Rethinking Europe’s East-West divide: Who will lead the EU?

On November 5, the European Studies Centre (ESC) hosted a seminar discussing how Europe’s East-West divide has shaped the power dynamics within the EU, focusing on the representation and influence of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The panel featured Zselyke Csaky (Centre for European Reform), Hussein Kassim (University of Warwick), Mihail Chiru (University of Oxford), and Krisi Raik (International Centre for Defence and Security). The session, chaired by Eli Gateva (Oxford DPIR), examined CEE representation within EU institutions, their influence in shaping EU policy, and the challenges they face in advancing their agendas.

Representation gaps in EU leadership
Zselyke Csaky began the seminar by highlighting the persistent underrepresentation of CEE countries in EU leadership. Despite accounting for 40% of EU member states and 23% of the population, CEE nationals held only 6% of top EU leadership roles in 2024, with no CEE citizens appointed to senior positions in 2023. Csaky pointed out that while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has spotlighted the strategic importance of CEE countries, representation remains skewed in favor of older member states, particularly in influential positions.

Csaky noted that established networks within EU institutions often hinder CEE countries' integration. While the European Commission has a relatively balanced setup, influential positions still disproportionately go to nationals of older member states. Hungary remains an exception, wielding symbolic influence through Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whose controversial policies have amplified Hungary’s visibility but may ultimately undermine broader CEE interests. Poland, despite its size and potential for regional leadership, faces limitations due to political instability and challenges in coalition-building.

Exploring the New Spirit of Islamism: Interactions Between the AKP, Ennahda, and the Muslim Brotherhood

On 15 October, 2024, Ezgi Basaran (St Antony’s College, Oxford, presented her latest book, The New Spirit of Islamism: Interactions between the AKP, Ennahda, and the Muslim Brotherhood, at a joint event hosted by Middle East Centre and the European Studies Centre at St Antony’s College, Oxford. As Michael Willis (St Antony’s College) noted in his introduction, the book evolved from her PhD research and offers a fresh perspective on Islamist movements. Ezgi’s background as a journalist uniquely equipped her to uncover the often hidden dynamics between these groups, which she examines through a blend of academic rigor and accessible storytelling.

Shifts in Turkey and its role on the global stage
Ezgi began her talk by reflecting on her time with the Contemporary Turkey Programme at South East European Studies at Oxford (SEESOX) nearly a decade ago, when there was still a glimmer of hope that Turkey might align itself more closely with Europe. However, the political landscape has shifted dramatically since then, both in Turkey and globally. As she pointed out, Turkey today finds itself at increasingly fraught crossroads between Europe and the Middle East, which mirrors the broader complexities of regional politics.

Unpacking Orientalism and Islamism
One of the central themes of Ezgi’s book is how Orientalism continues to shape Western attitudes toward the Middle East. She emphasized that the West’s selective outrage toward conflicts in the region reveals deeply ingrained biases. This ties directly into how Islamism is often framed—either as a failure or as an ideological threat. Her research challenges these simplistic narratives by showing that Islamist movements like Turkey's AKP (Justice and Development Party), Tunisia's Ennahda, and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood are much more than ideological actors. They are political players operating within a neoliberal global order, seeking success and legitimacy in practical, not purely ideological, terms.

ESC Annual Lecture - Democracy of the last man: The politics of demographic imagination

The European Studies Centre (ESC) held its annual lecture on 4 June 2024. The lecture was titled “Democracy of the last man: The politics of demographic imagination.” It was delivered by Ivan Krastev, ESC Visiting Fellow, and chaired by Othon Anastasakis, ESC director.

Krastev’s lecture focused on the importance and influence of demography on contemporary politics. It sought to weave together demographic trends – low fertility rates and aging populations – with migratory flows, national identity, feelings of anxiety about the future the nation, and warfare. He outlined the traits of his ‘last man’. While Fukuyama’s ‘last man’ was satisfied but not ambitious, ‘married’ to democracy but not in love with it, Krastev’s ‘last man’ is full of anxieties and terrified that his nation is on the edge of extinction. He is the last European, the last white man – terrified of the extinction of the political power of his nation or race. Krastev characterised this as ‘demographic bulimia’ – an anxious feeling driven by the perception that they are simultaneously too many and too few people on a specific territory: too many of ‘them’ and too few of ‘us’.

The central argument of Krastev’s lecture was that demographic imagination is a new substitute for political ideology, and that demographic transition and democratic transition are closely interlinked. He substantiated his central argument by positing that: (1) demography and demographic imagination are key to understand the changes in both domestic and international politics; (2) while demographic change will affect both authoritarian and democratic regimes, at least initially it will have much more destabilising effect on democracies; (3) demographic changes and the need of migration that they bring put the focus on the rights of the majorities and as a result they expose the two conflicting notions of ‘the majority’ – the ethnic majority and the electoral majority; (4) while demographic anxiety fuels political support for the far right both in Eastern and the Western Europe, the fears in these geographical areas lead to two different types of illiberal regimes.

Welfare chauvinism in Europe: The opposition towards social benefits and services for migrants

On 31 May 2024, the European Studies Centre (ESC) hosted Gianna Eick, Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences at the University of Amsterdam, to discuss her book Welfare Chauvinism in Europe: How Education, Economy and Culture Shape Public Attitudes. Her presentation was followed by a discussion between the author and William Allen, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow and non-stipendiary research fellow at Nuffield Collegebook and an exchange between Allen and Eick on the main arguments of the research presented. The seminar was chaired by Tim Vlandas, Associate Professor of Comparative Social Policy at Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford.

Eick’s research on welfare chauvinism focuses in the interplay between the recipients of welfare state policies, the type of policies that the welfare state covers, and government policies, and the government level responsible for their administration and financing. Eick argued that from a historical perspective the welfare state has been growing particularly in Western states and democracies, but there is a rising opposition against. She uses ‘welfare policy opposition’ as an umbrella term covering different forms of protest against existing or future welfare policies provided by different governance levels and social partners.

Eick posited that welfare chauvinism is at the heart of current political conflicts. She defines welfare chauvinism as opposition to worker access or worker rights to migrants, refugees, and newcomers in general. The argument from welfare chauvinists is that foreigners come to their countries to benefit from what they see as being benefits for ‘us’ and not for ‘them’. Eick argued that European right-wing parties are capitalising on these sentiments. She discusses the public statements by the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU) president who had claimed Ukrainian refugees want to come to Germany to take advantage of the benefits the country offers; the targeting of foreign-sounding names in the Dutch benefit fraud scandal; and the galvanisation of British voters by welfare chauvinism leading to voting for Brexit.

Dreaming of Europe: Work refugees and the migration crisis

On 28 May 2024, the European Studies Centre (ESC) hosted Randall Hansen, Canada Research Chair in the Department of Political Science and Director of the Global Migration Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School, to discuss his upcoming book Dreaming of Europe: Refugees and the Old Continent. Joining the panel to discuss Professor Hansen’s recent work was Catherine Briddick, Andrew W Mellon Associate Professor of International Human Rights and Refugee Law and a fellow of St Antony's College. Othon Anastasakis, ESC director, chaired the seminar.

Through this research project, Hansen sought to understand the migration crisis from the perspective of the refugees themselves. He had undertaken ethnographic research in multiple sites in Europe and Africa, and started his presentation by illustrating the issue at hand through three vignettes. Each of them told the painful story of the arduous and precarious journeys of refugees from Mali, Cameroon, and Nigeria respectively.

He then framed the narrative of the migration crisis and his latest research on the rise of far-right politics in Europe. He argued that because most people in Europe believe the European Union is bad for migration, it is important to ‘get it right’ – that is, it is important to dispel the migration myths and strive to clearly understand the migration problem and implement effective policies to address it.

Hansen first underscored that Europe and the rich countries of the Global North are not hosting the bulk of the world refugee population; 75 percent of the refugees are in the Global South. The EU, according to him, is doing a bit more than the other rich countries, but not much more. This lack of burden-sharing is particularly important since Hansen considered that the West – and Russia – bear the greatest responsibility for the wars that have forced people to become refugees.

The fall of dictatorship in Spain, Portugal and Greece: 50 years on

On 21 May, the European Studies Centre (ESC) together with Southeast European Studies at Oxford (SEESOX) held a panel discussion focusing on the fall of dictatorships in Spain, Portugal, and Greece and the implications of the transition period on contemporary political developments in each of the respective countries as well as in the broader European space.

Professor Joao Carlos Espada, co-founder of the Institute for Political Studies at the Catholic University of Portugal, Dr. Ainhoa Campos Posada, Universidad Complutense Madrid, and Harris Mylonas, Associate Professor at George Washington University, discussed these developments in Portugal, Spain, and Greece respectively. The seminar was chaired by ESC and SEESOX Director, Dr Othon Anastasakis.

Portugal, Spain, and Greece represent the first cases of democratisation within the European space after the Second World War and before the fall of Communism, and are thus central to democratisation theory. It was precisely on this theoretical approach that Joao Carlos Espada grounded his presentation. He considered the fall of the dictatorship in Portugal as part of the third wave of democratization, as outlined by Samuel Huntington. Espada drew consistently on Huntigton’s views on the third wave of democratisation.

He argued that the military coup that heralded the establishment of democracy in Portugal was followed by a strong confrontation between two radically different conceptions of democracy: on the one hand popular democracy, which was supported by the military, inspired by Communism, and on the other, parliamentary democracy. Although the communists were electorally defeated, they attempted a coup in November 1975 that was defeated by a coalition of left and center-right parties.

Restoring the rule of law in Poland: A particular or a universal challenge?

On 30 April 2024, the European Studies Centre (ESC) held its Leszek Kołakowski Lecture. Marek Safjan, former judge in the Polish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice, delivered the lecture titled “Restoring the rule of law in Poland: A particular or a universal challenge?” The seminar was chaired by Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies, St. Antony’s College, Oxford.

Judge Safjan started by outlining his lecture. He discussed post-1999 transformation of Poland, followed by the period after 2015 when the Law and Justice Party (PiS) took power, and concluded with some comments on the challenges to the restoration of the democratic rule of law in Poland.

According to Safjan, after Poland managed to emerge from communism through a peaceful revolution, it become a leader in successful democratic transformation, culminating in the country’s accession to the EU and NATO. In addition to the political changes, the reform process meant higher living standards, economic development, and change in social mentality. This process towards clear and precise goals with visibly positive results was halted by dramatic events which led to a deformation of democracy by calling into question the idea of rule of law – independent judiciary, protection of fundamental rights by a strong constitutional court, free media, and respect for minority rights.

Safjan argued that the election of the PiS in 2015 was the result of the divergences of consensus, expectations, and preferences of the quality of life between the elites and the rest of the population. According to the judge, benefits were unevenly distributed in Polish society. Such unequal conditions were painfully felt by the society, particularly when compared to the equality of communism, despite it being an equality of scarcity. Simultaneously, legal elites were arrogant and doctrinaire, failing to see the need for communication and observe that the principles of equality and economic development were differently applied in practice. The combination of the failures of the new post-communist system and the unwillingness of the elites to ensure the effective application of the principles of equality and economic development were capitalised by politicians who exploited them through demagogy and populism.