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.

The Story Smuggler, or how to narrate the happened and the un-happened

On 8 March, the European Studies Centre, together with Southeast European Studies at Oxford (SEESOX), hosted Bulgarian novelist, playwright, and author, Georgi Gospodinov, to discuss three of his works: The Physics of Sorrow (2011), Time Shelter (2020) and The Story Smuggler (2016). The discussion was chaired by Catherine Briddick, Andrew W Mellon Associate Professor of International Human Rights and Refugee Law and fellow of St Antony's College. Paul Betts, Professor of Modern European History and fellow at St Antony’s College, and Marilena Anastasopoulou, ESRC Postdoctoral Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science, provided commentary on Gospodinov’s works.

Gospodinov started by reading from his two books, The Physics of Sorrow and Time Shelter, and briefly discussed the writing process. The two books deal with markedly different themes. The Physics of Sorrow attempts to capture the nature of the Bulgarian sorrow. Gospodinov describes the Bulgarian sorrow as an experience which combines the sorrow of things that did not happen, or places that Bulgarians could not visit despite the hope or longing for them, and the culture of silence, which he describes as a combination of the culture of fear during Communism and patriarchal culture. According to the author, sorrow is both personal and political, connected with the developments in one’s country.

Time Shelter, through the allegory of an Alzheimer’s clinic with rooms and floors which had encapsulated time in the decade that provided a “safe space” to each patient, explores the nature of trauma, nostalgia for a bygone area, and anxiety for the future in Europe. Gospodinov noted that memory loss inflicts not only the ability to recall events in the past but also the loss of the capacity to think about the future. This comment was made in reference to the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency. The author had started thinking about memory and nostalgia around 2014. Originally an innocent idea about exploring memory and nostalgia, the themes become more serious because of Brexit and the election of President Trump in 2016. The past, memory, and nostalgia had been weaponised. But it was an idealised version of the past combined with the anxiety of the future that had produced those two outcomes, according to Gospodinov.

Where you stand depends on where you sit: The challenge of being an academic turned Head of State

The European Studies Centre hosted St Antony’s College alumnus and President of Iceland Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson on 27 February 2024. President Jóhannesson discussed his experience as a historian who challenged the Icelandic orthodoxy on the so-called “Cod Wars” – a series of maritime disputes between Iceland and the United Kingdom on fishing rights in the north Atlantic – and the challenges and dilemmas between the academic and the politician on the role of history, academia, patriotism, and nationalism. The event was chaired by Othon Anastasakis, Director of the European Studies Centre.

President Jóhannesson started by discussing his experience at St Antony’s. After a few anecdotes about his time at the College and his meetings with his supervisor, Professor Anne Deighton, he focused his discussion on his dissertation topic: Cod Wars. The Cod Wars had been the quintessential heroic tale of Icelandic national unity and had demonstrated that the strong will of a small country was mightier than the military power of the United Kingdom. They have been etched into the collective memory of Icelanders as a triumphant story and had become part of Icelandic collective identity.

The young Icelandic historian with an Oxford degree challenged that version of the history of the Cod Wars and – consequently – Icelandic pride. As a historian, Jóhannesson had been drawn by myths in order to deconstruct them and offer a more critical and objective perspective of history. He had seen the misuse of history through the creation of national myths by Icelandic politicians, and was thus entering into the midst of narrative battles on the role of the academic versus the role of the politician and between the passionate national truth and the impassionate objective truth. The perception of academics by the general public and the politicians in Iceland had been one of the detached and elitist professional pontificating from their ivory tower with verbiage that was alien to the common folk. They were seen with suspicion, and even more so were those “revisionist” historians who dared to challenge that national consensus.