Illiberal Transatlantic Ties and the Reshaping of Democracy: Lessons From the US and Hungary

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.

In this conversation with Paul McGarr, we discuss hislatest book, Spying in South Asia (Cambridge, 2024). From the influence of espionage on international relations to the role of conspiracy and rumor in shaping domestic politics, McGarr highlights the complexities of intelligence dynamics between the West and India. He reveals how during theCold War, democratic aspirations in the Global South were often dismissed by American and British intelligence and foreign policy establishments.Challenging the widely held belief that the Western powers championed democracy in the region, McGarr argues that Cold War geostrategic priorities frequently undermined democratic movements in South Asia. Yet, despite these external pressures, local actors and political institutions in India played a crucial role in shaping intelligence outcomes, resisting imposed narratives, and asserting their own democratic agency.  

In the latest episode of our Democracy After 2024 series, Karolina Wigura discusses Poland’s currentrole in Europe and the changing polarization between liberal and illiberal forces; analyzes the role of emotions in contemporary liberal politics; reflects on how we distinguish between agendas of accountability, onthe one hand, and of retribution and revenge, on the other; and explains what she will watch particularly closely in the coming months.Karolina Wigura is a historian of ideas, sociologist, and journalist. She is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Liberal Modernity in Berlin and a member of the Board of the Kultura Liberalna Foundation in Warsaw. She is alecturer at the Institute of Sociology at Warsaw University and a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations. In her research, Karolina Wigura focuses on the political philosophy of the 20th century, on emotions in politics as well as on the sociology and ethics of memory and, more particularly, on questions of transitional justice, historical guilt, and reconciliation.