RevDem Podcast

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.