Christopher Walker Revisits Sharp Power

Sharp power seeks to exploit the openness of free societies because their institutions are open.Christopher WalkerChristopher Walker, a leading expert on authoritarian influence, returns to the origins of the concept of "sharp power," a term he helped develop to distinguish coercive and manipulative forms of influence from Joseph Nye’s idea of soft power. While soft power relies on attraction and persuasion, Walker explains that sharp power instead works by penetrating democratic institutions, restricting debate, and shaping narratives in ways that undermine openness. The conversation situates this concept within a broader shift in global politics, where expectations of democratic expansion after the Cold War have given way to a more contested and authoritarian-influenced world.The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20The Origins of Sharp Power - 2:51How Sharp Power Works - 11:29Do Democracies Use Sharp Power? 21:15Sharp Power in the Current Geopolitical Moment - 30:32LinksLearn more about Christopher Walker.Learn more about the Kellogg Institute.Register for the 2026 Global Democracy Conference at the University of Notre Dame.Apes of the State created all MusicEmail comments or questions to [email protected] the show

I don't think populism is necessarily a challenge to democracy. I think it's part and parcel of it.Hugo DrochonHugo Drochon joins The Democracy Paradox to explore why elites are an unavoidable part of democracy – and why that may not be a bad thing. Drawing on classical elite theory, he explains how democratic systems depend on the constant circulation of competing elites and why outsider movements, including populism, can play a vital role in keeping democracy responsive. The conversation challenges conventional views by reframing democracy as an ongoing, dynamic struggle rather than a fixed set of institutions.Hugo Drochon is an Associate Professor in Political Theory at the University of Nottingham and the author of a new book titled Elites and Democracy. The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20Nobody Wants to be an Elite - 3:52Lions, Foxes, and the Circulation of Elites - 15:34Is Populism a Threat to Democracy? - 31:37The Role of Ordinary Citizens - 41:12LinksLearn more about Hugo Drochon.Learn more about his upcoming book Elites and Democracy (Princeton University Press)Learn more about the Kellogg Institute.Register for the 2026 Global Democracy Conference at the University of Notre Dame.Apes of the State created all MusicEmail comments or questions to [email protected] the show

We are badly mismeasuring whether and how much people care about democracy.Milan SvolikIn this episode of the Democracy Paradox, host Justin Kempf speaks with political scientist Milan Svolik, the Elizabeth S. & A. Varick Stout Professor of Political Science at Yale University and author of The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Their conversation explores one of the central puzzles in contemporary democracy: why citizens who say they strongly support democracy sometimes vote for politicians who undermine it. Drawing on Svolik’s experimental research, the discussion examines how traditional survey questions often overestimate democratic commitment and why understanding voters’ real trade-offs offers a more accurate picture.The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20Measuring What Voters Really Believe - 3:33Militant Democracy and the Risks of Overcorrection - 16:51The Left, the Right, and Who Defends Democracy - 37:18The Voter as Democracy's Last Gatekeeper - 52:13LinksLearn more about Milan Svolik.Learn more about his book The Politics of Authoritarian Rule (Cambridge University Press)Learn more about the Kellogg Institute.Register for the 2026 Global Democracy Conference at the University of Notre Dame.Apes of the State created all MusicEmail questions or comments to [email protected] the show

The paradox of dictatorship is that dictatorships do well when they do not have a genuine dictator.Minxin PeiIn this episode of Democracy Paradox, Justin Kempf speaks with China scholar Minxin Pei about his book The Broken China Dream: How Reform Revived Totalitarianism and his argument that China under Xi Jinping has shifted from authoritarianism back toward totalitarianism. They explore the missed opportunities for political reform in the 1980s, the party’s post-Tiananmen survival strategy, and how Xi consolidated power through purges, ideological revival, and expanded social control. The conversation also reflects on what China’s trajectory reveals about the strengths – and fragility – of democracy itself.The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20China's Missed Opening - 4:22The Return of Control - 21:03The Making of a Strongman 38:16Lessons for Democracy - 50:41LinksLearn more about Minxin Pei.Learn more about his new book The Broken China Dream: How Reform Revived Totalitarianism.Learn more about the Kellogg Institute.Register for the Global Democracy ConferenceApes of the State created all MusicSupport the show

 Traditional programmatic parties serve as a critical guardrail for democracy. Erica FrantzIn this episode, Justin Kempf speaks with Erica Frantz about her book The Origins of Elected Strongmen and the rise of personalist leaders in democracies. Frantz explains how leader-dominated political parties – more than populist rhetoric alone – can erode democratic institutions from within, drawing on cases from El Salvador to France. The conversation explores why voters support such leaders and what this trend means for the future of democracy worldwide.The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20Personalism Defined - 2:50Personalism's Appeal - 14:19Threat to Democracy - 19:38Pushing the Boundaries of the Theory - 33:13LinksLearn more about Erica Frantz.Learn more about her coauthored book The Origins of Elected Strongmen: How Personalist Parties Destroy Democracy from Within.Learn more about the Kellogg Institute.Register for the Global Democracy ConferenceApes of the State created all MusicSupport the show

By dismantling certain capacities today, you're making the democratic choices of tomorrow harder.Javier Pérez SandovalIn this episode, Javier Pérez Sandoval discusses his Journal of Democracy essay, coauthored with Andrés Mejía Acosta, on why populist leaders often “hollow out” the state. Moving beyond familiar debates about executive aggrandizement and democratic backsliding, Pérez Sandoval argues that democracy depends on the state’s capacity to deliver essential public goods – from health and education to security, justice, and credible elections. Drawing on examples from Mexico and Argentina, he explains how both left- and right-wing populists may weaken institutions through austerity, politicization, and institutional restructuring, often prioritizing short-term political gains over long-term democratic resilience. The conversation explores how state erosion can constrain future democratic choices, undermine public trust, and create a vicious cycle that leaves democracy structurally weakened from within.The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20Reducing State Capacity - 3:47Core Functions of the State - 12:23Is Reducing State Capacity Antidemocratic? 21:13Does the Public Want to Hollow Out the State? 33:31LinksLearn more about Javier Pérez Sandoval.Read the Journal of Democracy essay “Why Populists Hollow Out Their States.”Learn more about the Kellogg Institute.Apes of the State created all MusicSupport the show

The group of people who have an interest in defending liberal democracy might be broader than many academics, and maybe even liberals, would have shown.Kate BaldwinThis episode features Yale political scientist Kate Baldwin in a conversation about her book Faith in Democracy, which challenges the assumption that religion is inherently hostile to democratic governance. Drawing on research from sub-Saharan Africa, Baldwin explains how Christian churches have often emerged as defenders of liberal democracy – not because of ideological commitments, but because democratic institutions protect church autonomy and social service work from state overreach. The conversation explores when and why churches mobilize against democratic backsliding, how institutional incentives shape political behavior, and what this reveals about the broader coalition of actors invested in sustaining democracy.The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20Why Churches Defend Democracy - 3:20Role of Education - 14:09Why Churches Choose Autocracy - 20:09Leadership - 27:00LinksLearn more about Kate Baldwin.Learn more about her book Faith in Democracy: The Logic of Church Advocacy for Liberal Democratic Institutions in Africa.Check out "Democracy's Devout Defenders" in the Journal of Democracy.Learn more about the Kellogg Institute.Apes of the State created all MusicSupport the show

You can take a cognitive bias so far down the road that you can live in an objectively very clear dictatorship and sit there and say, 'I live in a democracy.'Natalie Wenzell LetsaIn this episode of The Democracy Paradox, host Justin Kempf speaks with political scientist Natalie Wenzell Letsa about why some voters genuinely support ruling parties in electoral autocracies. Drawing on her book The Autocratic Voter and fieldwork in Cameroon, Letsa explains how partisan identities form under dictatorship and what these dynamics reveal about democracy, polarization, and political behavior more broadly.The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20What is an Electoral Autocracy - 3:20Voters in an Autocracy - 12:55Opposition in an Autocracy - 21:04Parallels to Democracies - 30:31LinksLearn more about Natalie Wenzell Letsa.Learn more about her book The Autocratic Voter: Partisanship and Political Socialization Under Dictatorship.Learn more about the Kellogg Institute.Apes of the State created all MusicSupport the show

The heart of ungoverning is going after expertise - eradicating expertise - and replacing it with the power of the great ruler.Russ MuirheadRussell Muirhead is the Robert Clements Professor of Democracy and Politics and the co-director of the Political Economy Project at Dartmouth University. He's also the co-author, with Nancy Rosenblum, of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos. Patrick McQuestion joins to help introduce the episode. Patrick is a  PhD student in his fourth year at the University of Notre Dame studying political science and peace studies, and also the co-host of the Global Stage Podcast. The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20What is Ungoverning? 9:00The Fourth Branch - 32:29Other Examples of Ungoverning 36:28Ungoverning and Democracy - 46:59Links:Learn more about Russell MuirheadLearn more about his book Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of ChaosLearn more about Patrick McQuestionLearn more about the Kellogg Institute.Apes of the State created all MusicSupport the show

Decreasing incumbent capacity and affective polarization are making incumbency salient, but also more of a curse than a blessing.Luis SchiumeriniIn this episode of The Democracy Paradox, host Justin Kempf speaks with Notre Dame political scientist Luis Schiumerini about his new book Incumbency Bias: Why Political Office is a Blessing and a Curse in Latin America. Schiumerini challenges common assumptions about incumbents, demonstrating that holding office can create systematic advantages – or disadvantages – depending on the institutional context. Before the conversation begins, Kellogg Doctoral Student Affiliate Tomás Gianibelli joins Kempf to share his experience working with Schiumerini and to explain why this research reshapes how scholars think about democracy. The Democracy Paradox is made in partnership with the Kellogg Institute of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. Read the full transcript here.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:20What is Incumbency Bias - 6:06Incumbency Disadvantage on the Rise - 23:58Term Limits - 31:39Implications for Democracy - 36:52Links:Learn more about Luis SchiumeriniLearn more about his book Incumbency Bias: Why Political Office is a Blessing and a Curse in Latin AmericaLearn more about Tomás GianibelliLearn more about the Kellogg Institute.Support the show