Dr. Frederik Møller Henriksen

Dr. Henriksen: Strict Migration Policy in Denmark Fails to Contain the Radical Right

by MultimediaVideos

In this ECPS interview, Dr. Frederik Møller Henriksen offers an in-depth assessment of Denmark’s 2026 general election, highlighting both continuity and change in one of Europe’s most stable democracies. He characterizes the outcome as “a very poor election for the traditional governing parties,” underscoring the historic decline of established actors alongside the emergence of “a highly fragmented parliament.” While domestic concerns dominated the campaign, Dr. Henriksen emphasizes that strict migration policies have not contained the populist radical right, as evidenced by the resurgence of the Danish People’s Party. At the same time, he cautions against overstating democratic crisis, noting Denmark’s enduring institutional trust. Instead, he points to media fragmentation and digital communication as key forces reshaping political competition and voter alignment.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In the aftermath of Denmark’s closely contested 2026 general election on March 24, the country stands at a critical political juncture—marked by fragmented blocs, the resurgence of the populist radical right, and renewed geopolitical tensions over Greenland. While domestic issues such as the cost-of-living crisis and migration shaped the campaign, deeper transformations in political communication and democratic contestation are also unfolding. Giving an in-depth interview to the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Frederik Møller Henriksen, a postdoctoral researcher at Roskilde University working at the intersection of politics, media, and digital society, whose research on digital counter-publics, alternative media ecosystems, and anti-systemic populism, offers important insights into these developments. 

Reflecting on the election outcome, Dr. Henriksen underscores that “this was a very poor election for the traditional governing parties,” pointing to the historically weak performance of both the Social Democrats and the center-right Venstre. He further highlights that “we now have a highly fragmented parliament,” a development that is likely to render coalition-building both complex and protracted. Indeed, the emergence of multiple competitive actors across the political spectrum has produced what some observers describe as “Dutch conditions” of party fragmentation and even “Belgian conditions” of prolonged government formation.

At the same time, Dr. Henriksen draws attention to the resurgence of the populist radical right, particularly the Danish People’s Party, emphasizing that restrictive policy convergence has not neutralized such forces. As he notes, the Danish case illustrates that strict migration policies do not necessarily diminish the electoral appeal of the radical right, but may instead coincide with renewed voter mobilization around issues of identity, economic anxiety, and national direction.

Beyond electoral dynamics, the interview also engages with the transformation of political communication in digitally mediated environments. While cautious about attributing direct causal effects to alternative media, Dr. Henriksen observes that “it has been very difficult to define” the election in terms of a coherent overarching narrative, suggesting that media fragmentation and hybrid communication systems are reshaping how political competition is structured and understood.

Importantly, despite these shifts, Dr. Henriksen does not interpret recent developments as signaling a systemic crisis of democracy. Denmark, he argues, remains a high-trust society with robust institutional foundations. Yet, it is increasingly “no longer isolated from trends we see elsewhere in Europe,” including fragmentation, anti-incumbent voting, and the growing salience of populist communication.

Taken together, Dr. Henriksen’s reflections situate the Danish election within a broader European trajectory, where established party systems are under pressure, populist actors continue to adapt, and democratic politics is being reshaped by both structural and communicative transformations.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Dr. Frederik Møller Henriksen, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Professor Jean-Yves Camus.

Professor Camus: The Boundary Between Mainstream and Radical Right in France Is Blurring Locally

by MultimediaVideos

Professor Jean-Yves Camus, a leading scholar of the far right and researcher at the Observatory of Political Radicalities at the Jean Jaurès Foundation in Paris, argues that France’s 2026 municipal elections revealed more than the continued advance of the National Rally (RN): they exposed a deeper reconfiguration of the French right. In this interview with ECPS, Professor Camus shows how the RN’s local gains—57 municipalities and over 3,000 council seats—coexist with persistent weakness in major metropolitan centers. More importantly, he underscores that “the boundary between the mainstream and the radical right is blurring locally,” particularly where segments of Les Républicains and RN voters increasingly converge. The interview offers a nuanced account of electoral realignment, selective republican resistance, and the uncertain road to 2027.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Giving an interview to the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Jean-Yves Camus, a researcher at the Observatory of Political Radicalities at the Jean Jaurès Foundation in Paris, underscores that France’s 2026 municipal elections reveal not only the continued advance of the National Rally / Rassemblement National (RN) but, more importantly, a gradual reconfiguration of the right in which the lines separating mainstream conservatism and radical populism are increasingly porous at the local level.

Reflecting on what he calls a “mixed bag” outcome, Professor Camus notes that the RN has achieved “a substantial gain” by winning 57 municipalities and securing over 3,000 council seats, yet “failed in all major cities and metropolises.” This dual pattern—territorial expansion alongside persistent urban resistance—captures the paradox at the heart of contemporary French politics. While the party has consolidated its presence in “small and medium-sized cities”and in economically distressed regions such as Pas-de-Calais and Moselle, it continues to face structural limits in gentrified metropolitan centers like Paris, where “the extreme right is very weak for obvious sociological reasons.”

Yet, the most consequential development, as Professor Camus emphasizes, lies not simply in where the RN wins or loses, but in how it increasingly interacts with the broader right-wing ecosystem. In several regions, particularly along the Mediterranean corridor, “the core voters of the Conservatives… are very close to voters of the National Rally,”facilitating patterns of vote transfer and informal cooperation. This dynamic signals a shift from the once rigid cordon sanitaire toward what Professor Camus describes as a more “selective” Republican front, contingent on local contexts and strategic calculations.

The significance of Éric Ciotti’s victory in Nice further illustrates this transformation. While rooted in the city’s longstanding conservative and post-colonial sociological profile, the result also points to a deeper convergence: “locally… the Republicans and the National Rally have platforms that are very similar.” In this sense, Ciotti’s ascent functions as both a local phenomenon and a symbolic “vitrine,” enabling the RN to present itself as part of a broader conservative continuum rather than an isolated extremist force.

At the national level, however, this convergence remains contested. Professor Camus highlights an unresolved strategic dilemma within Les Républicains, torn between maintaining ideological autonomy and pursuing alignment with the RN. As he cautions, any such coalition would likely be asymmetrical: “the dynamic is on the side of the National Rally… the agenda will be set by the National Rally.”

Taken together, the interview suggests that France is not witnessing a straightforward normalization of the far right, but rather a more complex process of political recomposition. The RN’s rise is embedded in enduring socioeconomic grievances and cultural anxieties, yet its ultimate trajectory will depend on whether the boundaries that once separated it from the mainstream right continue to erode—or are strategically reasserted—in the run-up to 2027.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Professor Jean-Yves Camus, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Sanjeev Humagain

Dr. Humagain: Institutionalized Populism Poses Enduring Challenge to Nepal’s Democracy

by MultimediaVideos

Dr. Sanjeev Humagain offers a nuanced and cautionary reading of Nepal’s post-election moment, arguing that the March 2026 vote should not be seen simply as a democratic breakthrough. While the rise of Balendra “Balen” Shah and the Rastriya Swatantra Party marks a clear rupture in elite continuity, Humagain warns that Nepal’s deeper political logic remains shaped by “institutionalized populism.” He emphasizes that the country is emerging from “a kind of institutionalized gray zone,” yet still faces serious challenges of accountability, parliamentary weakness, and policy incoherence. For Humagain, the election has validated long-standing public questions about corruption, patronage, and ineffective governance—but not yet their answers. Nepal, he suggests, stands at a critical juncture: not at the summit of democratic renewal, but “at base camp,” where the hard work of institutional reform has only just begun.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Giving an interview to the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Sanjeev Humagain, a political scientist at Nepal Open University, offers a nuanced and theoretically grounded assessment of Nepal’s evolving political landscape in the aftermath of the March 2026 general election. While widely interpreted as a rupture driven by Gen Z mobilization and anti-elite sentiment, Dr. Humagain cautions against overly celebratory readings of the electoral outcome. Instead, he situates the moment within a longer trajectory of institutional fragility, elite circulation, and the deepening entrenchment of populist political practices.

At first glance, the electoral victory of Balendra “Balen” Shah and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) appears to mark a decisive break with the post-1990 political order. As Dr. Humagain notes, “the rise of the Rastriya Swatantra Party… represents a clear break from that pattern,” emphasizing that “for the first time, we are witnessing an overwhelmingly large number of new members in Parliament.” This influx of political newcomers—many lacking prior ministerial experience—signals a disruption of long-standing elite continuity and suggests the possibility of institutional renewal.

Yet, as the interview unfolds, Dr. Humagain complicates this narrative of democratic transformation. He underscores that Nepal’s political trajectory has long been characterized not by linear democratization but by movement across “a kind of institutionalized gray zone,” where “there was a serious erosion of accountability” and persistent threats to democratic consolidation. In this context, the current electoral moment represents less a definitive transition than a “critical juncture”whose direction remains uncertain.

Central to Dr. Humagain’s analysis is the argument that Nepal’s contemporary politics is shaped by a deeply embedded form of populism. While new actors and generational dynamics have reshaped the electoral arena, they have not necessarily displaced the underlying logic of governance. As he warns, “the other side of the coin is that Nepali politics has already been shaped by populism for at least a decade,” characterized by “the personalization of politics” and the marginalization of institutional mechanisms such as parliament and party structures. This personalization, he argues, has rendered “several key institutions dysfunctional,” raising fundamental questions about the durability of democratic accountability.

Importantly, Dr. Humagain highlights a paradox at the heart of Nepal’s current transformation. While voters have clearly rejected established parties and endorsed systemic critique, they have not yet converged around a coherent programmatic alternative. “The questions have been approved,” he observes, noting that citizens have given new political actors “the mandate to find meaningful and democratic answers.” However, “it is not that a clear direction has already been determined”—a condition he captures through the evocative metaphor that “Nepal is at the beginning of a new journey—we are at base camp, not at the top of the mountain.”

It is precisely within this unresolved space that the central challenge emerges. Despite electoral change, Dr. Humagain expresses concern that “the populism that has already become deeply institutionalized will persist in the coming years.”This persistence, he argues, will generate “ongoing challenges for democratic accountability” and hinder efforts to strengthen parliamentary governance. In this sense, Nepal’s post-election moment is not merely a story of democratic renewal, but a test of whether institutional reform can overcome the enduring legacy of populist political logic.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Dr. Sanjeev Humagain, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Session14

ECPS Virtual Workshop Series / Session 14 — From Bots to Ballots: AI, Populism, and the Future of Democratic Participation

by MultimediaVideos

Session 14 of the ECPS Virtual Workshop Series examined how artificial intelligence, algorithmic infrastructures, and digital platforms are reshaping democratic participation in the contemporary era. Bringing together perspectives from political science, communication, cultural heritage, and democratic theory, the panel explored the implications of AI for political legitimacy, collective identity, and the future of “the people” in an increasingly post-digital world. Contributions ranged from public attitudes toward algorithmic governance and the role of ChatGPT in shaping cultural memory to Big Tech’s influence on class consciousness and the fragmentation of digital publics. Together, the presentations and discussions showed that AI is no longer external to democracy, but increasingly constitutive of its communicative, institutional, and symbolic foundations—raising urgent questions about power, accountability, and democratic contestation.

Reported by ECPS Staff

On Thursday, March 19, 2026, the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) convened the fourteenth session of its Virtual Workshop Series, “We, the People” and the Future of Democracy: Interdisciplinary Approaches, under the title “From Bots to Ballots: AI, Populism, and the Future of Democratic Participation.” Bringing together scholars from political science, communication studies, democratic theory, cultural heritage, and digital governance, the session examined one of the most urgent questions of contemporary political life: how artificial intelligence, algorithmic infrastructures, and platform logics are transforming democratic participation, political legitimacy, and the very conditions under which “the people” are constituted. From public attitudes toward algorithmic decision-making and the cultural politics of generative AI to the restructuring of class consciousness and the fragmentation of digital publics, the panel explored the shifting contours of democracy in an increasingly post-digital age.

The participants of the session were introduced by ECPS intern Stella Schade. Chairing the panel, Dr. Paolo Gerbaudo of the Complutense University of Madrid situated the discussion within a broader reflection on the transformation of democracy in the contemporary technological era. As he underscored, democracy has always been shaped by mediations—whether institutional, communicative, or technological—but what distinguishes the present moment is the centrality of digital infrastructures as key mediating forces in the organization of visibility, participation, and power. Algorithms, artificial intelligence systems, and platform architectures, he suggested, have become decisive “bottlenecks” through which political communication and democratic agency are increasingly filtered. In this sense, the session was framed not merely as a discussion of technology, but as an inquiry into the changing nature of democratic life itself.

Under Dr. Gerbaudo’s chairmanship, the panel featured four presentations that illuminated distinct yet interconnected dimensions of this transformation. Professor Joan Font (IESA-CSIC) examined citizens’ conceptions of democracy in relation to artificial intelligence in administration and government, asking who, if anyone, wants an algorithm to govern. Alonso Escamilla (The Catholic University of Ávila), co-authoring with Paula Gonzalo (University of Salamanca), explored how ChatGPT may shape European cultural heritage and its implications for the future of democracy. Aly Hill (University of Utah) turned to the United States to analyze how Big Tech is reshaping white working-class consciousness and reconfiguring populist narratives. Finally, Amina Vatreš (University of Sarajevo) offered a theoretical intervention on “the people” in an algorithmically mediated world, focusing on the interplay between filter bubbles, filter clashes, and populist identity formation.

The session also benefited from the incisive engagement of its discussants, Dr. Jasmin Hasanović (University of Sarajevo) and Dr. Alparslan Akkuş (University of Tübingen). Their interventions not only deepened the theoretical stakes of the presentations but also connected them to wider debates on political legitimacy, technological power, digital capitalism, and democratic fragmentation. 

Together, chair, speakers, and discussants produced a rich interdisciplinary exchange that highlighted both the promise and the peril of AI-mediated politics. Session 14 thus offered a compelling inquiry into how democracy is being rearticulated in a world where digital systems no longer merely support political life, but increasingly structure its possibilities.

Read the Full Report

MarleneWind

Prof. Wind: Mainstream Parties in Denmark Have Absorbed, Not Neutralized, the Radical Right

by MultimediaVideos

Professor Marlene Wind argues that Denmark’s 2026 general election is not only a contest over leadership and crisis management, but also a revealing test of how liberal democracies internalize radical-right agendas. In her interview with the ECPS, Professor Wind contends that mainstream Danish parties have “absorbed, not neutralized, the radical right,” warning that electoral containment has too often meant ideological normalization. Situating the campaign within the wider context of Trump’s pressure over Greenland, Europe’s security crisis, and Denmark’s pragmatic turn toward the EU, she highlights the deeper structural dilemmas facing contemporary democracy: the normalization of restrictive politics, the fragility of liberal institutions, and the growing entanglement between populist forces, geopolitical instability, and weakened democratic boundaries. Denmark, in her view, offers a critical case for understanding these broader European transformations.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Giving an interview to the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Marlene Wind—Professor of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen and Director of the Centre for European Politics—offers a penetrating analysis of Denmark’s parliamentary election campaign against the backdrop of geopolitical rupture, institutional recalibration, and the longer-term normalization of radical-right politics. As Denmark heads toward the March 24, 2026 general election, the contest has unfolded under the shadow of Donald Trump’s renewed pressure over Greenland, a crisis that briefly revived Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s standing after months of domestic political weakness. Reuters reported that Frederiksen’s Social Democrats rebounded from a December polling low of 17% to around 22% in recent weeks, while the broader electoral landscape remained fragmented and without a clear majority for either bloc. 

Yet for Professor Wind, the most consequential issue is not simply whether Frederiksen’s crisis management can secure a third term. Rather, the Danish case exposes a more structural dilemma at the heart of contemporary European democracy: how mainstream actors respond when radical-right agendas become embedded within the political center. This concern is captured in the interview’s headline argument: “Mainstream parties in Denmark have absorbed, not neutralized, the radical right.” Professor Wind also cautions that “the argument that we have managed to eradicate the extreme right is simply not accurate,” because “the policies adopted by the majority of politicians and political parties… have effectively incorporated right-wing positions.” The result, she argues, is not democratic containment but ideological normalization.

Professor Wind’s intervention is especially timely because the election has developed at the intersection of two seemingly contradictory dynamics. On the one hand, geopolitics has returned forcefully to Danish politics: Trump’s Greenland posture, Russia’s war against Ukraine, and uncertainty surrounding transatlantic guarantees have elevated questions of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and Europe’s strategic future. On the other hand, the campaign itself has remained anchored in domestic concerns—cost of living, welfare, migration, leadership fatigue, and social trust. As Professor Wind observes, geopolitics has functioned largely as “a background condition for everything else,” not as a fully articulated debate about Denmark’s future in Europe.

Within that setting, her analysis moves beyond the immediate election cycle to a broader diagnosis of European political development. She argues that Denmark’s majoritarian political culture, limited judicial review, and long-standing transactional view of European integration have made it easier to mainstream restrictive agendas without eliminating their social base. Indeed, she notes, aggregate support for right-wing parties remains “roughly 17% to 20%,” even if now dispersed across smaller formations. That continuity leads to her central normative warning: “Adopting the positions of the extreme right is not an effective strategy to counter it.”

In sum, Professor Wind’s remarks present Denmark not as an exceptional success story in containing the far right, but as a revealing case of how liberal democracies may gradually internalize the very forces they claim to resist.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Professor Marlene Wind, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Madhav Joshi.

Prof. Joshi: Depoliticizing Courts, Bureaucracy, and Police Is Essential to Stabilizing Nepal’s Democratic Renewal

by MultimediaVideos

Professor Madhav Joshi argues that Nepal’s recent political upheaval reflects both “anti-elite” mobilization and “a form of generational democratic renewal,” but also warns that the country’s deeper institutional crisis remains unresolved. In his interview with the ECPS, Professor Joshi situates the rise of Balendra “Balen” Shah and the Rastriya Swatantra Party within Nepal’s longer history of structural inequality, elite capture, and democratic frustration. He underscores that legitimacy must be earned through trust in public institutions, not merely through electoral victory. Stressing the centrality of institutional reform, Professor Joshi contends that “depoliticizing the courts, bureaucracy, and police is essential to stabilizing Nepal’s democratic renewal.” Whether this hopeful moment yields durable transformation, he suggests, depends on translating electoral momentum into credible governance.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Giving an interview to the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Madhav Joshi—a Research Professor and Associate Director of the Peace Accords Matrix at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs—offers a deeply grounded and empirically informed analysis of Nepal’s unfolding political transformation in the aftermath of the landmark electoral victory of Balendra “Balen” Shah and the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). Anchored in his extensive scholarship on civil conflict, institutional legitimacy, and post-war transitions, Professor Joshi situates the current moment within Nepal’s longer trajectory of democratic struggle, elite capture, and unresolved structural inequalities.

At the heart of his diagnosis lies a stark assessment of continuity amid apparent rupture. While the recent election signals what he terms both “anti-elite” mobilization and “a form of generational democratic renewal,” it is equally, in his view, “a manifestation of unresolved structural grievances within Nepal’s political economy.” Drawing on his research on the Maoist insurgency, Professor Joshi underscores how patterns of exclusion, patron–client networks, and elite domination have persisted despite formal democratic transitions, leaving large segments of the population—especially youth—disillusioned and economically marginalized.

The interview foregrounds a central theme encapsulated in his headline assertion: “Depoliticizing the courts, bureaucracy, and police is essential to stabilizing Nepal’s democratic renewal.” For Professor Joshi, the current legitimacy crisis is not merely electoral but institutional. He cautions that “legitimacy is not something one possesses simply by being in government; rather, it is earned through trust in public institutions,” a trust that has been severely eroded by systemic corruption and partisan infiltration of state apparatuses. The electoral success of Shah, therefore, reflects not consolidated legitimacy but what Professor Joshi calls an “electoral mandate… to build it by fulfilling promises.”

At the same time, Professor Joshi highlights the transformative role of youth-driven and digitally mediated mobilization. The Gen Z movement, he argues, represents a shift away from traditional party structures toward more fluid, networked forms of political engagement, where “parties with a strong social media presence… are better positioned to gain public backing.” Yet, he remains cautious about overestimating rupture, noting that entrenched institutional networks and political patronage systems may continue to constrain reform efforts from within.

Importantly, Professor Joshi frames the current conjuncture as both an opportunity and a risk. The unprecedented parliamentary majority enjoyed by the RSP creates conditions for meaningful reform, but failure to deliver—particularly in areas such as job creation, governance, and institutional accountability—could accelerate “democratic backsliding,” given the “high level of public expectation placed on this government.”

Ultimately, the interview presents Nepal as a critical case in comparative politics: a post-conflict democracy where populist energies, generational change, and institutional fragilities intersect. Whether this moment evolves into durable democratic transformation or reproduces cycles of instability, Professor Joshi suggests, will depend on the state’s capacity to translate electoral momentum into credible, institutionalized reform.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Professor Madhav Joshi, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Peter W. Klein.

Prof. Klein: Political Transformation in Iran May Come, but Not in the Way the West Expects

by MultimediaVideos

Professor Peter W. Klein offers a historically grounded warning against simplistic regime-change narratives in Iran. In this ECPS interview, the Emmy Award–winning investigative journalist and University of British Columbia professor argues that political transformation in Iran may occur, but not in ways the West expects. Drawing on cases such as Hungary in 1956, the Bay of Pigs, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Professor Klein shows how external encouragement of uprising without sustained commitment can produce abandonment, repression, and long-term instability. He stresses that Iran’s history with the United States, the entrenched role of the IRGC, and the country’s internal complexity make any externally driven transition deeply uncertain. At the same time, he warns that escalation could trigger wider regional blowback, making caution, historical memory, and strategic realism indispensable.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Giving an interview to the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Peter W. Klein, an Emmy Award–winning investigative journalist, documentary filmmaker, and full professor at the School of Journalism, Writing, and Media at the University of British Columbia, offers a historically grounded and sobering assessment of regime change narratives surrounding Iran. Drawing on decades of reporting from conflict zones and his scholarship on media, power, and political transformation, Professor Klein cautions against simplistic assumptions that authoritarian systems collapse once a single leader is removed. As he puts it bluntly, the notion that eliminating one figure will transform an entire political order is deeply misguided: “Removing one leader—whether it is Khamenei or Maduro—is enough… [that] everything else will somehow fall into place. But Venezuela is not Iran.”

Professor Klein situates the current debate about Iran within a longer historical pattern in US foreign policy: Rhetorical encouragement of uprisings without sustained commitment. Reflecting on historical precedents—from the 1956 Hungarian Revolution to the Bay of Pigs invasion and the 1991 Shiite uprising in Iraq—he identifies a recurring cycle in which external actors implicitly encourage rebellion but fail to provide protection once uprisings occur. Recalling the Hungarian case, he notes that revolutionary hopes were fueled by signals from the West, yet “when the revolution happened… there was no cover.” The consequences were devastating: The uprising was crushed, and reformist leader Imre Nagy was ultimately executed. These experiences, Professor Klein argues, highlight the moral and strategic dilemmas that arise when “the words don’t match the actions.”

This historical lens also informs Professor Klein’s skepticism toward contemporary discussions of regime change in Iran. While acknowledging that dissatisfaction with the Iranian regime is real, he emphasizes the structural and historical constraints shaping political change. Iranian public attitudes toward foreign intervention remain deeply influenced by historical memory—especially the 1953 CIA-backed coup, which continues to generate suspicion toward US rhetoric about liberation and democracy. Even where domestic frustration exists, external calls for uprising may produce the opposite effect. As Professor Klein explains, “many Iranians may resist calls for regime change if those calls come directly from the United States.”

Beyond historical memory, Professor Klein underscores the institutional resilience of the Iranian state, particularly the central role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Far from being an isolated security apparatus, the IRGC is deeply embedded in Iran’s political economy and social fabric. Its integration across military, economic, and political spheres makes the idea of a rapid grassroots overthrow highly improbable. In such contexts, he warns, expectations of swift democratic transition often ignore the realities of authoritarian resilience.

Professor Klein also highlights the dangers of escalation in the broader Middle East. With conflicts already unfolding across Gaza, Lebanon, and other regional arenas, miscalculation could transform localized confrontation into a wider regional war. The stakes, he warns, are immense: “The blowback from a regional conflict would be enormous… the cost of that may simply be too high.”

Ultimately, Professor Klein cautions against confident predictions about Iran’s political future. Transformation may indeed occur, but its direction remains uncertain and may not align with Western expectations. “There may be change,” he concludes, “but it may not be the kind of change that many people in the West would want.”

Here is the edited version of our interview with Professor Peter W. Klein, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Session13

ECPS Virtual Workshop Series — Session 13: Constructing and Deconstructing the People in Theory and Praxis

by MultimediaVideos

Session 13 of the ECPS Virtual Workshop Series examined how “the people” are constructed, contested, and institutionalized across diverse political arenas. Chaired by Dr. Leila Alieva (Oxford School for Global and Area Studies), the panel brought together interdisciplinary perspectives on populism, democratic participation, and representation. Assistant Professor Jasmin Hasanović analyzed the ethnic dynamics of populist subject formation in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s post-Dayton political order. Dr. Sixtine Van Outryve explored how participants in France’s Yellow Vests movement sought to institutionalize grassroots assembly-based democracy. Nieves Fernanda Cancela Sánchez examined the exclusion of stateless and marginalized communities from international diplomacy, arguing for a “right to diplomacy.” Together, the contributions illuminated the evolving and contested meaning of “the people” in contemporary democratic politics.

Reported by ECPS Staff

On Thursday, March 5, 2026, the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) convened the thirteenth session of its Virtual Workshop Series, “We, the People” and the Future of Democracy: Interdisciplinary Approaches, under the title “Constructing and Deconstructing the People in Theory and Praxis.” Bringing together scholars from political science, democratic theory, and critical diplomacy studies, the session addressed one of the most urgent questions in contemporary political analysis: how “the people” are imagined, institutionalized, contested, and reconfigured across different political settings. From post-conflict power-sharing arrangements and assembly-based democratic experiments to the exclusions embedded in international diplomacy, the panel examined the shifting boundaries of political representation in a time of democratic strain and institutional transformation.

The participants of the session were introduced by Reka Koleszar, ECPS intern. Chairing the session, Dr. Leila Alieva of the Oxford School for Global and Area Studies framed the discussion as the product of an increasingly mature and sophisticated intellectual agenda within the workshop series. As she observed, by the thirteenth session the series had reached a “quite intricate level of analysis,” with all three presentations deeply interconnected in their exploration of “the genesis, evolution, and formation of populism, and concepts and images related to that.” She underscored the broader strengths of the ECPS project—above all its multidisciplinary, comparative, and constructivist orientation. In a post-Cold War environment marked by uncertainty, complexity, and multiple interacting forces across political, social, and international levels, such a broad approach is particularly necessary. The rise of populism, she suggested, cannot be adequately understood within the limits of a single discipline; rather, it must be approached through the combined lenses of political science, international relations, democratic theory, and broader social inquiry.

Under Dr. Alieva’s chairmanship, the panel featured three speakers whose papers illuminated distinct yet overlapping dimensions of democratic representation. Assistant Professor Jasmin Hasanović (University of Sarajevo) explored the ethnic dynamics of populist subject formation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, offering a new framework for understanding inter-ethnic, intra-ethnic, and cross-ethnic populisms within a post-Dayton consociational order. Dr. Sixtine Van Outryve(Radboud Universiteit; UCLouvain) examined how participants in the Yellow Vests movement in France sought to institutionalize direct democracy through popular assemblies, thereby pushing beyond protest toward constituent democratic experimentation. Nieves Fernanda Cancela Sánchez (UNPO) extended the discussion into the international arena by arguing that diplomatic representation itself must be rethought as a pillar of democracy, especially for unrepresented nations, Indigenous peoples, and politically marginalized communities.

The session also benefited from the incisive engagement of its two discussants, Associate Professor Christopher N. Magno (Gannon University) and Dr. Amedeo Varriale (University of East London). Their interventions not only drew out the conceptual strengths of the presentations but also situated them within wider comparative debates on populism, democratic innovation, sovereignty, and political exclusion. Together, chair, speakers, and discussants produced a rich exchange that revealed both the diversity of contemporary democratic struggles and the common tensions that run through them. As Dr. Alieva noted in her concluding reflections, the discussion demonstrated that populism often functions as a sign of deeper institutional pressure—an indication that inherited political forms are struggling to respond to changing social realities. Session 13 thus offered a compelling interdisciplinary inquiry into how democratic subjects are made, constrained, and reimagined across multiple arenas of political life.

Read the Full Report




Dr. Amir Ahmad iArian.

Dr. Arian: Neither Foreign Powers nor Clerical Elites Represent the Iranian People

by MultimediaVideos

In this interview with the ECPS, Dr. Amir Ahmadi Arian offers a penetrating account of Iran at a moment of war, repression, and political uncertainty. As the Israel/US–Iran conflict deepens and succession struggles intensify in Tehran, he argues that the central issue is the systematic erasure of Iranian popular agency. For Dr. Arian, the Islamic Republic has evolved from an ideological revolutionary order into an increasingly militarized system—“basically a killing machine”—while external intervention risks further marginalizing the people in whose name it claims to act. Moving from everyday micropower and censorship to the IRGC’s rise, social humiliation, and the politics of war, he underscores a stark reality: neither foreign powers nor clerical elites genuinely represent the Iranian people.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Giving an interview to the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Amir Ahmadi Arian—Iranian American writer and journalist, and Assistant Professor of Creative Writing at Binghamton University—offers a powerful and deeply textured analysis of Iran’s current condition at a moment of extraordinary peril. As the Israel/US–Iran war expands into a broader regional conflict marked by bombardment, civilian displacement, and intensifying regime-change rhetoric, Dr. Arian cautions against narratives that erase the agency of the Iranian people themselves. In a context where President Donald Trump has demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” openly declared an interest in shaping the country’s postwar leadership, and where succession debates have reportedly intensified following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Dr. Arian’s central warning is stark: “neither of them has anything to do with the Iranian people.”

That insistence on popular agency—and on its systematic denial—runs through the interview as a whole. For Dr. Arian, Iran’s predicament cannot be reduced either to foreign pressure alone or to a simplistic image of “clerical rule.” Rather, he describes a political system that has evolved over 47 years from an ideological revolutionary order into something far more militarized, coercive, and socially corrosive. What began with “a very strong ideological core, surrounded by a security apparatus,” he argues, has gradually become “less and less ideological and more and more militarized.” In his starkest formulation, the regime today is “basically a killing machine,” one whose relationship to society has been reduced to a binary of “friend and enemy.”

Yet Dr. Arian’s account is not confined to the spectacular violence of war and mass repression. One of the interview’s greatest strengths lies in its insistence that authoritarian domination in Iran is reproduced through everyday practices, cultural control, and administrative routines. Recalling his own childhood and youth, he explains that in the 1980s and 1990s one “felt the presence of the state almost on your skin.” From school rituals and anti-American iconography to compulsory hijab and the disciplining of bodies, the regime exercised what he calls a “very Foucauldian kind of presence of power in daily life.” The same logic extended into literature and language: censorship, exile, and the weakening of Persian literary culture did not merely restrict expression but also narrowed the horizons of political imagination itself.

At the same time, Dr. Arian foregrounds the uneven social distribution of repression. The Islamic Republic, he notes, presents itself internationally as a defender of “the poor, the wretched of the earth, the underdog,” yet “nobody has suffered at its hands more than the poor.” Women, Baha’is, workers, and peripheral communities have borne disproportionate burdens of exclusion, persecution, and violence. 

Against this backdrop, his analysis of the current war is especially sobering. If military intervention deepens, he warns, “the will of the people becomes the last thing that counts.” The core question, then, is not simply whether the regime survives, but whether Iranians themselves can recover political agency from both authoritarian rulers and external powers claiming to act in their name.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Assistant Professor Amir Ahmed Arian, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Kazi Huda

Assoc. Prof. Huda: Bangladesh’s Democratic Future Depends on How Political Parties Exercise Power

by MultimediaVideos

In this interview with the ECPS, Associate Professor Kazi A. S. M. Nurul Huda offers a nuanced assessment of Bangladesh’s post-2026 political transition. Reflecting on the first general election after the 2024 uprising that toppled Sheikh Hasina, he argues that a landslide electoral mandate alone cannot resolve the country’s democratic deficit. What matters, he emphasizes, is whether “procedural legitimacy, constitutional legitimacy, and sociological legitimacy are present.” Dr. Huda warns that preventing a “reverse norm cascade” depends less on electoral formalities than on how political actors behave in power—especially the ruling party. Stressing trust, institutional restraint, and freedom of criticism, he argues that Bangladesh’s democratic future will hinge on whether political parties govern responsibly, inclusively, and within genuinely pluralist constitutional limits.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Bangladesh’s February 2026 general election marked the country’s first national vote since the Gen Z-led uprising of August 2024 that toppled Sheikh Hasina after fifteen years in power. That uprising, which followed a violent crackdown on protesters that reportedly left around 1,400 people dead, was widely interpreted as a decisive rupture with one of South Asia’s most entrenched hybrid regimes. The election that followed was therefore more than a routine transfer of power: it was a test of whether Bangladesh could move from revolutionary mobilization to institutional politics. With turnout approaching 60 percent and many voters describing the experience as an opportunity to cast ballots “without fear,” the election appeared to signal at least a partial reopening of democratic space.

Yet, as Associate Professor Kazi A. S. M. Nurul Huda from the University of Dhaka makes clear in this interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), electoral change alone does not resolve the deeper crisis of democratic legitimacy. While the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) returned to power with a commanding parliamentary majority and the Jamaat-e-Islami-led alliance emerged as the principal opposition, Assoc. Prof. Huda cautions against equating electoral victory with democratic repair. “A landslide victory helps, but it is not everything,” he argues, insisting that such a result “does not by itself wash away the democratic deficit.” For Assoc. Prof. Huda, what ultimately matters is whether “procedural legitimacy, constitutional legitimacy, and sociological legitimacy are present.”

This emphasis on institutional and relational legitimacy is central to the interview’s broader argument and directly underpins its headline claim: Bangladesh’s democratic future depends less on who wins power than on how power is exercised. In Assoc. Prof. Huda’s formulation, the post-2026 order will be judged not simply by the fact of electoral competition, but by whether political actors—above all the ruling party—act with restraint, responsibility, and democratic seriousness. “Whether Bangladesh avoids returning to previous patterns—or prevents a reverse norm cascade—largely depends on how political parties behave,” he says. Most pointedly, he stresses that “the greatest responsibility rests with the ruling party,” especially in protecting freedom of speech and ensuring that opposition parties can criticize the government.

Assoc. Prof. Huda’s analysis gains further relevance in light of the new political landscape. Alongside the parliamentary vote, citizens endorsed the reform-oriented July Charter, which proposed constitutional reforms including term limits, bicameralism, and stronger judicial independence. At the same time, Bangladesh remains marked by unresolved tensions: the Awami League was barred from contesting the election, Sheikh Hasina remains in exile in India, and debates over justice, accountability, Islamist mobilization, and political inclusion continue to define the fragile post-uprising order. 

Against this backdrop, Assoc. Prof. Huda offers a sober but cautiously hopeful assessment. “If the current political parties—those in power and those in the opposition—behave responsibly, then we do not have to retreat,” he observes. The decisive question, then, is not whether Bangladesh has entered a new era, but whether its political class can transform a moment of rupture into a durable democratic settlement.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Assoc. Prof. Kazi A. S. M. Nurul Huda, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.