, more particularly, on questions of transitional justice, historical guilt, and reconciliation.

In the latest RevDem podcast our co-managing editor DrOliver Garner discusses processes for becoming an MP today in Europe with Dr. Emiljana Krali.Dr Krali is a generalist Equity Research Analyst who has experience in telecommunications, fintech, software,and hardware among other fields. She holds degrees from the University of Bari in physics and from the University of Surrey in nanotechnology. Her Ph.D. was obtained from Imperial College London. She is currently undertaking the selection process to become a candidate for the governing Socialist Party in Albania.

In this episode, we explore the newly published book Texts and Contexts from the History of Feminism and Women'sRights in East-Central Europe, Second Half of the Twentieth Century (CEU Press, 2024) edited by Zsófia Lóránd, Adela Hîncu, Jovana Mihajlović Trbovc, and Katarzyna Stańczak-Wiślicz. Our conversation with the editors delves intothe book's aim of highlighting the often-overlooked contributions of East Central European women to global feminist thought and activism. We discuss the selection processof a diverse range of texts and artworks that challenge the dominant politicaland intellectual canons, focusing on the importance of including works thatdon't necessarily self-identify as feminist but engage with themes of systemicoppression. The discussion also touches on how socialism and the post-socialisttransitions shaped feminist movements in the region, notable figures and textsfrom the volume, encountered controversies during the process of editing aswell as the books' reception, and finally, the book's potential to inspirefuture feminist research and activism in East-Central Europe.

In this episode of the Democracy After 2024 series, Dorjana Bojanovska Popovska hosts Marlies Glasius for adiscussion that goes beyond traditional regime-type classifications and the public/private divide, by looking at examples of illiberal and authoritarian practices that emerged or peaked in 2024 as well as their diffusion across different contexts.Dorjana Bojanovska Popovska is a Post-doctoral Fellow at the CEU Democracy Institute.Marlies Glasiu, is a Professor of International Relations at the University of Amsterdam, a Senior Core Fellow at the CEU Institute for Advanced Studies, and author of Authoritarian Practices in a Global Age (OUP 2023).

In this conversation with the Review of Democracy, Professor Leigh Payne, Dr. Julia Zulver, and Dr. Simon Escoffierdiscuss the development of right-against-rights movements that have grown in numbers, strength, and influence in recent years in Latin America. The discussion draws on their latest book, “The Right against Rights in Latin America,” published by Oxford University Press, in which they show that newanti-rights groups are intent on blocking, rolling back, and reversing social movements' legislative advances by obstructing justice and accountability processes and influencing politicians across the region. Their book containschapters that empirically explore the breadth, depth, and diversity of a new wave of anti-rights movements. It details why they are fundamentally different from previous movements in the region, and — perhaps more importantly — why it is of vital importance that we study, analyse, and understand them in a global context, as their impact extends far beyond Latin America.Leigh A. Payne is Professor of Sociology and Latin America at the University of Oxford, St Antony's College. She worksbroadly on responses to past atrocity. Together with Gabriel Pereira and Laura Bernal Bermúdez, she has published Transitional Justice and CorporateAccountability: Deploying Archimedes' Lever (Cambridge University Press, 2020) and a follow-up edited volume on Economic Actors and the Limits of Transitional Justice (Oxford University Press, 2022). Shehas also edited with Karina Ansolabehere and Barbara FreyDisappearances in the Post-Transition Era in Latin America (Oxford University Press, 2021) and with Juan Espindola Collaboration in Authoritarian and Armed Conflict Settings (Oxford University Press, 2022).Julia Zulver is a Wallenberg Academy Fellow at the Swedish Defence University, where she researches  feminist response to backlash in post-conflict settings in Latin America. She was previously a Marie Skłodowska-Curie research fellow between the Oxford School of Global and AreaStudies and the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. She earned her D.Phil. in sociology at the University of Oxford in 2018, where she studied how and why organisations of women mobilise in high-risk contexts – actions that exposethem to further danger. Her book High-Risk Feminism in Colombia: Women's Mobilization in Violent Contexts was published in 2022. Her co-edited volume, Brave Women: Fighting for Justice in the 21st Century was published this February.Simón Escoffier is an assistant professor at the School of Social Work at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. He is the author of the book Mobilising at the Urban Margins: Citizenship and Patronage Politics in Post-Dictatorial Chile (forthcoming, 2023). He holds a doctorate from the Sociology Department and St Antony's College at the University of Oxford. His research sits at the intersection of social movements, citizenship, urban marginality, local governance, democracy, and Latin American studies. He teaches on sociological theory, politics, and social movements.

We are thrilled to bring you the newest episodeof our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy. In the framework of this new partnership,authors discuss outstanding articles from the latest print issue of the Journal of Democracy.In this conversation, Richard Wike – director of global attitudes research at Pew Research Center – presents the key facts of the growing dissatisfaction with the way democracy works; discusses which parts of society support which kinds of change in the direction of more representativity; explores how people view the impact of social media on democracy; and reflects on how democracies of the future might look different from past versions and how they could empower citizens more. The conversation is based on Richard Wike's article “Why the World Is Down on Democracy” which has been published in the January 2025 (36/1)bissue of the Journal of Democracy.

In this discussion with Manan Ahmed, we consider thepolitical history of South Asia from the perspective of one of its most vibrant and famed cities, Lahore. Drawing from his latest book, The Disrupted City: Walking the Pathways of Memory and History in Lahore (The New Press, 2024), we consider the various episodic and modular histories of citiesin the Global South, their role in forming new kinds of tactile consciousness towards politics, and their presence in colonial and postcolonial political imagination. Enchanting yet tragic, monumental yet fragmented, Lahore—as depicted by Ahmed—embodies a dual legacy. It bears the scars of the 1947 partition of South Asia into India and Pakistan while also reflecting its own vibrant, if imperfect, history of religious and cultural cosmopolitanism—a legacy sacrificed to the nationalizing imperatives of what Ahmed calls “Prophetic Pakistan.”Ahmed's Lahore departs from the grand, romanticized, orientalist cities painted by Western writers. It is intimate and inhabited by ordinary emotions. Navigating the complexities of the city's past, Ahmed alerts us to the diversevisions of toil and labor, violence and subterfuge that shapes Lahore as a city of celebration and disappointments.

In this episode of the Review of Democracy Podcast, host Alexandra Medzibrodszky talks to Tejas Parasher, Assistant Professor of Political Theory at UCLA, to explore the rich and often overlooked landscape of radical democratic thought in modern India. Drawing from his award-winning book, Radical Democracy in Modern Indian Political Thought, Parasher discusses the ideas of thinkers and activists from the1910s to the 1970s who challenged the colonial legacies of liberal, representative democracy. These figures envisioned participatory, federalist models of governance that resisted elitism and corruption, offering bold alternatives to the political status quo.Join us as we reflect on the value of these "paths not taken" in anti-colonial politics and consider what lessons they might hold for today's democratic challenges. From familiar figures like Gandhi to lesser-known voices in Indian intellectual history, this conversation sheds light on a counter-tradition that critiques representative democracy and reimagines what “real” democratic participation can look like. Whether you're a student of political theory or simply curious about alternative democratic models, this episode promises fresh perspectives on both historical and contemporary governance.

In this episode of the Democracy After 2024 series, Denys Tereshchenko hosts Margarita Zavadskaya to discuss the asymmetries of power between the state and civil society in Russia, public attitudes toward the full-scale invasion of Ukraine among Russians inside and outside Russia, and the reasons behind the failure of anti-war protests.Margarita Zavadskaya is a senior research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) and researcher at the Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki. Sheis the editor, most recently, of The Politics of the Pandemic in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Blame Game and Governance (Routledge, 2024).Denys Tereshchenko is a doctoral researcher in History at the European University Institute, Florence. He previously studied Political Science, Public Policy, and Comparative History in Kyiv and Vienna. Together with Nadiia Koval, he co-edited Russian Cultural Diplomacy under Putin: Rossotrudnichestvo, the “Russkiy Mir” Foundation, andthe Gorchakov Fund in 2007–2022 (ibidem Press, 2023).

“The ability to shame depends foremost on the public sense of right and wrong. You can cite a human rights treaty but that is not going to be enough to persuade people. You got to be able to show them that the government's conduct is wrong in a waythat they feel viscerally.”In this conversation at the Review of Democracy,Kenneth Roth – who is about to publish Righting Wrongs. Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments – explains what has made the strategies of Human Rights Watch distinct in the world of humanrights-related advocacy and activism, and discusses cases where they managed to have a real impact; considers how the extension of the catalogue of human rights over time has shaped their interests and profile; reflects on HRW's relationship with different types of governments; and explains how HRW has related to the question of humanitarian intervention and drawn on international humanitarian law across the decades.Kenneth Roth acted as the executive director of Human Rights Watch between 1993 and 2022.Righting Wrongs. Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments is published by Knopf.

In the latest episode of our Democracy After 2024 series, Julia Ebner discusses major developments regarding the mainstreaming of extremist ideas; explains how social media platforms have contributed to radicalization processes and considers whether we might be experiencing a new turning point right now; and sketches effective counterstrategies – and reflects on what might be missingfrom our current toolbox.Julia Ebner is an award-winning author of three books who isknown for her expertise in online radicalization, conspiracy myths and threats to democracy. She is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in London and a Postdoctoral Researcher and Group Leader at theViolent Extremism Lab, both at the University of Oxford. Julia Ebner was also the recipient, among other recent awards, of the Open Society Prize of the CEU.Her most recent book isGoing Mainstream. How Extremists Are Taking Over(2023).

The medical aid programs established by socialist states nuance the Cold War dichotomy regarding the transfer of knowledge. The latest RevDem Democracy and Culture podcast with Bogdan Cristian Iacob explores the legacy of socialist regimes in the transnational circulation of expertknowledge during the Cold War, with a particular focus on medical aid.Bogdan Cristian Iacobis a researcher at the Nicolae Iorga Institute of History at the Romanian Academy and at the Institute for Habsburg and Balkan Studies at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. His work focused on the relationship between state socialist countries and the Global South, the transnational circulation of expert knowledge, and the legacy of state socialism's global entanglements in shaping the transformation of Eastern Europe. He is a co-author of the collective monographSocialism Goes Global.During its initial phase, the historiography of the socialist states labeled Eastern Europe as a disconnected region from the international transfer of knowledge. In this logic, the only possible knowledge exchange was from Western to Eastern Europe, due to the Iron Curtain. However, this initial paradigm has since been revisited and by now, historians provide amuch more nuanced perspective on this issue. Revisionist and post-revisionist historiography emphasize that Eastern and Central Europe were never completely isolated. Instead, exchanges, influences and mobilities occurred across threecore geographical axes – firstly, within the socialist bloc, another one with the West and finally, with the Global South. The decision-making process regarding international collaborations was far more complex than the Cold War dichotomy, as it involved domestic political pressures, as well as economic, social, and public health challenges. Bogdan Cristian Iacob favors this approach. Throughout his research, he sheds light on the public health programs created by the socialist states, situating them in the context of decolonization. This approach is highly relevant as it reframes Eastern Europe as an active participant in global public health strategies.Infectious disease eradication - a battlefield?The eradication of infectious diseases was a central debate in the post-war socialist states, as Bogdan Cristian Iacob argues in this podcast. He highlights the example of malaria. This disease was officially eradicated in Romania in 1963 and presented by the leadership as a unique and modern healthcare program, with the program later implemented in other countries. This case is relevant within the broader framework. The scope of malaria, typhus, and smallpox eradication was beyond individual countries, particular regions or one political regime. Based on such initial achievements, countries that engaged in the public healthcare competition exported medical knowledge to the postcolonial world.  Initially, in the 1950s the reason for this‘export' was anticolonial solidarity for the newly independent countries. Yet, in the 1960s, the medical assistance programs from Eastern Europe were no longer driven by mere solidarity. Instead, competition emerged, as BogdanCristian Iacob argues. The reasons included access to naturalresources and new markets, as well as the emphasis on the supplying country's modernity. Within this competition, postcolonial governments leveraged rivalries between donor countries sending medical aid and healthcare experts toappeal to the 'modernity ego' of state socialist officials, as Iacob points out.Healthcare support - paternalism or solidarity?While postcolonial solidarity was one of the main driversof healthcare support from Eastern European countries, it did not prevent the emergence of hierarchies. As this podcast demonstrates, Eastern European healthcare experts often perceived postcolonial countries as economically underdeveloped and culturally backward. The paradox is that socialist medicine demonstrated its own form of paternalism that replicated colonial practices.Often, doctors failed to distance themselves racializing their patients.Balancing domestic public health and expertise exportIacob argues that three elements dominated thepublic healthcare competition: anti-colonial solidarity, regional economic interests, and ideological rivalry. This, in turn, created a problem in the mid-1970s, as medical workers were deployed to certain postcolonial countrieswhile domestic healthcare systems faced staff shortages. As a result, ‘healthcare export' became both a political tool for legitimation and a source of revenue. One of the best examples of this is Cuba, as this podcast shows.RelevanceAccording to Iacob, this approach is relevant for both the historiography of socialist states and the history of medicine, as it highlights the multiple vectors of knowledgetransfer during the Cold War. However, within this debate, some questions remain unanswered. Iacob suggests three key questions for further examination. First, how do we further assess the relationship between Eastern European medicine and practices of racialization at home and those in global context? Second, how did global circulations of socialist medicine affect or influence specific medical fieldsback in the region? Lastly, how might the archival openings in the Global South might emphasize the agency of the postcolonial countries and change our current understanding about socialism and disease and in more broad terms, aboutemancipation?

In this episode, a part of the Democracy After 2024 series, Oleksandra Kokhan is joined by Taras Fedirko and Serhiy Kudelia to discuss the transformations of domestic policies in Ukraine following the 2022 invasion and under martial law, the (im)possibility of holding elections, and the role of civil society today. Taras Fedirko is a political and economic anthropologist studying war, media, and oligarchy in Ukraine. He is a lecturer at the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Glasgow and is an associate researcher at LSE's Conflict and Civicness Research Group. Serhiy Kudelia is Associate Professor of Political Science at Baylor University, where he teaches courses on political regimes, state-building and political violence, and Ukrainian and Russian politics. His research focused on the study of institutional politics and popular mobilization in Ukraine and on the armed conflict in Donbas. His new book Seize the City, Undo the State: The Inception of Russia's War on Ukraine has been published by Oxford University Press. Oleksandra Kokhan is a young social anthropologist who studies at CEU.

In the newest episode of our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy, Robert Person – Professor of International Relations at the United States Military Academy, West Point – discusses key issues that in his understanding pose nearly insurmountable obstacles to a negotiated ending of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine; dissects the Putin regime's main aims regarding Ukraine over the past twenty years; and reflects on why arguments in favor of a ‘peace deal' have gained in popularity – and what European supporters of Ukraine should be preparing for. The conversation is based on Robert Person's article “Why Ukraine Shouldn't Negotiate with Putin” which has been published in the January 2025 (36/1) issue of the Journal of Democracy. In the framework of this partnership, authors discuss outstanding articles from the latest print issue.

In this episode of the Democracy After 2024 series, Ukrainian journalist and editor Arina Kravchenko hosts Ukrainian poet, prose writer, and essayist Mykola Riabchuk. They discuss the significance of democracy to Ukrainian national identity and the country's social fabric. The conversation focuses especially on Ukrainian democracy's trajectory since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022 as viewed from within Ukrainian society and as a rediscovered object of interest from the outside. Mykola Riabchuk is the president of the Ukrainian PEN-center and a senior research fellow at the Institute of Political and Nationalities' Studies, the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. His most recent publications include At the Fence of Metternich's Garden. Essays on Europe, Ukraine, and Europeanization (Stuttgart, 2021) and Nationalist's Lexicon (in Ukrainian), a collection of essays published in 2022. Arina Kravchenko is a Ukrainian journalist, editor, and book reviewer.

In this interview with Nusrat F. Jafri, we explore her much-acclaimed biographical fiction, This Land We Call Home (Penguin, 2024). The novel traces the evolution of the Bhantu caste from the 1800s to the 2000s, offering a nuanced perspective on the shifting contours of minority identity across northern India. Jafri delves into the history of the Bhantu, a community labeled as “criminal tribe” under the British Criminal Tribes Act of 1871. She examines how the repeal of this Act in 1952, followed by the denotification of these communities, brought little respite. The replacement of the Act with the Habitual Offenders Act (1952) perpetuated systemic discrimination, continuing to single out and criminalize certain communities. Jafri critiques Indian democracy for failing to protect marginalized groups like the Bhantu—not only neglecting them but actively perpetuating systemic violence. The novel also sheds light on the community's encounters with both social and state-sponsored violence, emphasizing the emancipatory potential of religious conversions. Yet, Jafri presents a complex view of this process, highlighting how conversion did not always equate to liberation, particularly for women and poorer members of the community. Drawing on her personal family history and extensive ethnographic research across northern and western India, Jafri raises a profound question for all democracies: How can democratic systems address historical prejudices and work toward creating a truly inclusive society? Nusrat F. Jafri is an award-winning cinematographer and author. Her debut non-fiction book, This Land We Call Home (Penguin, 2024), traces her family's century-long history through themes of caste, identity and politics – shaping modern India. Her filmography includes Kuchh Bheege Alfaz, Pilibhit, Sujata, and Chacha Vidhayak Hain Hummare. Born in Lucknow, she currently resides in Mumbai. The interview was conducted by Anubha Anushree and Ishita Prasher. Lilit Hakobyan edited the podcast.

In the last decade the Court of Justice of the EU has rapidly developed its case-law on the enforcement of EU values. Following multiple cases in which the Court enforced provisions that instrumentalize the Rule of Law in actions involving the 'backsliding' Member States of Poland and Hungary, the question now arises as to whether EU action may be justified to protect the co-foundational value of democracy during national elections in the EU's Member States. The upcoming elections in the Federal Republic of Germany in February will bring these issues into sharp relief. In the latest RevDem Rule of Law podcast, Oliver Garner discusses these themes with Miriam Schuler (King's College London), whose PhD research analyzes the protection of values within the European Union.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Marija Bartl – author of Reimagining Prosperity: Toward a New Imaginary of Law and Political Economy in the EU – warns that the post-2008 crisis of neoliberalism created an ideological vacuum that would either be filled by a new vision of shared prosperity or by tribal imaginaries. She explains why the EU, despite its neoliberal origins, might be uniquely placed to articulate such a new vision of prosperity, and argues that European law is already being transformed to support it.  Marija Bartl is a Professor of Private Law at Amsterdam Law School. Reimagining Prosperity: Toward a New Imaginary of Law and Political Economy in the EU has been published by Cambridge University Press and is available in open access.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Zsuzsanna Szelényi discusses key questions in contemporary politics with a focus on European affairs. She explores the main priorities of Ursula von der Leyen's second Commission and what might change as compared to her previous term. She also discusses the main challenges the EU faces when it comes to transatlantic relations and how Trump's second term could impact the unfolding and outcome of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine – and whether the position and role of Hungary's Orbán regime might change in international politics. Zsuzsanna Szelényi is the Director of the CEU Democracy Institute Leadership Academy, a former Member of Parliament in her native Hungary, and the author of Tainted Democracy. Viktor Orbán and the Subversion of Hungary.

We are thrilled to bring you the newest episode of our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy. In the framework of this new partnership, authors discuss outstanding articles from the latest print issue of the Journal of Democracy. In this conversation, Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt examine the various types of countermajoritarian institutions and reflect on which are democracy-enhancing and which can potentially subvert democracy. Levitsky and Ziblatt show the connections between the strong countermajoritarian features of the U.S. political system and its ongoing democratic backsliding. They also consider how the trade-offs between countermajoritarianism and democratic stability have played out across the globe. The conversation is based on Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt's article “When Should the Majority Rule?” which has been published in the January 2025 (36/1) issue of the Journal of Democracy.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Tom Theuns – author of Protecting Democracy in Europe: Pluralism, Autocracy and the Future of the EU – reflects on EU institutions' rather narrow conception of democracy and their complicity in democratic backsliding in EU member states; considers how a more coherent and effective response to the latter processes could be designed; critiques the EU's ‘membership fatalism' and explains why he has proposed an expulsion mechanism; and positions his approach within political theory and discusses the reception of his ideas also beyond that field. Tom Theuns is a Senior Assistant Professor of Political Theory and European Politics at the Institute of Political Science, Leiden University. Protecting Democracy in Europe: Pluralism, Autocracy and the Future of the EU has been published by Hurst Publishers and Oxford University Press (US).

In this conversation with Sheri Berman, Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, we engage with her key argument that growing support for right-wing populism is primarily a consequence of mainstream parties' failure to address popular concerns about immigration. We dissect the ‘representation gap' argument, discuss alternative explanations (namely, the issue of racism and xenophobia), explore salient differences between center-left and center-right parties, and highlight strategies that mainstream parties have used and could use to respond to citizens' concerns and demands on immigration. The conversation is based on Sheri Berman's article, “Democracy and Diversity in Western Europe,” published in the October 2024 (35/4) issue of the Journal of Democracy

What were the defining events of 2024? Which new publications impressed us the most? What do we expect from the upcoming year in global politics and in terms of new intellectual trends?  Today, we, editors of the Review of Democracy bring you our traditional end of the year podcast. 2024 has been another exciting year for our journal. We have managed to expand in new directions, doubling our core team of editors and opening global horizons, while continuing to focus on our main thematic priorities – Democracy and Culture, the History of Ideas, Political Economy, and the Rule of Law. This episode features no fewer than nine speakers: co-managing editors Robert Nemeth – who acted as our host – and Ferenc Laczó, global editors Anubha Anushree, Ece Ozbey, and Gabriel Pereira as well as section heads Oliver Garner, Adrian Matus, Alexandra Medzibrodszky, and Kristóf Szombati. Enjoy the holidays – and don't forget to return in early 2025 when we shall bring you more fresh analyses and reflections!

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Todd Stern – former United States Special Envoy for Climate Change – explains what made the Paris Climate Agreement such a groundbreaking document and what kind of bargaining and compromises it took to make it happen; discusses the place and role of the US within its broad coalition as well as his extensive engagement with his crucial Chinese partners; and considers major new possibilities to tackle climate change effectively and current obstacles to do so.

International law is a live instrument in the current global geopolitical crisis. This latest RevDem Rule of Law podcast, conducted by Konstantin Kipp with Professor Tom Ginsburg, reflects upon the potentially authoritarian nature of international law in its function of enabling relations between states. Authoritarian regimes have traditionally been reluctant to engage in robust forms of international cooperation. Reasons for this may include strong nationalist views, and concerns that cross-border engagement could invite interference in domestic affairs or constrain the government's autonomy. Consequently, international law has largely been shaped by liberal democracies. However, this stance appears to be shifting in the 21st century. Just as authoritarian regimes once recognized the strategic value of adopting new constitutions and utilizing seemingly democratic institutions in order to gain legitimacy, they are now beginning to see international law as a potential tool to legitimize their policies and strengthen the pursuit of their preferences. This development was identified by Professor Tom Ginsburg in his 2020 article “Authoritarian International Law?” published in the American Journal of International Law. Half a decade on from this publication, Professor Ginsburg discusses his findings on this still-emerging phenomenon and considers its potential future developments. Past, Present, and Future Authoritarian International Law Ginsburg provides an introduction to the history of Authoritarian International Law (AIL), highlighting the pivotal turning point as marked by the year 2006. He claims that this was the peak for global democracies and that subsequently the story is one of decline.  The conversation explores current developments in international law, raising a concern that the United States' potential shift towards isolationism could cede the international playing field to authoritarian forces like China or Russia, thereby fueling the development of AIL. Ginsburg describes AIL as “designed to extend the survival and reach of authoritarian rule across space and/or time.” AIL is seen as having the potential not only to secure the persistence of existing authoritarian regimes, but also to be a possible trigger for further authoritarianism. The podcast addresses the extent to which this feature is inherently embedded within AIL, given that liberal democracies tend to pose a challenge to authoritarian regimes. Ginsburg reflects upon whether there is a danger that authoritarians might create entirely new international legal systems and institutions, or else seek to capture and transform existing bodies. While an American return to isolationism might fuel the development of AIL, there is also significant concern that the U.S. could veer toward dictatorship during Donald Trump's second presidency. Statements by President-elect Trump, such as suggestions that people “won't have to vote anymore,” imply at the very least authoritarian aspirations. Ginsburg reflects upon whether U.S. isolationism is truly the main danger to international law, or instead whether a government under Donald Trump may actively engage in promoting AIL. Ginsburg offers his view on why, despite his authoritarian nature, Donald Trump will not be able to become the dictator of the United States of America. Authoritarian European Union Law? While the European Union continues to embody relatively strong democratic values among most Member States compared to other regions, right-wing populism with authoritarian aspirations has also been on the rise. The EU's most notable authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán, has recently advocated that right-wing populists should “occupy” Brussels. Ginsburg considers whether the emergence of authoritarian EU law may be possible. One of the EU's current strategies for addressing “backsliding” on its values, including democracy and the Rule of Law, is financial conditionality. It remains to be seen whether this tool may effectively halt the trend towards authoritarianism in the long term, or whether it may indeed exacerbate it. Ginsburg concludes his reflections on the supranational dimension of AIL by musing upon whether the Eurasian Economic Committee, discussed in his 2020 article, could evolve into a serious competitor that promotes authoritarian rather than democratic values in the Europe-Asia region. Preventing the Emergence of Authoritarian International Law Tom Ginsburg suggests that there is a strong possibility that the 21st century will be known more as an authoritarian century rather than a democratic one. The notion that international law guarantees a right to democratic governance has faced substantial criticism; Ginsburg challenges this idea as well. The podcast concludes with reflection upon the options for democratic countries to prevent international law becoming authoritarian. Could civil society – whether or not such societies aspire to be ‘open' or not – prevent the authoritarian transformation of international law? Ginsburg concludes his contributions by emphasizing how recent developments in South Korea illustrate the vital role of civil society in the struggle for democracy. Such struggle, for democracy and against authoritarianism, is set to continue in the second half of the 2020s.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Ionuț Biliuță discusses the connections between Orthodoxy and nationalism in Romania and to what extent they have influenced this year's presidential elections; the revival of narratives concerning ‘fascist martyrs' by Călin Georgescu and other radicals; the impact the 2018 Constitutional referendum on same-sex marriage had on radicalization;  the ideas in transnational circulation that have inspired Georgescu's statements, including Alexander Dugin's and those of Donald Trump's Evangelical supporters; and the steps that the Romanian Orthodox Church could take to dissociate itself from far-right discourses.

Join Review of Democracy Latin American Editor Gabriel Pereira as he hosts Andrés Malamud, a leading scholar of Latin American politics, to discuss a crucial development in current political affairs: the rise of successful political outsiders in Latin America. The podcast focuses on and draws lessons from the experience of current Argentine president Javier Milei. It delves into pivotal questions: How do outsiders get elected in a political system designed to secure electoral competition among established political leaders? How do they navigate constraints posed by legislatures dominated by opposition? Does the rise of political outsiders from the global north influence the progress of these Latin American leaders? Does the radical right-wing ideology of outsiders make them more effective? What are the lessons for understanding current Latin American politics?

We are thrilled to publish the second episode of our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy. In the framework of this new partnership, authors shall discuss outstanding articles from the newest print issue of the Journal of Democracy. In this conversation, Grzegorz Ekiert and Noah Dasanaike explain their concept of dictatorial drift and how various countries have moved toward full autocracy in recent years; discuss new features of dictatorships in the early 21st century and how such regimes relate to each other; consider whether it makes sense to compare the growing trend of autocracy promotion with democracy promotion; and reflect on how full autocracies might be opposed more effectively in the future. The conversation is based on Grzegorz Ekiert and Noah Dasanaike's article, “The Return of Dictatorship,” published in the October 2024 (35/4) issue of the Journal of Democracy.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Karin van Leeuwen, Aleksandra Komornicka, and Koen van Zon – contributors to The Unfinished History of European Integration that has now appeared in a revised edition – elucidate the main questions that organize their overview of European integration history; reflect on the applicability and usefulness of various influential theories when trying to narrate the history of European integration today; show what special contributions historians can make to the interdisciplinary study of the European Union; and discuss recent advances in the historiography of European integration, specifying questions that would deserve more attention in the future.

Join Review of Democracy Ideas editor Alexandra Medzibrodszky as she hosts Professor Andrew March, a leading scholar of political philosophy and Islamic thought, to discuss On Muslim Democracy: Essays and Dialogues. The book focuses on Rached Ghannouchi's political thought and offers a unique perspective on the intersection of Islamic principles and modern democratic governance. The podcast delves into pivotal questions: What distinguishes “Islamic Democracy” from “Muslim Democracy” in Ghannouchi's work? How does Ghannouchi balance the realities of practical politics with the ideals of Islamic thought? Professor March also reflects on the challenges of translating Arabic political philosophy into English, shedding light on the complexities of capturing essential terms and ideas across languages. A unique aspect of the book is the Philosophical-Theological Dialogues, based on in-person conversations between March and Ghannouchi. These dialogues provide a rare and engaging format, bringing Ghannouchi's ideas into conversation with Western political theory and reveal how cross-cultural intellectual engagement can deepen our understanding of democracy's diverse expressions.

In this conversation with Kristin M. Plys, we delve deeply into the nature and quality of Indian democracy by examining the legacy and impact of its resistance movements. Plys' recent book, Brewing Resistance (Cambridge University Press, 2020), studies the Indian Coffee House movement—a unique, worker-driven cooperative that flourished in the 1970s. This movement not only symbolized a shared space for political discourse but also became a hub for anti-authoritarian sentiment, especially during the turbulent years of the Emergency (1975-77), when democratic freedoms were severely curtailed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government. Plys discusses how the imposition of the Emergency, a period marked by mass censorship, arrests, and suspension of civil liberties, offers an opportunity to study the layered political landscape of India. The Indian Coffee House played a critical role in this setting, functioning as both a sanctuary for dissenters and a platform for organizing resistance against state repression. The Coffee House movement's ties to anti-colonial labor struggles also shaped its legacy, as workers' collectives organized within the Coffee House drew on earlier traditions of anti-imperialist and labor rights activism. These connections underscored a distinctive postcolonial narrative in which anti-colonial aspirations became entwined with the fight for labor rights, impacting political outcomes not only within India but also across the Global South, where similar struggles for autonomy and equity were underway. The Emergency is particularly significant in the conversation, as it catalyzed a diverse range of voices and forced new actors onto the political stage. By examining these anti-establishment leftist movements, Plys offers a nuanced lens to understand both the ruptures and continuities in India's democratic history. Ultimately, the dialogue not only reconsiders India's democratic journey through the lens of resistance but also provides insights into the potential future paths of democracy in India and other postcolonial contexts, exploring how historical struggles inform contemporary democratic challenges and the broader political landscape of the region.