RevDem Podcast

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

The Second World Approaches to International Law (SWAIL) project, which will be launched at Central European University in Vienna in February 2025,  aims to establish a more accurate way of conceptualising East Central Europe’s position in, and relationship with, international law. Three themes arise continuously throughout the podcast: liminality, domination, and the emancipatory potential of international law. Liminality is the cornerstone of the SWAIL project. It is discussed throughout the podcast, whether in reference to geography, epistemology, or time. Patryk identifies an issue whereby East Central Europe is too readily thought of as part of the West, when for him, and he proposes for others from this region, it should be thought of as both in and out, speaking to its liminal place in the global order. The result of this false conceptualisation is East Central Europe’s dual exclusion from theoretical understandings of international law; East Central Europe will not feature as the protagonist in a top-down study, nor is it the subject of post-colonial research. Patryk’s proposition is it ought not be sandwiched into either of these camps, rather East Central Europe’s place in international law ought to be understood in its own, fundamentally in-between, position. Communicating his driving thesis, he points out the contradistinction between Ukraine’s experience of the Russian invasion and Poland’s roles in the invasion of Iraq. East Central Europe is a geographic space sharing parallels with the West and the Global South but sharing space with neither. The most significant parallel Patryk makes between East Central Europe and the Global South is their joint experience of domination by external states. Between Russian and Soviet expansion from the East and a history of Western imperialism, East Central European states have a long history of fighting for their sovereignty. By applying a modified post-colonial framework to the region, Patryk contends we can remove a blind sport from Western and Third World approaches to international law, which both fail to give appropriate focus to non-European colonialist entities. Considering East Central Europe’s vulnerable position, it would be wrong not to consider what the recent US election means for the area’s geopolitics. Fortunately, we interviewed Patryk the day after the election. Patryk identified an understandable trepidation in East Central Europe leading up to the election. In the wake of the result, he deems a reconceptualization of the region’s security methods to be necessary. The issue gets to the heart of the SWAIL project, international law itself has been somewhat thrown into the liminal flux, exhibiting a bulwark of rules designed to protect states, but lacking a leader on which vulnerable states can rely to enforce those rules. These rules link to the final theme, which made for a surprisingly optimistic podcast given the current regional context: Patryk identifies emancipatory potential in international law. This optimism flowed into the podcast aboard two vessels, NATO and the Special Tribunal for the Crimes of Aggression against Ukraine by Russia, although it is clear Patryk’s optimism extended beyond these, applying to international law more generally. Regarding the former, Patryk identifies a worrying acceptance among many Global South actors of Russia’s justifications for its aggression when, for Patryk, NATO membership is a sensible defensive measure for East Central Europe to take given the region’s aforementioned geographical vulnerability and related history of imperial domination. Concerning the latter focus, Patryk rejects a commonly advocated position that all special tribunals entrench double standards in international law and communicate a message of selective criminal justice. Patryk identifies binary state-to-state, or region-to-region, comparisons as a misleading way to interpret international law. For Patryk, special tribunals like the one for Ukraine or similar experiments in the Central African Republic and Colombia can also be interpreted as a form of respect for the demands of weaker states in the global order; by shifting the framework away from binaries like Global North versus the Global South or West versus the Rest many more factors can be identified that unites second- and third-world countries than divides them. It is on the point of unity beyond binaries that Patryk already identifies potential scope for expansion of the SWAIL project. Latin America is a region in which he foresees particularly fruitful parallels and avenues for interesting scholarship. For the time being, the project exhibits significant potential, hopefully enabling a better understanding of East Central Europe’s position in international law, which may guide thought on a region that is already and will continue to be pivotal to world order moving forward.

In our new podcast, Mikal Hem discusses what modern dictators and autocrats seem to have learned from their predecessors, reflects on what might drive voters toward leaders with autocratic tendencies, considers what democratic societies can learn from the survival strategies of dictators, and contemplates how the resilience of free media could be strengthened in autocracies. The conversation was recorded on September 19, at the Budapest Forum for Building Sustainable Democracies. Mikal Hem has worked as a journalist and political commentator for the Norwegian newspapers Dagbladet and Verdens Gang, as well as the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and the weekly news magazine Ny Tid. He has traveled extensively around the world and spent a good deal of time in Africa and the countries of the former Soviet Union. For a period of his childhood, he lived with his family in Zimbabwe, under the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. His first book, Perhaps I Can Be Dictator, is a satirical career guide for aspiring autocrats. He is also the author of How to Be a Dictator: An Irreverent Guide.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Alice Evans discusses the great gender divergence and how we might explain that some countries are much more gender equal than others; considers whether the history of gender is essentially about female emancipation in modern times but also whether even the most gender equal countries in the world today remain rather patriarchal; and reflects on the special challenges of writing an interdisciplinary book that analyzes the history of gender on a truly global scale – and how such a project relates to the idea of a gender binary. Alice Evans is a Senior Lecturer in the Social Science of Development at King’s College London. She has published on gender, urbanization, the drivers of social change, inequality, and global production networks. Alice Evans is currently preparing a book under the title The Great Gender Divergence, which is under contract with Princeton University Press. This conversation was conducted at the Budapest Forum 2024 “Building Sustainable Democracies.”

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Enikő Gyureskó- the Festival Director of VerzióInternational Human Rights Documentary Film Festival – discusses the program of the Verzió Film Festival, which will take place between 6-13 November; the rationale of choosing specific foci in this year's program; the importance of documentaries in raising awareness about contemporary human rights issues; the collaborations between Verzió with other European festivals to promote human rights; the relevance of educational initiatives and university partnerships to foster critical engagement in Hungary. Enikő Gyureskó has been a key figure at the Verzió Film Festival since 2016. Starting as Festival Coordinator, she became Managing Director in 2021 and was appointed Festival Director in 2024. Enikő is responsible for the festival's development strategy, team management, fundraising, partnerships, and grants. Since 2022, she has also been a board member of MADOKE, the Hungarian Documentary Association. Enikő holds a BA in Liberal Arts, with a major in Art History and a minor in Philosophy, from Pázmány Péter Catholic University (2013), and an MA in Design and Art Management from Budapest Metropolitan University (2017). Verzió created a much-needed platform in Hungary for international documentary films focused on human rights. Over 20 years, the festival has attracted more than 250,000 attendees. In 2020, it launched its online streaming platform, Verziotheque, offering films nationwide between festival editions. Verzió is a crucial gathering point for the documentary film community, hosting screenings, discussions, and events in Budapest and across Hungary. The festival partners with cinemas and cultural spaces in cities like Pécs, Szeged, and Debrecen. This year, the festival will run between 6th and 13th of November.   Adrian Matus: Verzió has become a key platform for raising awareness on pressing human rights issues through documentary filmmaking. Could you introduce us to the agenda of the Verzió Film Festival? How do you view its significance within the global landscape of human rights film festivals? What does it share with other such festivals and what might make it rather special?   Enikő Gyureskó: Verzió has been one of the steadiest festivals running in Hungary. This will be the 21st edition, and it takes place every year in November, not just in Budapest but currently in six other towns and online as well. It has a large regular audience that comes back to our editions yearly. At the same time, we also try to reach out to new audiences with each edition. Currently, about 20000 people participate yearly if we consider both offline venues and online audiences. Regarding its international embedment, we are part of the Human Rights Film Network, which consists of over 40 human rights festivals globally. This network raises awareness of human rights and filmmakers in danger, or festival partners who operate in dangerous circumstances, such as Belarus or Central Asia, where democratic institutions do not exist, or people who work with human rights and social issues are under constant surveillance or harassment. Within this network, we try to provide support and raise international awareness whenever one of our members gets into trouble. It also serves as an exchange of experiences and a learning platform for all of us to improve our festivals. We are also trying to build strong relationships with several European festivals that are regionally closer to us. For example, the One World festival in Czechia has been one of our oldest partners. They were founded just a few years before Verzió and even inspired us when our festival was created. There are many similarities in how we think and do our programs. They (One World) also have many discussions, panel talks, and roundtables. Besides the screenings, just like Verzió, they try to cooperate with civil organizations and involve them in public debates. Watch Docs from Poland is an excellent example in this regard, being operated by Helsinki Foundation. We regularly apply together to European funds. One of the major sponsors of film festivals is the Creative Europe program by the European Union. In the past couple of years, this program initiated a funding scheme that provides grants to festival networks. Thus, now we are in the Doc Around Europe network for the second year, which includes partners from Spain, Germany, Italy, and North Macedonia. We are focusing together on mentoring emerging talents and better circulating their works on a European level. These are  similarities that we share. One of our programs. funded through grant schemes such as  Creative Europe Media and European Documentary Film Festival Network. is called Verzió DocLab. It focuses on developing documentaries which have a social aspect or human rights focus and takes place at the CEU's Budapest campus. As well, the Young Critics Workshop, funded through this grant scheme, will take place for the third time at CEU during Verzió. This workshop wants to improve the skills of emerging writers and critics interested in the documentary genre. These international programs are free; we provide everything from travel to accommodation.   AM: Which are the main foci and highlights of this year's festival? What documentaries stand out as particularly powerful to you from this year's program?   EG: Our curatorial team is really excited about this year's program! All the films stand out and we encourage everybody to try to watch as many films as their time allows. We try to screen every film twice during the festival's eight days. Of course, we have some highlights that have already won outstanding awards internationally. If I have to name one, I will mention I'm Not Everything I Want To Be - a Czech film about a photographer discovered recently in the international art scene. Her photographs were unknown before; she was photographing everyday life and the people around her. She lived in a socialist country and worked in a factory because she had to and not because she wanted to. In this context, she took pictures of workers. At the same time, she identified herself as queer and went to illegal queer bars where she took photographs. Of course, these bars were illegal then, and she tried to hide these pictures. She also travelled to Berlin and witnessed the wall falling in 1989. She lived through exciting times and was present at important historic events. This film consists solely of her photographs and has no single moving image. There are only photographs- about 3,000 of them - yet the team managed to edit it so that it does not become boring or monotonic. Even though the pictures are black and white, it is still such a powerful, visual, and empowering storytelling. I can only praise the editors who had to work hard to make it happen. We will have a Q& A session with the director, Klára Tasovská, who is coming to Verzió on the 9th of November so that you can catch her at Toldi Cinema. This film also inspired our visuals this year. Every year, Verzió changes its visuals- our posters, our website, and our social media communications use still images from one particular movie. This year will be I'm Not Everything I Want to Be- our visuals play with a plastic foil, a plastic wrap that comes off and underneath these pictures emerge. In a way, it also references what happened in Hungary. I think last year, a new law came into action where people under 18 were not allowed anymore to open, in bookstores, books which talked about the lives of LGBT people or that depicted anything related to homosexuality. We disagree with this situation and are referencing this issue in our visuals this year.   AM: More generally, how do you select the movies? What kind of balance do you aim at between artistic merit and the urgency of the issues addressed?   EG: I think a good film always keeps its value through time. Perhaps from the technical standpoint, the approaches are evolving. The picture quality and the cameras used are often of much better quality. At the same time, some films are made with cell phones, not only with the best equipment. Not every filmmaker has access to such equipment. However, it is not about that any more. The films have become more and more personal, focusing a lot on individual stories and embedding them in broader societal movements. This is the best way to make an emotional effect and draw the viewer closer to a story. In this way, the individuals are protagonists in these films and share intimate parts of their lives. These directors gain close access to many of the characters. Filmmakers also film about their own lives, and they are the protagonists in their films. The heaviness of these topics has always been a focal point since the festival's first year. The particularity of the program remains the same, and every year, we try to bring films that deal with urgent topics. War in Ukraine has been in our focus for several years now. This year, we have amazing, excellent films that stand out, not just because of their heavy topic but their genuinely outstanding qualities. For example, Intercepted or Songs of a Slow Burning Earth  are films that I recommend. The director of Flowers of Ukraine will also come to present the movie. This film was not initially about the war but about gentrification. As she proceeded to film, the war broke out, and it was always in the background. In other words, you cannot make a film without excluding the bigger reality. These films also show personal stories of how war affects people's everyday lives. In Intercepted, for example, we can listen to the phone calls of Russian soldiers, which were - as the title suggests - intercepted by the secret services in Ukraine. It is chilly to listen while you watch pictures of destroyed cities and the actual effects of their actions. The Armenian focus this year was not initially planned, but we decided to have it because we found these powerful films coming out of Armenia. 1489 is the title of one of the films that also won the Best Film award at the International Documentary Festival in Amsterdam last November. One particularity of this movie is that the director was filming with her phone. As mentioned, there are still films that were initially not intended to be a movie but just started to document an event. Later on, they decided to make it a movie. In this context, this director chose to film her own family. The story focuses on her brother, who disappeared in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Together with her father, they are trying to find him. This is a profound and personal story. The director, Shoghakat Vardanyan, is also coming to the festival. The British focus might come as a surprise. The reason for this focus is Brexit, which has caused less attention to British documentaries at European festivals in the last few years. We also wanted to cooperate with the British Council in Budapest and the British Embassy because we felt that there is less money now in the soft power of Britain to promote their culture in this part of the world. British cultural products are not as present as they used to be. We wanted to show a selection of recent British documentaries and found four feature lengths. We also have a VR section called Vektor VR. The exhibition is at Adaptér, a lovely communal space run by the local municipality, where you can sit down and watch VR documentaries. This year, the representation of the body is the focus, particularly how we experience our body in virtual reality and how it helps us understand how others might feel in their body. AM: You have a broad variety of movies, and my curiosity is: how do you select the movies? What kind of balance do you aim at between artistic merit and the urgency of the issues addressed? EG: We are trying to find the films that excel in this balance. Both these points are essential aspects of the selection. We work as a team; we watch all the films together

We are thrilled to publish the first episode of our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy. In the framework of this new partnership, authors shall discuss outstanding articles from the newest print issue of the Journal of Democracy each month. This conversation with Professor Kanchan Chandra offers an incisive exploration of the strengths and limitations of modern democracies, focusing on the United States, the United Kingdom, and India—three of the world's most prominent democratic systems. Chandra revisits one of the central dilemmas facing democracies in the 21st century: how to respond to the challenge of majoritarian nationalisms. She makes the compelling case that this challenge can be tackled through two bold and innovative approaches: by focusing on what she terms "minorities within majorities" and by strengthening protections for immigrants in order to strengthen protections for citizens.   Chandra argues that democracies are built on fluid and evolving majorities, which are often constructed through mechanisms like censuses. These majorities, she contends, should be understood not as monolithic blocs but as coalitions of various minority groups. By reframing majority rule in this way, Chandra’s work suggests a paradigm shift that holds profound implications for addressing the rise of majoritarianism in all three democracies she examines. Her insights pave the way for reimagining democratic governance in a more inclusive and equitable direction, one that recognizes and protects the diversity within societies' majorities themselves.   Check out the article at The Journal of Democracy (October 2024) at this link provided: The Future of Multiracial Democracy: Majoritarianism Without Majorities

Join hosts Erin K. Jenne and Letitia Roman as they sit down with political scientist Levente Littvay to discuss the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Together, they explore why Donald Trump remains a prominent GOP candidate despite numerous legal challenges, how polarization and populism intertwine, and the role of conspiracy theories in today’s political climate. They also examine parallels between U.S. and European populism and the future of both major parties. Tune in for a deep dive into the complex dynamics shaping this year's election.

In this episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, Alexandra Medzibrodszky interviews Samuel Hirst on his new book, Against the Liberal Order, the Soviet Union, Turkey and Statist Internationalism from 1919 to 1939. The book examines the collaboration between early Republican Turkey and the Soviet Union during the interwar period, exploring the diplomatic, economic, cultural and international dimensions of their relationship. Hirst highlights how both Bolsheviks and Kemalists shared a strong opposition to the Western-led liberal order, positioning themselves as key challengers to it after the First World War. The partnership was marked by anti-imperialist rhetoric and state-led exchanges, including Soviet support for Turkey’s industrialization efforts. Hirst argues that, despite ideological differences, the relationship evolved into a statist alternative to liberal internationalism—a dynamic often overlooked in historical accounts. Hirst’s work provides a case study of how peripheral states and societies navigated the interwar liberal order, enriching our understanding of competing internationalisms. The Turkish-Soviet relationship exemplifies cooperation in areas like economy, industry and disarmament, demonstrating both nations’ commitment to bilateralism and rejection of the Paris order. Both countries viewed foreign investment as a threat to sovereignty and political independence, reflecting a complex relationship with the West. For Turkey and the Soviet Union alike, Western engagement offered opportunities for modernization and economic development but was tempered by concerns over external influence infringing upon their autonomy. The history of Soviet-Turkish relations in the interwar period serves as a compelling case within the broader international history of competing internationalisms. The shared commitment of the Bolsheviks and the Kemalists to statist internationalism underscores the variety of international relations frameworks that emerged in response to Western dominance. Today, as alternative models of governance and international relations gain attention once again, the Soviet-Turkish experience offers valuable insights into how states have historically navigated and contested global orders.

In June 2024, Martijn van den Brink’s monograph, Legislative Authority and Interpretation in the European Union was published by Oxford University Press. The book tackles deep conceptual issues about the EU legal order, and yet its insights are also relevant for some of the most pressing practical issues facing Europe today. Martijn van den Brink is an Assistant Professor of EU law at Maastricht University, and he has previously held positions at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, the University of Oxford, and the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity in Göttingen.

The European Commission published its fifth annual Rule of Law Report in July 2024. In this RevDem Rule of Law podcast Oliver Garner discusses the effectiveness of this mechanism for upholding the EU's values with Professor Petra Bárd and Professor Laurent Pech. They have collaborated with the CEU Democracy Institute's rule of law clinic to produce a shadow report that will turn the lens back on the EU itself.