RevDem Podcast

In this conversation with Professor Maya Tudor—part of our special series produced in partnership with the Journal of Democracy—we discuss her recent article published in the journal's October 2025 issue (Vol. 36, No. 4). Tudor explores the factors behind the recent, alleged erosion of democratic ideals worldwide. Drawing on her experiences as an educator, Tudor argues that today's decline in trust in democracy stems from misconceptions about its achievements—such as expanding education, extending life expectancy, promoting relative peace, and fostering economic progress. Challenging the belief that autocracies deliver more effectively on these outcomes, she contends that such regimes are often short-lived and unstable. Tudor ultimately urges us to view democracy not as a purely normative ideal, but as a pragmatic system best suited to advancing human well-being.Maya Tudor is Professor of Politics and Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government and a Fellow of St. Hilda's College, University of Oxford. She is the author of The Promise of Power: The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan (Cambridge University Press, 2013) and Varieties of Nationalism (Cambridge University Press, 2023), as well as numerous articles in academic journals and popular media outlets.The interview was conducted Anubha Anushree. Lilith Hakobyan edited the audio file.

To what extent does Zohran Mamdani's recent election represent a turn in American politics? In an interview for the Review of Democracy, Fabian Holt (Associate Professor at Roskilde University) discusses the political platform that made Zohran Mamdani's victory possible. Throughout our conversation, Holt maps the evolution of the Democratic Socialists of America, as presented in his latest book “Organize or Burn: How New York Socialists Fight for Climate Survival”, published last month by NYU Press.  Throughout the podcast, you can hear the reasons why Holt became interested in studying DSA, as his initial focus was on music festivals and their relationship to the neoliberal framework. As he notes, Organize or Burn is the firstethnographic work on DSA. The discussion then focuses on the strengths and limitations of conducting ethnographic fieldwork on such an evolving phenomenon.  Holt argues that first-hand experience is essential in understanding grassroots movements. Another point tackled in the podcast is climate apathy and how the DSA sought to raise awareness about climate change in a sustained way. As Fabian Holt argues, thisis the meaning behind his book's title, Organize or Burn, which captures a key component of DSA's campaign to support Mamdani.For those interested in better understanding how the DSA shaped its discourse and expanded its base, this podcast can provide a good insight. As well, it answers the question to what extent this movement is bound to large cities or canaddress a broader electorate.

In this new episode of the “When the Far Right and the Far Left Converge” series, which shares fresh research from aworkshop organised by the CEU DI Democracy in History Work Group, we discuss with Dr Ashton Kingdon and Dr BalšaLubarda how both the far right and the far left mobilise ecological ideas, often drawing from the same language of resistance. Based on their paper “Co-optationwithout Ownership: The Idea of Resistance in Multimodal Radical Right and Left Ecological Argumentation,” the conversation explores how environmentalismbecomes a battleground of competing ideologies, revealing surprising overlaps in how radical movements frame their struggle against perceived systems of oppression. The episode also examines how the use of similar imagery bydifferent groups can become dangerous in democracies, leading to confusion or disorientation among citizens and making it harder to interpret images and slogans outside their original context.

In this episode of our special series produced in partnership with the Journal of Democracy, we explore “AI's Real Dangers for Democracy,” the new article penned by Dean Jackson and Samuel Woolley (Journal of Democracy, Vol. 36, No. 4, October 2025)Jackson and Woolley discuss the ways in which AI could strain, or even crack, the foundations of democracies; reflect on how the debate surrounding AI is structured and how it has evolved; and recommend practical steps through whichthose potential harms could be limited.The podcast was recorded on October 9, the same day when Jackson and Wooley published an analysis in TheGuardian on how AI threatens elections.

In the opening episode of Review ofDemocracy's new podcast series on EU-funded research, Alexandra Kardos speaks with Professor Zsolt Boda, Director of the ELTE Centre for Social Sciences, about the MORES Moral Emotions in Politics  project, a Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Action exploring how emotions shapedemocratic life. The conversation delves into the project's central ideas of moral emotions and moralised political identities, the dangers of both emotional detachment and over-emotionalization in politics, and how thesedynamics influence trust, polarisation, and civic engagement. Professor Boda also discusses MORES' innovative tools – including MORES Pulse AI – designed to help policymakers, journalists, and citizens navigate the emotional undercurrents of contemporary democracy by assessing the moral-emotional tone of their own or others' communication.

In our podcast, Rachel Myrick, the Douglas & Ellen Lowey Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University, discusses with us how extreme partisan polarization threatens not only domestic governance but also global stability. Drawing on her new book, Polarization and International Politics: How Extreme Partisanship Threatens Global Stability (Princeton University Press, 2025), Myrick argues that polarization in democracies affects foreign policymaking.The conversation begins with a striking example:each year, the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group publishes a list of the world's top geopolitical risks. The 2024 report placed as the highest risk not the Russian aggression, Middle Eastern conflict, but ‘the United States versus itself'. This diagnosis, Myrick suggests, encapsulates the central claim of her book: extreme party polarization erodes the institutional foundations that once made democracies stable and credible actors abroad. Throughout the podcast, the author unfolds how polarization affects the three pillars that democracies used to have in international relations: the ability to keep foreign policystable over time, to credibly signal information to adversaries and the reliability with partners in international politics. Then, the discussion moves to the ways in which polarization affects foreign policies. In a healthy democracy, leaders are incentivized to provide public goods and act in the national interest.Instead, in extremely polarized environments, politicians do not „target messaging at the median voter and instead work to mobilize their political base”. Voters increasingly view politics as a contest between moral enemies rather than legitimate rivals, caring more about their side's victorythan about performance or accountability. While the United States provides her primary example, Myrick points to similar patterns across Europe. In younger democracies such as Hungary or Poland, polarisation fuels “executive aggrandizement,” as ruling parties rewrite rules to secure permanent advantage.In established democracies, it simply makes governments less predictable partners internationally. Rachel Myrick ends the conversation with a warning: the greatest threat to international order may no longer come from authoritarian powers, but from democracies unable to govern themselves and to be effective partners.

The end of the last century brought about what scholars have called a “unipolar moment.” With the fall of the Soviet Union, liberalism lost its enemy on the global stage, which led the United States to try to establish an international liberal order by promoting liberalism transnationally. This latter approach has not only been harshly criticized for often being executed hypocritically and sometimes causing disastrous wars, but also ultimately seems to have failed. While Cold War restorationism might be dangerous and mistaken, today's world again features different authoritarian global powers, with the U.S. seemingly on the path to becoming one itself. Moreover, while democracy promotion by Westernliberal states is deteriorating, scholars have argued that authoritarian powers are increasing their collaboration on theglobal stage to extend authoritarian rule across space and time. In this conversation, Professors Alexander Dukalskisand Alexander Cooley argue that the project to spread liberalism around the world has caused a snapback, in which authoritarian regimes aim to capture and repurpose the actors, tools, and norms once created by liberal democracies for their own ends. Their book, Dictating the Agenda: The Authoritarian Resurgence in World Politics, was published byOxford University Press in September 2025.

Anna Dobrowolska's new book Polish Sexual Revolutions. Negotiating Sexuality and Modernity behind the Iron Curtain, published at the Oxford University Press this year, reveals fresh perspectives in the scholarship about the socialist states. In our podcast, she explains how Poland and Eastern Europe developed their own distinct approaches to sexual modernity under state socialism.While Western observers assumed sexual liberation was incompatible with communist rule, Poland was quietly developing its own sophisticated approach to sexual modernity. In her book, Anna Dobrowolska aimed to map these differences and nuances. Throughout the conversation, we learn that the conventional narrative of state oppression versus societal resistance proves to be inadequate when examining Poland's sexual revolution. Dobrowolska's archival research reveals a complex ecosystem of actors: sexologists, journalists, cultural institutions, who negotiated sexual discourse largely independent of central party directives. These middle-level negotiations created unexpected spaces for sexual expression within the socialist framework, as the book shows. Perhaps most surprisingly, censorship archives reveal that sexual content often received official approval precisely because it served broader state modernisation goals. Conservative citizens frequently petitioned authorities for stricter moral oversight, only to find officials defending more liberal positions.

Borders are rarely born in conference halls. As thenewly edited book The Disputed Austro-Hungarian Border: Agendas, Actors, and Practices in Western Hungary/Burgenland after World War I, published this yearby Bergahn Books shows that the borders are created by wars and conflicts and then changed by clerks, soldiers, smugglers and villagers trying to make sense of a new world order. By focusing on one of the seemingly post-1918 quieter frontiers, the line separating Austria from Hungary, the bookchallenges the narrative that the Treaty of Trianon neatly decided everything with a stroke of the pen. As two of the editors, Hannes Grandits and Katharina Tyran underline throughout our podcast, the creation of Burgenlandwas a complicated process stretching over several years, entangling ideology, class and everyday survival. The volume's nine chapters, written by Ibolya Murber, Michael Burri, Ferenc Jankó, Sabine Schmitner-Laszakovits, Gábor Egry, Melinda Harlov-Csortán, Katharina Tyran, Hannes Grandits and Ursula K. Mindler-Steiner, explore this border-making through a tangle of sources from international commission reports, localtestimonies to administrative records. Hannes Grandits notes that although the decision to transfer parts of western Hungary to Austria was made in 1919, it remained unimplemented for nearly two years. In the meantime, loyalties shifted, black markets thrived, and even a brief Bolshevik experiment in Hungary complicated the decision-making process.Throughout this period, identities shifted. Katharina Tyran provides the example of Ivan Dobrović, a Croatian culturalactivist who changed the spelling of his name depending on context. As she emphasizes, this small act captures the fluid identities the new nation-states tried to erase. Other contributors trace the social consequences. The Esterházyfamily saw their estates shrink; local bureaucrats slipped down the social ladder; peasants and artisans, newly politicised, wavered between social democracy and nationalism. Minority communities, Croats, Jews, Roma, foundthemselves suddenly reclassified by powers that barely understood them. This book reads the border negotiation as an anatomy of transition. The conclusion of our conversation is that borders are not only documents, but lived experiences, shaped by people who rarely appear in diplomatic archives. The lesson ofBurgenland is that borders are performed, contested and reimagined every day.

In this episode, we sit down with Professor Mohammad Ali Kadivar to explore the urgent and timely question of popular protests amid global democratic backsliding. Drawing from his acclaimed monograph, Popular Politics and thePath to Durable Democracy, Kadivar poses the following questions: What role does dissent play in sustaining democracies? Do protests reinforce or underminedemocratic institutions? The book offers a compelling and often counterintuitive analysis of how mass mobilizations shape democratic trajectories. Through a rich comparative lens—examining cases from Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan, South Africa, and Poland—Kadivar argues that prolonged prodemocratic mobilizations can in fact fortify democracies. Rather than destabilizing political systems, these extended collective protest movements build the organizational infrastructure and civic capacity necessary for democratic consolidation.Kadivar emphasizes that sustained mobilization fosters stable leadership, cultivates diverse civic participation, and compels states to engage meaningfully with popular demands. By revisiting pivotal uprisings, such as the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt, this conversation reveals underexploreddynamics at the heart of democratic transitions—and challenges conventional assumptions about the disruptive role of protest.

In our latest episode of the special series producedin partnership with the Journal of Democracy, we discuss the recent article co-authored by Jennifer Cyr, Nic Cheeseman and Matías Bianchi, entitled “The Myth of Democratic Resilience” (Journal of Democracy, Vol. 36, No.3, July 2025)In recent years, populist political actors with authoritarian ambitions have been on the rise worldwide, challenging democratic systems from within. This has fueled debate about how resilient such systems are when anti-democratic actors hold power. The question of whether a secondTrump presidency would mark the end of U.S. democracy as we know it remains contested, while it is still uncertain whether Polish democracy can fully recover from the eight years of authoritarian rule under the PiS party. In thisconversation, Jennifer Cyr and Nic Cheeseman reflect on why projects of re-democratization after periods of authoritarian rule often fail in the long term. Drawing on data from the past thirty years, they argue that although democratic coalitions may return to power following autocratization, the vastmajority of these “democratic recoveries” have ultimately failed.

This episode, part of the series When the Far Right and the FarLeft Converge, features Francesco Trupia and Marina Simakova discussing the ideological co-optation of Antonio Gramsci's ideas by the contemporary (far-)right. They examine when and how right-wing actors adopted his political language, and how political conjunctures in and beyond Europe have shaped this process. The conversation also considers differing interpretations of Gramsciamong the traditional left and liberal authors, both within global academia and beyond. Finally, Trupia and Simakova reflect on the roles of Gramsci's concepts of “hegemony” and “subaltern” in debates around some of today's most urgentconflicts, including Russia's war against Ukraine.

In the second part of our special two-part episode ofthe Review of Democracy podcast, we continue our conversation with André Borges, Ryan Lloyd, and Gabriel Vommaro, editors of The Recasting of the Latin American Right, published by Cambridge University Press.Building on our first discussion of parties, movements, and leaders, this episode turns to the demand side of the region's political transformation. We explore how voters' attitudes, cultural conflicts, and deepening polarization are reshaping right-wing politics across Latin America.We also examine the societal forces driving the rise of conservative and radical right actors — from debates over gender and security to the dynamics ofpolarization. Finally, we connect these regional trends to developments in other parts of the world, reflecting on Latin America's place within the broader global surge of right-wing politics.

In this special two-part episode of the Review of Democracypodcast, we speak with André Borges, Ryan Lloyd, and Gabriel Vommaro, editors of the book The Recasting of the Latin American Right, recently published by Cambridge University Press.The conversation explores how Latin America's right has been reshaped since the early 2000s — from the rise of new political parties and movements to the growing role of voters and cultural conflicts.In part 1, we focus on the supply side: parties, movements, and leaders redefining right-wing politics in the region. In part two, we turn to the demand side, examining voters, polarization, and the societal forces driving this transformation.Join us as we map out the new generations of conservative and radical right-wing actors that are changing the political landscape across Latin America — and consider what this means for the future of democracy.

Migration is one of the most salient issues in European politics today. While its importance for voting decisions is widely acknowledged, many of its key characteristics remain the subject of vivid debate. Opinions about migration often diverge sharply: Does migration pose a threat to European societies, or is it essential for economic survival? Arepublic attitudes becoming more hostile, or more welcoming? Should European countries restrict migration, or embrace it? Competing narratives seem to strongly shape migration policy and the laws through which it is implemented.In this conversation, Prof. Andrew Geddes analyzes different narratives on migration and the role they play in policymaking, as well as the rise of right-wing populist actors across Europe. The discussion starts with the question of what narratives are and how they emerge. Prof. Geddes explains that narratives help people make sense of complexities through storytelling, in which plausibility might often matter more than accuracy.However, narratives are also a deeper expression of people's worldviews and values, through which facts, evidence, and information are filtered. Since worldviews and values are very important to people and often formed early in life, Prof.Geddes points out that narratives tend to be resistant. The frequently made demand that narratives should simply be changed or replaced therefore seems more difficult to realize than is often suggested. The conversation then focuses on the 1990s, a period in which the overall discourse on migration grew more hostile and the narrative of migration as a security threat emerged. At that time, the Austrianpolitician Jörg Haider—often seen as a precursor to today's right-wing populists—was heavily criticized in European politics. Today, however, his successors exert strong influence on European policymaking, and positions that would have been deemed unacceptable not long ago have entered the mainstream political debate. This shift indicates what many observers describe as the mainstreaming of the far right. However, contrary to what one might discern from public discourse, research by Prof. Geddes and his colleague Prof. James Dennison suggests that European attitudes towardmigration have likely grown more positive over the last thirty years. Their explanation for the rise of anti-immigrant parties in Europe is the sharp increase in the salience of immigration among some voters. While attitudes toward migration may have been more negative decades ago, they were lesselectorally decisive at the time. The constant increase in the salience of migration has thus allowed anti-immigrant parties to win by activating pre-existing opposition to immigration amongst a shrinking segment of the populations of western European states. Prof. Geddes warns that simply tellingpeople who have concerns about immigration—whether legitimate or not—that they are mistaken can harden these positions. Nevertheless, there remains room to shape narratives on migration differently by highlighting the many positive aspects.

When the first treaties that laid the groundwork for today's European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights were signed after the Second World War, many of today's member states were still significant colonialpowers—empires. It was only in the years that followed that these European empires eroded, and many countries in the Global South gained independence.However, while colonialism formally ended, many have argued that coloniality has persisted. Although this applies to different areas, one of the most important is migration governance. Here, European countries have been accusedof replacing explicitly racialized mechanisms with a facially race-neutral apparatus that nonetheless constitutes a system of neocolonial racial borders that benefits some and disadvantages others.In this conversation, Prof. Janine Silga analyzes thecolonial roots of the European migration system, highlights the continuities between the system before and after the formal end of colonialism, and discusses possible ways to overcome coloniality in EU law. The conversation begins with a focus on the nineteenth century, when large-scale migration took place across, for example, the British Empire. Prof. Silga explains that migration from colonized countries to Europe occurred primarily because colonial powers required cheap labor. At the same time, large numbers of Europeans began establishing settlements in the colonized world. These migrants could today be described as economic migrants, since they primarily left Europe to improve their economic circumstances—a reason for migration that Europeanstates now heavily contest when it occurs in the opposite direction. The conversation then shifts to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when Western states adopted increasingly hostile stances toward migration and laid the foundations for a system of ostensibly race-neutral borders that nevertheless enabled racialized control over access to the benefits of colonial exploitation. The second part of the discussion examines colonial continuities in Europe's contemporary migration system. Among other issues, Prof. Silga addresses the problem of “racial aphasia”—a term coined by Prof. Tendayi Achiume to describe the lack of debate about the role of race in migration law.The final part of the discussion explores potential ways to overcome both the colonial past and its ongoing legacies. Prof. Silga describes decoloniality as a broad and non-monolithic concept and movement that recognizes race as the central organizing principle of coloniality—a principle that hierarchizes human beings and sustains not only asymmetrical global power relations but also a singular Eurocentric epistemology. Decoloniality, therefore, is fundamentally concerned with the decolonization of knowledge and ways of knowing.

In our latest episode of the special series produced in partnership with the Journal of Democracy, we discuss the recent article co-authored by Steven Levitsky, Semuhi Sinanoglu, and Lucan Way, entitled “Can Capitalism SaveDemocracy?” (Journal of Democracy, Vol. 36, No. 3, July 2025). We engage this provocative piece against the backdrop of recent shifts in industrialized countries, where the private sector has assumed an increasinglyprominent political role. Way and Sinanoglu contend that the private sector can empower democracies by fostering creative competition. They argue that capitalism generates an autonomous business class, broadens economicopportunities, and mobilizes resources that in turn strengthen democratic institutions and expand civic participation. Drawing on both historical precedent and contemporary politics, the authors reflect on capitalism'senduring imperfections while presenting it as a plausible—if contested—force for democratic change worldwide.

In this episode of Democracy and Culture, we speak with Dan Edelstein, William H. Bonsall Professor of French at StanfordUniversity, about his new book The Revolution to Come: A History of an Idea from Stasis to Lenin (Princeton University Press, 2025). His academic investigations range across literary studies, historiography, political thought and digital humanities. Throughout our conversation, we focuson providing a new understanding of the concept of revolution. In his latest book, by tracing the conceptual distinction between stasis and metabolē through Roman, medieval, and Renaissance thought, he recovers the overlooked role of Polybius in shaping the constitutional imagination of early modern Europe. In our podcast, Edelstein explains how the perception of revolution shifted from a destabilizing event to a future-oriented project tied to Enlightenment ideas of historical progress. As well, another point of discussion is howpolitical actors re-interpreted revolutions through inherited “scripts”. The podcast also focuses on the recurring modern pattern in which revolutions consolidate around a single leader. By situating revolutions in a longue durée conceptual history, Edelstein challenges us to see them not as sudden breaks, but as episodes in an evolving, centuries-long dialogue between inherited political imaginaries and the real events.Edelstein's recovery of ancient and early modern frameworks enriches our understanding of modern revolutions. Particularly the “script” metaphor is a compelling tool for explaining why upheavals often replay familiar patterns.Yet this focus on elite textual traditions risks overlooking the revolutionary imaginaries of actors outside the Greco-Roman canon, from peasants to colonized peoples, whose visions of change may refer to different temporalities and symbolic repertoires. At the same time, the podcast is a fresh proposal for scholars and historians to rethink longue durée (dis)continuities of revolutions.

On 1 June 2025, the second round of Poland's presidential election resulted in a surprise win for Karol Nawrocki, backed by the right-wing populist Law and Justice party, over Warsaw's liberal mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, the candidate of the ruling Civic Coalition. The knife-edge campaign highlighted deep social divisions in the Polish society. In Part 1 of this podcast, Professor Maciej Kisilowski examined the reasons for this electoral development as well as its implications for Poland's political dynamics overthe next few years. In this part, Professor Kisilowski lays out his proposals for a new constitutional settlement for Poland, aimed at addressing the roots and consequences of the severe polarization of the Polish society. He builds upon the arguments expounded in a volume edited by him and Professor Anna Wojciuk, Umówmy się na Polskę (ZNAK 2023), in which thinkers from all across the political spectrum shared their ideas for changing Poland's political status quo. Thebook is due to be published in English on 9 September 2025 by Oxford University Press under the title Let'sAgree on Poland.

In this new episode of our special series produced in partnership with the Journal of Democracy, Stanley Bill and Ben Stanley draw on their new article “Democracy After Illiberalism: A Warning from Poland” (July 2025, Vol. 26, No. 3) to discuss the challenges, dilemmas, and paradoxes ofliberalism after illiberalism in Poland. They reflect on the concepts of liberalism and illiberalism to dissect the approach Donald Tusk's current government has taken and its major consequences. They also consider the wider lessons that may be drawn from recent and ongoing Polish experiences.Stanley Bill is professor of Polish Studies at the University of Cambridge. Ben Stanley is associate professor at the Centre for the Study of Democracy, SWPS University, Warsaw. They co-authored Good Change: The Rise and Fall of Poland'sIlliberal Revolution (2025).

In Part 2 of our latest episode in the special seriesproduced in partnership with the Journal of Democracy, Berk Esen turns to the other side of the equation: how Turkey's opposition is pushing back against an increasingly hegemonic regime. This episode builds on Part1, where we explored the regime's authoritarian escalation through thecourts, media, and economic coercion. Drawing on his co-authored piece with Şebnem Gümüşçü, “How to Fight Turkey's Authoritarian Turn” (Journal of Democracy, July 2025, Vol. 36, No. 3), Esen analyzes President RecepTayyip Erdoğan's recent attempts to court Kurdish voters through cross-party alliances and a renewed peace process. He discusses the main opposition party's efforts to sustain mass mobilization after its presidential candidate Ekremİmamoğlu's arrest, while navigating internal and strategic risks amid a judicial effort to reshape its leadership. Esen also reflects on what distinguishes Turkey from other authoritarian cases such as Venezuela, the resourcesand constraints shaping democratic resistance, and the key factors likely to determine the country's prospects for democratic renewal.

How is war transforming Ukraine's economy—and itsoligarchs? In this Review of Democracy podcast, political economist Inna Melnykovska (Central European University) discusses how the full-scale Russian invasion has led to surprising shifts in business-state relations, including a turn toward civic responsibility among Ukraine's biggest companies. In conversation with editor Kristóf Szombati, Melnykovska explains why classic concepts like state capture and patronal politics no longer fully capture Ukraine's evolving reality. She explores how wartime pressures have triggered new forms of corporate citizenship, how power has become more centralized politically but more diverse economically, and why EU conditionality and civil society oversight are key to shaping a fair postwar recovery. This timely conversation sheds light on Ukraine's transformation in the face of existential crisis—andwhat's at stake as the country looks toward reconstruction and EU integration.

In Part 1 of our latest edition in the special series in partnership with the Journal of Democracy, Berk Esen unpacks how Turkey's competitive authoritarian regime is veering toward full autocracy.Drawing on his co-authored piece with Şebnem Gümüşçü, “How to Fight Turkey's Authoritarian Turn” (July 2025, Vol. 36, No. 3), Esen charts Erdoğan's intensifying use of courts, media, and economic coercion to silence dissent andsideline his chief rival in the next presidential elections, Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu. He discusses Turkey's drift from electoral competitiveness toward hegemonic rule, the role of autocratic legalism, and the prospects for resistance in a rapidly shrinking democratic space.

In current public discourse, human rights violationsat the EU's borders are inextricably linked to one specific actor: the European Border and Coast Guard Agency – or, in short, Frontex. Since its establishment in 2004, human rights activists have become increasingly aware of variousrights violations committed by the agency, particularly in the Mediterranean. To name just one example, Frontex has been accused of providing the locations of migrants intercepted at sea to the Libyan coast guard, which then transportedthem to camps where they have been systematicallyraped, tortured, and enslaved. Remarkably, despite accusations of the most severe human rights violations, Frontex has largely managed to avoid legal consequences. Currently, Frontex stands before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU for the first time in its history.In this conversation, Dr. Joyce De Coninck explainswhy Frontex has so far evaded accountability for severe human rights violations and discusses legal pathways for change. The conversation begins with an analysis of Frontex's history, during which its representatives have consistently promoted a specific narrative that remains central tounderstanding why the agency has been able to avoid accountability for so long: that Frontex acts only in a “coordinating and supporting” role. According to De Coninck, this is problematic because, although Frontex has grown substantially in both budget and competencies overthe past 20 years, the narrative of it playing only a minor role has remained unchanged. The conversation then turns to how this narrative is reflected in concrete cases, as De Coninck explains how Frontex's joint operations with EUmember states shield the agency from legal consequences—and offers legal solutions to address this issue. The discussion then shifts to the broader challenges faced by human rights litigants in the EU. The final part of the interview focuses on the risk of frustration and fatalism among human rightsactivists confronting an EU that appears increasingly willing to contribute to the erosion of those rights. De Coninck cautions against adopting a defeatist stance and references Professor Gráinne De Búrca's concept of HumanRights Experimentalism. Despite its challenges regarding effectiveness and potential negative consequences, this approach views the human rights project as an iterative and deliberative process—one in which attempts by publicauthorities to circumvent rights are far from abnormal. Human rights remain an ongoing struggle, and such actions must be met with counterarguments, not defeatism.

On 1 June 2025, the second round of Poland's presidential election resulted in a surprise win for Karol Nawrocki, backed by the right-wing populist Law and Justice party, over Warsaw's liberal mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, the candidate of the ruling Civic Coalition. Trzaskowski had previously lost in 2020 to the incumbent President Andrzej Duda, albeit by anarrow margin of just over two percentage points – an impressive result, considering that Duda's party, Law and Justice, was then in power and controlled the state apparatus and media. Yet, despite seemingly more favorable conditions for Trzaskowski this time around, Nawrocki still managed to prevail by just under 400,000 votes.In Part 1 of this podcast, Professor Maciej Kisilowskiexamines the reasons for this electoral development as well as its implications for Poland's political dynamics over the next few years. In particular, he addresses the issue of whether Polish liberals and progressives are capable ofcorrectly identifying the prevailing sentiments in a deeply divided society. In Part 2, Professor Kisilowski lays out his proposalsfor a new constitutional settlement for Poland, aimed at addressing the roots and consequences of severe polarization of the Polish society.

In this new episode of our monthly special created in partnership with the Journal of Democracy, Richard Javad Heydarian discusses the Philippines' dynastic democracy and political prospects in a truly global framework.Drawing on his recent article, “The Philippines' Dynastic Democracy” (July 2025, Vol. 26, No. 3), Heydarian dissects the main issues and key outcomes of the midterm elections in May; reflects on how the Philippines has been impacted by the sharpening global superpower competition; provides an insider account of former president Rodrigo Duterte's arrest and capture by the International Criminal Court; and considers the chances of as well as obstacles to a liberal-progressive breakthrough.Richard Javad Heydarian is a senior lecturer at the University of the Philippines, Asian Center, and a columnist for the Philippine Daily Inquirer. His books include The Rise of Duterte: A Populist Revolt Against Elite Democracy (2018) and The Indo-Pacific: Trump, China, and the New Struggle for Global Mastery (2020).The conversation was conducted by Ferenc Laczó. Lilit Hakobyan edited the audio file.

In the latest episode of our special series produced in collaboration with the Journal of Democracy, Paolo Sosa-Villagarcia and Moisés Arce discuss the rise of legislativeauthoritarianism, compare it with more traditional forms of authoritarian rule, and explore its implications both in theory and in practice.Drawing on their co-authored article with José Incio, “The Rise of Legislative Authoritarianism” (April 2025, Vol. 36, No. 2), Sosa-Villagarcia and Arce explain a phenomenon they observe mainly in Peru and Guatemala, where it is not theexecutive but rather the congress that concentrates power and restricts oversight by other branches in order to gain authoritarian control of the state apparatus. The conversation analyzes the roots and intentions behind these developments, considers whether Mexico under the seven-decade rule of the Partido Revolucionario Institucionalin the last century exhibited similarities to this system and finally addresses the question of whether judicial authoritarianism could also emerge.

In this episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, we speak with historian Balázs Trencsényi about his new book Intellectuals and the Crisis of Politics in the Interwar Period and Beyond: A Transnational History (OUP, 2025). Trencsényi offers a sweeping re-narration of modern European intellectual history through the lens of “crisis” — not only asan analytical category, but as a powerful tool of political mobilisation. We explore how crisis discourses evolved during the interwar period, why that moment still resonates today, and how populism and neoliberalism emerged aschildren of crisis. A key theme is the idea of a "second Sattelzeit" — or “saddle time,” a pivotal era of conceptual transformation — through which we also reflect on the Koselleckian legacy of researching historical crisis, time, and meaning. From rethinking political modernity to decentring the Western canon, this conversation examines what it means to think historically in times of deep upheaval and how such thinking can help us better respond to the challenges facing democracy today. Balázs Trencsényi is Professor of History at Central European University and Director of its Institute for Advanced Study in Budapest. A historian of East Central European political and cultural thought, he has led major comparative and transnational research projects, including the ERC-funded Negotiating Modernity project.

In this episode of Open Space(s) series, the Reviewof Democracy brings to your attention one of Europe's most ambitious cultural institutions: the House of European History. Founded by the European Parliament in 2017 in Brussels, this unique institution explores Europe's past from a transnational perspective and provides a platform for debating shared memory. The House of European Historycurates exhibitions, fosters debates, and research the shared European histories.Our guest is Simina Bădică, who is a curator at the House of European History in Brussels. Prior to her work at the House of the European History, she was a researcher, curator and the Head of Ethnological Archives at the Romanian Peasant Museum in Bucharest. She defended her PhD at the Central European University with a dissertation on the practices of curating Communism.Throughout our conversation, we explore the precise meaning of the term ‘house of history' and how this institution seeks to put this notion into practice. Forthe House of European History, the notion of open space has a crucial importance. On one hand, the building located in Brussels, initially designed in the 1920s as a dental hospital, invites visitors to engage more deeply with European narratives. At the same time, its strong digital exhibitionsencourages visitors and practitioners to interact with the content in creative ways. While rooted in the museum's physical space, the digital exhibitions speak to a broader, virtual European public.Exhibiting for such a broad audience inevitably raises complex curatorial questions. Thus, we discuss the challenges of curating information in 24 languages, the role of digital tools, and the multiple ways in which House of European History aims to connect with the local andinternational public. Nowhere is this curatorial balance more visible than in its exhibitions, both permanent and temporary.In our dialogue, we focus on two extremely relevant cases: Facts for Real: A History of Forgery and Falsification, a touringexhibition that presents falsifications throughout European history; and Presence of the Past: A European Album, a visually rich exhibition that rethinks how Europeans interpret their entangled histories through documentary photos.  Can a museum be both local and European? How cancurators respond to an increasingly political and social polarization without reducing complexity? What are the curatorial approaches that encourage the participants to ask nuanced questions about history? This conversation offers areflection of these question, based on the expertise of those working at the intersection of public history and museology. Public historians, museum practitioners, as well as scholars will definitely find this Open Space(s) episode extremely relevant.

In this episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, Alexandra Medzibrodszky talks to Leigh Jenco and Paulina Ochoa Espejo—two of the three co-authors of the new textbook Political Theory: A Global and Comparative Introduction, published by SAGE. Co-authored with Murad Idris, this groundbreaking volume reimagines how political theory is taught and understood by moving beyond a Eurocentric focus and embracing a truly global and comparative framework. Rather than organizing content around geographical regions or national traditions, the book takes a thematic approach—exploring war, political action, development, ritual, and other enduring political questions through a rich array of sources from across cultures and time periods. In the conversation, we discuss what it means to think politically beyond the Western canon, how to work with texts that are often marginalized or excluded from mainstream syllabi, and what challenges arise when dealing with disciplinary boundaries. We also reflect on the pedagogical value of open-ended inquiry and the democratic potential of teaching political theory as a space for students to ask the questions that matter most to them. As Leigh and Paulina explain, the aim is not to simply add more voices, but to shift the structure of the conversation itself—to replace a single sun with a galaxy of perspectives. Ultimately, the book opens up new ways of thinking about politics and democracy itself—its possibilities, its limits, and the many ways it has been imagined around the world.

Startups have become one of the defining features of the 21st-century economy, celebrated as engines of innovation, meritocracy, and social mobility. Entrepreneurs—from Silicon Valley to Bangalore—are increasingly influential in shaping not just markets but also political discourse. Governments around the world areinvesting heavily in building startup ecosystems, often presenting them as neutral, technocratic spaces of economic growth and opportunity. In this conversation with Hemangini Gupta, we complicate this optimistic narrative. Gupta explores how startup cultures in India—often hailed as symbols of democratic opportunity and disruption capitalism—are in fact deeply shaped bycaste, gender, and labor hierarchies. Drawing on her book Experimental Times: Startup Capitalism and Feminist Futures in India  (University of California Press, 2024), Gupta critiques the myth of meritocracy and masculine genius thatdominates tech cultures in Bangalore, seconded and supported by deeply racial structures of tech production in the Silicon Valley. Instead, she reveals how these “disruption capitals” reproduce exclusionary norms of heteropatriarchyand caste privilege, challenging the idea that innovation and entrepreneurship naturally align with democratic empowerment. Her work raises urgent questionsabout the relationship between entrepreneurialism and democratic life: Can startup cultures be reimagined as spaces of collective belonging and resistance, or are they fundamentally aligned with individualism and exclusion?

In this episode of Open Space(s), the Review of Democracy focuses on Lviv, where the Center for Urban Historyoffers a unique institutional model at the intersection between memory, space, and digital innovation. Founded in 2004 and located at 6 Bohomoltsia Street, Lviv, the Center for Urban History has become a vital node in public history and digital humanities. It defines itself as a hybrid institution with a hybrid audience.The podcast has as guest Bohdan Shumylovych, who is a historian, researcher, and professor at the UkrainianCatholic University. The conversation traces how the Center emerged outside traditional academic conventions by fostering bottom-up approaches. In our conversation, you can learn more about the various approaches of the Center for Urban History, from archiving media to mapping the shifting street names of Lviv. Space plays an important role in this context. Shumylovych reflects on the role of the building, designed by Ukrainian architect Ivan Levynskyi, in a once multiethnic, bourgeois neighborhood, as itself a palimpsest of empire, war, andpost-Soviet transformation. The episode explores how the Center for Urban History re-defined its role during war, including the urgent initiative Documenting the Experiences of War, which builds digital oral histories and archives in the context of the conflict. Whether digitizing diaries, archivingTelegram chats, or reimagining exhibition-as-research, the Center resists top-down narratives in favor of multiple perspectives. The conversation also engages with broader questions that can be relevant for a broader public: how does public history resist nationalist paradigms? How would we work with street names that carry imperial, Polish, Soviet meanings?Shumylovych offers nuanced answers on these issues, and he insists on partnerships between academics and municipalities, between archives and the public. As well, as Bohdan mentioned, they are proudly fostering a cat!Public historians, history teachers, art curators and scholars alike will definitely find this Open Space(s) episode particularly meaningful.

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.