Guests featured in this episode:

Mary Kaldor, Professor Emeritus of Global Governance and Director of the Conflict Research Programme at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She has had a long and illustrious academic career but has also been an activist since the 1980s. She was a founder of the European Nuclear Disarmament Movement, was co-chair of Helsinki Citizens Assembly and Peoples Europe, and was a member of the Goldstone Commission investigating the Kosovo crisis. 

She has co-edited several influential volumes, on Dealignment and The New Détente, both with Richard Falk; on Restructuring the Global Military Sector; on Democratization in Central and Eastern Europe; and most recently, on EU Global Strategy and Human Security (2018). She is author of the agenda-setting book Global Civil Society: An Answer to War, Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention, and highly acclaimed New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era.

GLOSSARY

What was the Helsinki Accords (Agreement)? 
(00:5:20 or p.2 in the transcript)

Helsinki Accords, also called Helsinki Final Act (August 1, 1975), major diplomatic agreement signed in the capital Of Finland, Helsinki, at the conclusion of the first Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE; now called the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe). The Helsinki Accords were primarily an effort to reduce tension between the Soviet and Western blocs by securing their common acceptance of the post-World War II status quo in Europe. The accords were signed by all the countries of Europe (except Albania, which became a signatory in September 1991) and by the United States and Canada. The agreement recognized the inviolability of the post-World War II frontiers in Europe and pledged the 35 signatory nations to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to cooperate in economic, scientific, humanitarian, and other areas. The Helsinki Accords are nonbinding and do not have treaty status. Source:

What is the theory of nuclear deterrence? 
(00:21:42 or p.5 in the transcript) 

The strategic concept of nuclear deterrence aims to prevent war. It is the justification virtually every nuclear state uses for maintaining nuclear arsenals. The concept of nuclear deterrence follows the rationale of the ‘first user’ principle.  States reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in self-defence against an armed attack threatening their vital security interests. Possession of nuclear weapons could be seen as the ultimate bargaining tool in international diplomacy, instantly giving any nuclear state a seat at the top table. 

The possession of nuclear weapons is repeatedly attacked on the grounds of morality, national credibility, legality, and cost. Nonetheless, proponents of deterrence theory generally draw on one primary argument: its efficacy as a war-prevention mechanism. A notable author in the field, Kenneth Waltz, argues that nuclear deterrence bolsters state security by alleviating the prospect of direct attack, essentially ensuring peace through fear of retaliation. It is argued that the nuclear deterrence developed between the USA and the USSR – the belief that any nuclear attack would lead to massive nuclear retaliation and ‘mutually assured destruction’ – avoided nuclear war and maintained the temperature between the 1950s and 1990s. The continued nuclear deterrence prevented war between the USA and USSR, and has maintained the West’s longest ever period of peace, in the years that followed. It has been noted that no direct conflict has ever broken out between two nuclear-armed states. 

On these grounds, a small number of proponents maintain that the possession of nuclear proliferation should not be limited to a select few, ‘superior’ states. At present, countries possessing a nuclear deterrent are thought to exert an unfair advantage on the global stage, leaving vulnerable countries relatively unprepared (and reliant on nuclear states) in the event of an attack. 

Since the end of the Cold War, however, the nature of the nuclear threat has changed dramatically. The greatest nuclear fear today is that nuclear weapons find their way into the hands of terrorists or ‘rogue states’, either through autonomous programs of development, or technology passed on.  Policy of deterrence is considered useless against terrorists and is less useful against ‘rogue states’ such as Iran and North Korea, whose stability is questioned, and whose motivations are less easily understood. Source:

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: Novel

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Guests featured in this episode:

Yascha Mounk,  senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and also professor of the practice of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University. As a public intellectual, he is widely known for his work on the crisis of democracy and the defense of liberalism. He is a regular contributor to The Atlantic, The New York Times, and Foreign Affairs. Yascha is also the author of 4 books, the autobiographically inspired Stranger in My Own Country, The Age of Responsibility – Luck, Choice, and the Welfare State, The People versus Democracy – Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It, and most recently, The Great Experiment – Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure, published earlier this year.

GLOSSARY

What is the Replacement Theory? 
(00:3:20 or p.1 in the transcript)

A demographic conspiracy theory popular among white nationalists in the United States and Europe that speculates that falling birthrates among white, native-born Christians, together with a growing population of nonwhite, non-Christian immigrants, whose arrival is believed to be encouraged or orchestrated by globalist elites with the goal of undermining national identities, will, if unchecked, result in the decline of white European culture or its dominance. First recorded in 1900–05 as a medical term; current sense dates to 2015–20; partly based on L’Abécédaire de l’in-nocence (The Abecedarium of No-Harm, 2010) and Le Grand Remplacement (The Great Replacement, 2011), books by Renaud Camus, French novelist, white nationalist, and conspiracy theorist. Source:

What are the salad bowl and melting pot theory? 
(00:37:33 or p.10 in the transcript)

The salad bowl model is a metaphor for an inclusive, multicultural society. The idea of a melting pot is a popular metaphor, but it emphasizes the unification of parts into a single whole. The salad bowl concept focuses on individual cultures and proposes a society with many distinct identities. The salad bowl model is the most common concept in Canada and suggests that the country is becoming more cosmopolitan as more people migrate to the country. However, unlike the concept of a melting pot, the salad bowl concept is not homogenous. The concept is more politically correct, and it promotes a society that has many pure cultures rather than a single, unified one. The salad bowl concept also suggests cultural integration. While the melting pot concept promotes a multicultural society, the salad bowl model encourages different cultures to coexist. It juxtaposes the various American cultures, instead of blending them into a single, homogeneous culture. This model emphasizes the need for shared culture and is more politically correct than the melting pot model, which implies that ethnic groups might lose their culture. Source:

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: Novel

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Guests featured in this episode:
Masha Gessen,  a distinguished journalist & staff writer for the New Yorker.  Born in Moscow in the Soviet Union, Masha moved to the United States in 1981, only to return to Russia as a journalist a decade later. A strong critic of Putin’s regime from the very outset, Masha decided to leave Russia and return to the US due to the politically motivated crackdown on gay parents by Russian authorities.
They have authored 11 books, most recently, Surviving Autocracy (2020), an insightful account of the Trump Presidency that also draws on their experience of living in Russia. Two of their other books discussed within the podcast are; The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia, and The Man without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin (2012).

GLOSSARY

Who was Boris Yeltsin? 
(00:19:15 or p.5 in the transcript)

Boris Yeltsin, Russian politician who became president of Russia in 1991, he was the first popularly elected leader in the country’s history, guiding Russia through a stormy decade of political and economic retrenching. During his first presidency Yeltsin publicly supported the right of Soviet republics to greater autonomy within the Soviet Union, took steps to give the Russian republic more autonomy, and declared himself in favour of a market-oriented economy and a multiparty political system.

At the same time, Russia’s parliament, the Congress of People’s Deputies, had grown increasingly hostile toward his free-market reforms. Yeltsin and the Congress were also deeply divided over the question of the balance of powers in Russia’s proposed new constitution, which was needed to replace the obsolete 1978 Soviet-era Russian Constitution. On September 21, 1993, Yeltsin unconstitutionally dissolved  the Congress and called for new parliamentary elections. In response, hard-line legislators attempted a coup in early October but were suppressed by army troops loyal to Yeltsin. Parliamentary elections and a referendum on a draft constitution were held in December. Yeltsin’s draft constitution, which increased the powers of the presidency, was narrowly approved, but the anti-reform character of Russia’s newly elected parliament, the Federal Assembly, compelled Yeltsin to govern primarily by executive decree in the coming years.

In another spectacular comeback, however, he won reelection over a communist challenger in the second round of elections held in July 1996. He spent the months after his electoral victory recovering from a heart attack he had suffered that June during the rigours of the campaign. The state of Yeltsin’s health was a recurring issue.

In the late 1990s political maneuvering dominated much of the country’s government as Yeltsin dismissed four premiers and in 1998 fired his entire cabinet, though many were later reappointed. The following year the State Duma initiated an impeachment drive against Yeltsin, charging that he had encouraged the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, among other  allegations The Duma, however, was unable to secure the necessary votes to proceed. Ever unpredictable, Yeltsin announced his resignation on December 31, 1999, in favour of what he characterized as a new, energetic leadership. He named Prime Minister  Vladimir Putin acting president, and in turn Putin granted Yeltsin immunity from future prosecution. Source:
 

Who was Vladimir Zhirinovsky? 
(00:29:53 or p.7 in the transcript) 

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Russian politician and leader of the far-right Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) from 1991 to 2022. Known for his fiery Russian nationalism and broad anti-Semitic asides, he later acknowledged his Jewish roots.

Much of Zhirinovsky’s personal history is vague, unknown, or disputed. He left his hometown at age 18 to attend Moscow State University, where he studied Turkish and other languages. After graduating about 1969, he went to work as a translator in Turkey, but he was expelled under murky circumstances eight months later. After returning to Moscow in 1972, he worked in various state committee and union posts. He completed an evening law program at Moscow State University, earning his degree in 1977 and then working in a state-run law firm (from which he was later asked to resign). In 1983 Zhirinovsky landed a position as head of the law department at the Mir publishing company, a post that served as a springboard for his political career.

Zhirinovsky cofounded the LDPR in 1989. The following year the party was launched in Moscow, and Zhirinovsky was asked to become its chairman, but by October his views had provoked his expulsion. In the spring of 1991 Zhirinovsky created his own party, giving it his previous and party’s name, and in June he first ran for the Russian presidency; he ran several times for presidency during his long political carrier. A figure as colorful as Zhirinovsky was bound to be the object of rumour and speculation. It was widely reported that his career could have been possible only under the auspices of the KGB. Source:

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: Novel

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Guests featured in this episode:

Dr Michael John Hastings, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick CBE. He began his career as a teacher at a London Comprehensive school but after a few years took up a government job and supported policy initiatives to bring employment and development to Britain’s inner cities in a rough period marked by urban riots. He went to work for the BBC as presenter and later joined the BBC Corporate Division, after which he became the head of its Public Affairs, and then its first head of Corporate Social Responsibility. In 2002, he was appointed CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) in recognition of his services to crime reduction, including two decades of serving as a trustee and chairman of Crime Concern, and nine year of work with the Commission for Racial Equality. In 2005, he became a crossbencher life peer in the House of Lords.

GLOSSARY:

What was the January 6 insurrection ? 
(00:10:45 or p.3 in the transcript)

United States Capitol attack o on January 6, 2021, by a mob of supporters of Pres. Donald J.Trump. The attack disrupted a joint session of Congress convened to certify the results of thepresidential election of 2020, which Trump had lost to his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or coup d’etat. The FBI and other law-enforcement agencies also considered it an act of domestic terrorism.  For having given a speech before the attack in which he encouraged a large crowd of his supporters near the White House to march to the Capitol and violently resist Congress’s certification of Biden’s victory—which many in the crowd then did—Trump was impeached  ched by the Democratic-led House of Representatives for “incitement of insurrection” ;he was subsequently acquitted by the Senate. Source:

What is the Davos Forum and what is the agenda for 2022 meeting? 
(00:30:14 or p.7 in the transcript) 

For more than 50 years, the World Economic Forum, also known as the Davos Forum, has served as a global platform where leaders from business, government, international organizations, civil society and academia come together to address critical issues at the start of each year.

Davos was established in 1971 in Geneva (Switzerland) as an “independent, impartial and not tied to special interests” non-profit organization. Its founder is Klaus M. Schwab, a professor at the University of Geneva, who initially invited 444 executives from European companies to a meeting on corporate governance in the convention center of Davos.

His idea was to introduce the American business management approach to European firms. He never imagined that that meeting would lead to the unparalleled international summit that it is today.

Thousands of ideas come out of the Davos Forum. Not all of them materialize, but some have come far: the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, was first proposed at an informal meeting in Davos.

In 2021, the forum had to be canceled because of the pandemic.

The war in Ukraine and the human tragedy that it entails has forced a change of agenda. Leaders gathered in Davos must therefore address the challenges stemming from the conflict, yet not lose sight of longer-term environmental, technological and social priorities. The meetings are structured around six themes: 1) Promoting global and regional cooperation; 2) Ensuring economic recovery and building a new era of growth; 3) Building healthy and fair societies; 4) Safeguarding the climate, food supply and nature; 5) Promoting the transformation of industry; 6) Harnessing the power of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Source:

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: Novel

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Guests featured in this episode:

Éric Fassin, Professor of sociology and co-chair of the Gender Studies Department at Paris VIII. University, where he also established the Research Center on Gender and Sexuality Studies. His research addresses sexual and racial politics as well as immigration issues, in France, Europe, and in the United States in a comparative perspective. He is currently working on book project with his brother, Didier Fassin, on The Rising Significance of Race in France, to be published the University of Chicago Press.

GLOSSARY:

How Assa Traoré became a symbolic figure in France?
(00:16:00 or p.4 in the transcript)

Assa Traoré is the sister of Adama Traoré, a black French man who died in police custody in 2016. Assa Traoré has been acquitted of defamation charges brought against her by police officers. She accused three police officers of killing her brother, but the investigators have been unable to agree  if he was suffocated or if he died because of an underlying medical condition.

The death of Adama Traoré has elicited many parallels between George Floyd's death in the U.S. Assa Traoré, has become the symbolic figure of the Black Lives Matter movement in France. Source:

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: Novel

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

What does Harry Frankfurt write On Bullshit? 
(00:35:06 or p.8 in the transcript) 

Harry Frankfurt, a moral philosopher, makes the following observation in his book: “One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit.” 

Aspects of the bullshit problem are discussed partly with reference to the Oxford English Dictionary, Wittgenstein and Saint Augustine. Three points seem especially important – the distinction between lying and bullshitting, the question of why there is so much bullshit in the current day and age, and a critique of sincerity qua bullshit.

Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting. Both the liar and the bullshitter try to get away with something. But ‘lying’ is perceived to be a conscious act of deception, whereas ‘bullshitting’ is unconnected to a concern for truth. Frankfurt regards this ‘indifference to how things really are’, as the essence of bullshit. Furthermore, a lie is necessarily false, but bullshit is not – bullshit may happen to be correct or incorrect. The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their lack of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth instead of acknowledging and subverting it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies. Source:

Guests featured in this episode:

Stephen Holmes, the Walter E. Mayer Professor of Law and co-director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University. Stephen has been the recipient of prestigious fellowships from, among others, the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, the Wissenschaftkolleg in Berlin, the Guggenheim Foundation, and the IWM in Vienna. 

Between 1994 and 1996, he served as Director of the Soros Foundation program for promoting legal reform in Russia and Eastern Europe, and was also named Carnegie Scholar in 2003-2005 for his work on Russian legal reform. 

He is also the co-author of The Light that Failed: A Reckoning  with Ivan Krastev, a book that details the ride of authoritarian antiliberalism in Russia. 

GLOSSARY

What is the Kievan Rus ?
(00:8:11 or p.2 in the transcript)

 Kievan Rus (862-1242) was a medieval political federation located in modern-day Belarus, Ukraine, and part of Russia (the latter named for the Rus, a Scandinavian people). The name Kievan Rus is a modern-day (19th century) designation but has the same meaning as 'land of the Rus,' which is how the region was known in the Middle Ages.

The Rus ruled from the city of Kiev (also given as Kyiv) and so 'Kievan Rus' simply meant "the lands of the Rus of Kiev". The Rus are first mentioned in the Annals of Saint-Bertin which records their presence in a diplomatic mission from Constantinople to the court of Louis the Pious (r. 814-840) in 839. The annals claim they were Swedes, and this is possible, but their ethnicity has never been firmly established. Source: 

What was the crisis and annexation of Crimea ? 
(00:08:38 or p.2 in the transcript) 

As pro-Russian protesters became increasingly assertive in Crimea, groups of armed men whose uniforms lacked any clear identifying marks surrounded the airports in Simferopol and Sevastopol.. Masked gunmen occupied the Crimean parliament building and raised a Russian flag, as pro-Russian lawmakers dismissed the sitting government and installed Sergey Aksyonov, the leader of the Russian Unity Party, as Crimea’s prime minister. 

On March 6 the Crimean parliament voted to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation, with a public referendum on the matter scheduled for March 16, 2014. On the day of the referendum, observers noted numerous irregularities in the voting process, including the presence of armed men at polling stations, and the result was an overwhelming 97 percent in favour of joining Russia On March 18 Putin met with Aksyonov and other regional representatives and signed a treaty incorporating Crimea into the Russian Federation. Western governments protested the move. Within hours of the treaty’s signing, a Ukrainian soldier was killed when masked gunmen stormed a Ukrainian military base outside Simferopol. Russian troops moved to occupy bases throughout the peninsula, including Ukrainian naval headquarters in Sevastopol, as Ukraine initiated the evacuation of some 25,000 military personnel and their families from Crimea. On March 21 after the ratification of the annexation treaty by the Russian parliament, Putin signed a law formally integrating Crimea into Russia. Source:

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: Novel

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Guests featured in this Episode

Gábor Tóka, Senior Research Fellow in the Vera and Donald Blinken Open Society Archives in Budapest.  A sociologist by training, he has published more than 60 articles on electoral behaviour, public opinion, political parties and democratic consolidation in edited volumes, political science and sociology journals. He is also the author of Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation (Cambridge University Press, 1999), and has co-edited The Europeanization of National Polities (Oxford University Press, 2012).

GLOSSARY

What is Fidesz, the Hungarian political party ?
(00:1:20 or p.1. in the transcript) 

Fidesz, by name of Federation of Young Democrats–Hungarian Civic Alliance, is a centre-right Hungarian political party. Fidesz (the Federation of Young Democrats) was founded in 1988 as an anticommunist party that promoted the development of a market economy and European integration.  Initially, membership was restricted to those age 35 and younger, though this restriction was eliminated in 1993. In 1995 the party appended the name Hungarian Civic Party to its shortened form (altered to Hungarian Civic Alliance in 2003). Fidesz had its first notable success in 1990, when candidates associated with a coalition of which Fidesz was a member won mayoralties in a number of cities. In elections to the National Assembly, Fidesz won 22 seats. In 1997 members of a Christian Democratic group that had dissolved joined Fidesz in the National Assembly, enabling the joint group to form the largest bloc. The following year Fidesz became the single largest party in the National Assembly. 

After some eight years of Socialist rule, Fidesz, capitalizing on Hungary’s ongoing economic problems after the country’s economic collapse in 2008, swept back into power in the parliamentary elections of April 2010, winning more than two-thirds of the seats. Fidesz and its junior electoral coalition partner, the Christian Democratic People’s Party, repeated that feat in 2014 and again in 2018 and 2022, with Orbán returning as prime minister each time. Source: 

What is The Visegrad Group? 
(00:22:12 or p.5 in the transcript) 

The Visegrad Group (V4) is an informal regional format of cooperation between the four Central European countries: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are not only linked by neighbourhood and similar geopolitical situation but above all by common history, traditions, culture, and values.

The idea behind the Group was to intensify cooperation in building democratic state structures and free market economies and, in the long term, to participate in the process of European integration. The date of its creation is 15 February 1991, when the Presidents of Poland and Czechoslovakia, Lech Wałęsa and Václav Havel, and Prime Minister of Hungary József Antall signed a joint declaration on the objectives and conditions of cooperation in the Hungarian town of Visegrad.

Since 2004, all V4 countries have been members of the European Union, and the Visegrad Group provides a forum for exchanging experiences and working out common positions on issues relevant to the future of the region and the EU.

In addition to European issues, V4 cooperation focuses primarily on matters concerning Central Europe, exchange of information, and cooperation in culture, science, education and youth exchanges. Priority areas include expanding transport infrastructure and strengthening energy security in the region. Source:

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: Novel

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Guests featured in this episode:

Marzuki Darusman,  an internationally recognized human rights lawyer and former Attorney General of Indonesia.  Marzuki has participated in the work of UN committees on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, war crimes in Sri Lanka, human rights in North Korea, and most recently, he was the chair an independent Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar under the UN Human Rights Council following the Rohingya genocide in 2017.

GLOSSARY:

Who is the Aung San Suu Kyi?
(00:5:10 or p.2 in the transcript) 

Aung San Suu Kyi, also calledDaw Aung San Suu Kyi, politician and opposition leader of Myanmar, daughter of  Aung San, a martyred  national hero of independent Burma and Khin Kyi a prominent Burmese diplomat, and winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1991. She held multiple governmental posts from 2016, including that of state counselor, which essentially made her the de facto leader of the country. She was sidelined in February 2021 when the military seized power.

Aung San Suu Kyi was two years old when her father, then the de facto prime minister of what would shortly become independent Burma, was assassinated. She studied and lived abroad and returned to Burma in 1988 to nurse her dying mother,leaving her family behind.  There the mass slaughter of protesters against the brutal and unresponsive rule of military strongman U Ne Win led her to speak out against him and to begin a nonviolent struggle for  democracy and human rights.

In July 1989 Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest in Yangon and held her incommunicado. The military offered to free her if she agreed to leave Myanmar, but she refused to do so until the country was returned to civilian government and political prisoners were freed. The  National League for Democracy (NLD), which Suu Kyi had cofounded in 1988, won more than 80 percent of the parliamentary seats that were contested in 1990, but the results of that election were ignored by the military government (in 2010 the military government formally annulled the results of the 1990 election). 

After becoming state counselor she and her administration faced widespread international condemnation over the treatment of the Muslim Rohingya people of Myanmar’s Rakhine state. After some attacks by Rohingya militants on security installations in 2016 and 2017, the military and police embarked on a brutal campaign against the entire group, allegedly committing human rights abuses and causing a large percentage of the population to flee the country. Given Suu Kyi’s history as a champion of human rights and democracy, sharp criticism was directed at her in particular for initially seeming to ignore the crisis and, when she did address it, not denouncing the actions of the security forces or intervening. In protest of her inaction regarding the plight of the Rohingya, several organizations revoked human rights-related honours and awards previously bestowed upon her.

Although Suu Kyi’s reputation had suffered abroad, at home she and the NLD still retained a good amount of support. In the November 8, 2020, parliamentary elections, the NLD won a commanding majority of seats in both legislative chambers and was poised to form the next government.

The newly elected parliament was due to hold its first session on February 1, 2021, but, in the early hours of that day, the military seized power. Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders were detained by the military, which allowed Vice Pres. Myint Swe (a former general) to become acting president. Claiming that the unresolved election complaints were a threat to the country’s sovereignty, he invoked clauses 417 and 418 of the constitution, which provided for the military to declare a one-year state of emergency and take over administration of the government. Two days later the police announced that they had filed charges against Suu Kyi with regards to the presence of illegally imported walkie-talkie radios in her home. Source:

Who are the Bamar people?
(00:11:05 or p.3 in the transcript) 

The term “Bamar” or “Burman” refers to the largest and culturally dominant ethnic group of Myanmar. The term “Burmese” refers to the language and culture of the Burmans, as well as to the other citizens of Myanmar. The Bamar migrated from SW China more than 3,000 years ago. The central plain formed by the Irrawaddy River and the Salween River is the traditional home of the Bamar. About 68% of the population of Myanmar is Burman (about 31 million), while the remaining population is divided into 5 main minority groups (Shan, Karen, Kachin, Arakanese, and Chin). There are also many small groups like the Lahu, Wa, Akha and Lisu. Almost all Bamar (more than 95%) are Buddhists. Source:

Who are the Rohingya people?
(00:13:02 or p.3 in the transcript) 

The Rohingya people are an ethnic group from Myanmar, most live in Rakhine State on Myanmar’s western coast. Myanmar is a majority-Buddhist state, but the Rohingya people are primarily Muslim, though a small number are Hindu. The ethnic minority is considered “the most persecuted minority in the world” by the United Nations.

The story of that persecution has its roots in Britain’s colonization of Burma, and modern-day Myanmar’s refusal to recognize the existence of a people who have existed for thousands of years.

Today, the Rohingya are considered illegal immigrants by Myanmar, and are not recognized under the law. Rohingya people cannot access social services or education, and their movement outside of Rakhine State is closely restricted. Myanmar has also imposed strict regulations on birth control and marriage, only allowing Rohingya in some townships in Rakhine State to have two children and restricting the marriages of some Rohingya.

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: Novel

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Guests featured in this episode:

Slawomir Sierakowski, a Polish sociologist and political analyst, with extensive knowledge of not only Ukraine and Russia, but also the potential third party in the current war, Belarus. He is also the founder and editor-in-chief of the Krytyka Polityczna (Political Critique) magazine. His more than 400 articles and op-eds include not only publications in Polish, but regular monthly columns in the international edition of The New York Times and Project Syndicate, among others.

GLOSSARY

What is the “Budapest Memorandum”?
(00:8:02 or p.2 in the transcript) 

On December 5, 1994, leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation met in Budapest, Hungary, to pledge security assurances to Ukraine in connection with its accession to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapons state. The signature of the so-called Budapest Memorandum concluded arduous negotiations that resulted in Ukraine’s agreement to relinquish the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, which the country inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union, and transfer all nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantlement. The signatories of the memorandum pledged to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders, and to refrain from the use or threat of military force. Russia breached these commitments with its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and aggression in eastern Ukraine, bringing the meaning and value of security assurance pledged in the Memorandum under renewed scrutiny. Source

What is Nord Stream 2 pipeline? 
(00:17:10 or p.4 in the transcript) 

The construction of the controversial natural gas pipeline Nord Stream brings gas from Russia under the Baltic Sea to Germany, running parallel to, and expanding the capacity of, the existing Nord Stream pipeline.  The project would allow additional Russian gas to flow directly to Germany.  Opponents  argue that it would increase Russian influence in Germany. This is a concern for Poland, the Baltic states, and the Ukraine, which also fear that they would lose out on revenue from the transport of natural gas via other existing routes. Critics also argue that a new gas pipeline does not fit with the EU’s strategy that aims at replacing fossil with renewable energy in the medium term, which would make Nord Stream 2 a stranded investment.

Nord Stream 2 has been completed with some delay, but hurdles in the certification procedure and political tensions at the Ukrainian-Russian border have held up the project. Source

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: Novel

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Guests featured in this episode 

 Georgi Derluguian, Professor of Social Research and Public Policy at New York University’s Abu Dhabi campus. Born in the Soviet Union, Georgie then experienced its breakup as a young social scientist. Having pursued African studies in Moscow, Georgi spent two years in Mozambique during the civil war in the 1980s, and then  moved to the United States right after that to work with Immanuel Wallerstein, graduating with a PhD in sociology from the State University of New York at Binghamton. 

His dissertation research formed the basis of a groundbreaking and idiosyncratic book of historical sociology: Bourdieu’s Secret Admirer in the Caucasus: A World-System Biography (University of Chicago Press, 2005).

Glossary

What were the Brest- Litovsk Treaties? 
(At 00:2:46 or p.1 in the transcript) 

Treaties of Brest-Litovsk, peace treaties signed at Brest-Litovsk (now in Belarus) by the Central powers with the Ukrainian Republic (Feb. 9, 1918) and with Soviet Russia (March 3, 1918), which concluded hostilities between those countries during World War I. On March 3 the Soviet government accepted a treaty by which Russia lost Ukraine, its Polish and Baltic territories, and Finland. (The treaty was ratified by theCongress of Soviets on March 15, both the Ukrainian and Russian treaties were annulled by the Armistice on Nov. 11, 1918, which marked the Allied defeat of Germany. Source:

What was the Marschall Plan? 
(00:7:19 or p.2 in the transcript)

The Marshall Plan, also known as the European Recovery Program, was a U.S. program providing aid to Western Europe following the devastation of World War II. It was enacted in 1948 and provided more than $15 billion to help finance rebuilding efforts on the continent. The brainchild of U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, for whom it was named, it was crafted as a four-year plan to reconstruct cities, industries and infrastructure heavily damaged during the war and to remove trade barriers between European neighbors—as well as foster commerce between those countries and the United States. In addition to economic redevelopment, one of the stated goals of the Marshall Plan was to halt the spread communism on the European continent. Source:

Who was Vaclav Havel? 
(At 00:16:30 or p.3 in the transcript) 

Václav Havel, (1936-2011), Czech playwright, poet, and political dissident who, after the fall of communism, was president of Czechoslovakia (1989–92) and of the Czech Republic (1993–2003).

Havel was the son of a wealthy restaurateur whose property was confiscated by the communist government of Czechoslovakia in 1948. As the son of bourgeois parents, Havel was denied easy access to education but managed to finish high school and study on the university level. He found work as a stagehand in a Prague theatrical company in 1959 and soon began writing plays with Ivan Vyskočil. By 1968 Havel had progressed to the position of resident playwright of the Theatre of the Balustrade company. He was a prominent participant in the liberal reforms of 1968 (known as the Prague Spring), and, after the Soviet clampdown on Czechoslovakia that year, his plays were banned and his passport was confiscated. During the 1970s and ’80s he was repeatedly arrested and served four years in prison (1979–83) for his activities on behalf of human rights in Czechoslovakia. After his release from prison Havel remained in his homeland. When massive anti-government demonstrations erupted in Prague in November 1989, Havel became the leading figure in the Civic Forum, a new coalition of noncommunist opposition groups pressing for democratic reforms. In early December the Communist Party capitulated and formed a coalition government with the Civic Forum. As a result of an agreement between the partners in this bloodless “Velvet Revolution”, Havel was elected to the post of interim president of Czechoslovakia on December 29, 1989, and he was reelected to the presidency in July 1990, becoming the country’s first noncommunist leader since 1948. As the Czechoslovak union faced dissolution in 1992, Havel, who opposed the division, resigned from office. The following year he was elected president of the new Czech Republic. Source

Who was George Kenan? 
(00:30:33 or p.6 in the transcript) 

George F. Kennan, in full George Frost Kennan, American diplomat and historian best known for his successful advocacy of a containment policy to oppose Soviet expansionism following World War II. 

Kennan’s views on containment were elucidated in a famous and highly influential article, signed “X,” that appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine for July 1947, analyzing in detail the structure and psychology of Soviet diplomacy. In the article Kennan, who drew heavily from his Long Telegram, questioned the wisdom of the United States’ attempts to conciliate and appease the Soviet Union. He suggested that the Russians, while still fundamentally opposed to coexistence with the West and bent on worldwide extension of the Soviet system, were acutely sensitive to the logic of military force and would temporize or retreat in the face of skillful and determined Western opposition to their expansion. Kennan then advocated U.S. counterpressure wherever the Soviets threatened to expand and predicted that such counterpressure would lead either to Soviet willingness to cooperate with the United States or perhaps eventually to an internal collapse of the Soviet government. This view subsequently became the core of U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union. Source