RevDem Podcast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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