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

On 5 November 2025, SEESOX, and  the European Studies Centre, 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 the Middle East Centre and SEESOX. 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.

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.

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

On 28 May, SEESOX, in cooperation with  the European Studies Centre (ESC) hosted a panel on the fall of dictatorship, and the transitions to democracy, including their legacies on current political developments in Spain, Portugal, and Greece.

The panel consisted of Joao Carlos Espada, Professor at the Institute for Political Studies at the Catholic University of Portugal, Ainhoa Campos Posada, historian at the Universidad Complutense Madrid, and Harris Mylonas, Associate Professor at George Washington University’ Elliott School of International Affairs, focusing on Portugal, Spain, and Greece, respectively. The seminar was chaired by ESC and SEESOX director, Othon Anastasakis.

According to Joao Carlos Espada Portugal, Spain, and Greece are the first cases of what Samuel Huntington called “the third wave of world democratisation” which led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism in Central and Easter Europe.

He argued that the military coup that heralded the establishment of democracy in Portugal on 25 April 1974 was followed by a clash between two radically different conceptions of democracy: on the one hand, popular/populist democracy, which was supported by the Communists in Portugal, and on the other, parliamentary democracy. Although (or perhaps because) the Communists were electorally beaten in the first democratic Portuguese elections in April 1975, they attempted a coup in November 1975 and they were defeated by a coalition of left and center-right parties led by Mário Soares, the leader of the Socialist party and lifelong opponent of the far right dictatorship of Salazar.

Dreaming of Europe: Work refugees and the migration crisis

On 28 May 2024, SEESOX, and 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.

Reconceptualising the EU-member states’ relationship in the age of permanent emergency

On Wednesday 8 May, the SEESOX hosted a presentation by Stella Ladi (Queen Mary University of London) on “Coordinative Europeanisation.” Since 2008, the European Union has been engulfed in several crises. While distinct, these crises are feeding into each other and are testing the capacity and resilience of EU and member states. With the Covid-19 crisis, there has been a trend towards a new mode of “coordinative Europeanisation” in EU decision-making, altering the relationships between EU-member states in pursuit of fast policy responses.

Ladi defined coordinative Europeanisation as “a process where increased and often informal coordination between EU member states and EU institutions takes place during a crisis’ early stages in view of quickly devising policy solutions that work for everyone, thereby enhancing decision-making speed, reform ownership and policy compliance.” Coordinative Europeanisation, Ladi argued, may coexist with other pre-existing modes of Europeanisation, such as soft Europeanisation and coercive Europeanisation. At the same time, de-Europeanisation trends have also emerged.

In her research, Ladi seeks to understand the public policy agenda of the EU, asking whether the EU is managing to adequate
ly respond to global crises using existing as well as novel means. She raised three questions in particular. Firstly, in which policy areas is coordinative Europeanisation taking place? Secondly, is coordinative Europeanisation always linked to a crisis and/or an emergency? And thirdly, what kind of policy and governance solutions emerge out of these crises and how successful and long-lasting are they?

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

On 8 March 2024, the European Studies Centre, together with South East 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.