RevDem Podcast

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.