Yuri

In their article “Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU” (2006), Follesdal and Hix argue that structural problems generate a democratic deficit within the European Union. They attribute this deficit to the EU’s institutional design, identifying five key factors: the peripheral role of the European Parliament; the absence of genuinely European elements in elections, which have largely become mid-term national contests; the shift of power toward executive bodies (the Council and the European Council); the distance between citizens and European institutions; and the adoption of policies that are not supported by a clear majority, unlike in national-level policy-making systems. 

The article ultimately proposes reforms aimed at reshaping the EU’s institutional design in a more transparent direction. 

Europe’s influence over the years has shown that neighboring countries are affected by the EU both through the negotiation process and through bottom-up pressure that citizens exert on their governments.

 The number of pro-EU protests in these countries is significant: from the Ukrainian Euromaidan (2013–2014) to the more recent demonstrations pushing the Georgian government to resume negotiations for EU accession. In contrast to the growing will of citizens to join the EU, the Georgian government has restricted the freedom to protest, threatening to arrest demonstrators and signaling a political shift toward Russia. 

This BBC article offers an excellent overview of Georgia’s delicate situation and its implications for regional geopolitics.

In political science, affective polarization refers to growing hostility within a society among different political groups, which goes beyond ideological disagreement and often turns into hatred toward the opposing group.

 The frequent statements of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, including his most recent one on the premature death of actor Rob Reiner, are part of the broader context of increasing polarization in American society. Trump’s rhetoric portrays political opponents as irrational or dangerous to society, contributing to greater distance between groups and increasing instability in the political system.

Inequality refers to unequal access to resources—economic, social, and political—that shape citizens’ ability to participate and influence within the political arena. Political inequality occurs when differences in economic means or social position inhibit the role of less affluent citizens, while elites dominate policymaking. 

The article by Elsässer and Schäfer, using a multilevel approach, sheds light on the connection between electoral salience and the degree to which inequality affects voter turnout. When elections are less salient, income inequality has a stronger negative impact on participation.

 In today’s context of rising inequality across democracies, parties could play a key role in advocating for less affluent citizens. 

A key factor in Tunisia’s democratic backsliding is closely linked to the fragility of its political party system and the high levels of distrust toward parties among the Tunisian population since the 2011 uprising. The lack of organizational capacity and the phenomenon of “party tourism” have played a major role in increasing citizens’ distrust. In their article, Nate Grubman and Aytuğ Şaşmaz analyze the key weaknesses of Tunisia’s party system and how these dynamics contributed to Kais Saied’s rise to power. 

Populist parties’ obsession with the judiciary shows how right-wing populist movements, in Europe and beyond, undermine people’s trust in justice. They constantly claim the need for an urgent reform. From the controversial proposal that will be put to a referendum in spring 2026 in Italy, to the clear attack on the independence of the judicial system in Israel, populist leaders portray judges as an elite opposing the people’s will. In this interview, political scientist Köker explains how populist actors attack the judiciary and how democratic systems can recognise and counter such assaults.