I recently submitted my PhD dissertation titled "Illiberalism Beyond Borders. Dissecting Russian and Turkish External Influence in Bosnia and Georgia" at @FU_Berlin. Interested in what I found? Read this thread ⬇️

To begin with, I hypothesise that illiberal external influence (IEX) is more likely to contribute to the contestation of #democracy in a given polity when it appears in the context of a favorable domestic environment and the absence of liberal external counterpressure.
I particularly scrutinise the role of domestic elites in facilitating/obstructing IEX, based on findings by J. Tolstrup, @otansey, R. Vanderhill et al. I also look at how liberal ext. counterpressure can help prevent a major contribution of IEX to the contestation of #democracy.
Between 2016-2018, I conducted 95 interviews in #Tbilisi, #Moscow, #Sarajevo & #BanjaLuka (thx to all interlocutors!). Given the increasingly unfree environment in Turkey, I didn't dare to make a trip to Ankara, but talked to local experts about Turkish IEX in BiH & Georgia.
In #Bosnia, #Ankara has engaged in illiberal sponsorship of the Party of Democratic Action for many years. However, in both Bosnia and #Georgia, Ankara mostly exerted illiberal external influence after the 2016 coup attempt, following which it exerted pressure on the rule of law.
#Russia, in contrast, has exerted illiberal external influence in #BiH & GEO for much longer. The #Kremlin has sponsored pro-Russian & illiberal forces & served as an inspiration for attempts to challenge the freedom of association & expression as well as sexual minority rights.
Importantly, all investigated cases clearly demonstrate the agency of domestic elites in facilitating or obstructing IEX. For instance, in #Bosnia, #Dodik & the SNSD have made great use of the Kremlin to further their own political goals.
In Georgia, the #Saakashvili governments effectively counteracted Russian IEX. Although this is not part of my research, I note that in doing so, they posed their own challenges to democracy, which points at the tension between deterring IEX and safeguarding/promoting liberalism.
Beyond highlighting domestic elites, my findings stress the potential of liberal external counterpressure. E.g., in the Turkish-Georgian case, the EP, specifically the involvement of @RebHarms, seemed too deter some of the Turkish IEX on the contestation of the rule of law.
Illiberal external influence is very difficult to trace & I often wished I had chosen a different topic. Nevertheless, it is crucial to understand how external & domestic factors contributing to the contribution of democracy are interlinked & every attempt to do so is worth it.
Crucially, I look at IEX as one out of many (!) factors that contribute to the contestation of liberal democracy in a given polity. Blaming rising illiberalism predominantly on external forces is reductionist and dangerous. Plus, even in the case of IEX, domestic elites are key.
Last but not least: don't hesitate to contact me if you'd like to collaborate or are looking for a speaker/writer on these matters. While I kept relatively quiet about my PhD research for a long time, I'll be happy to finally share my findings and experience. Thanks!

More from Science

"The new answer to a 77-year-old problem"

😭


https://t.co/hm9NoaU4nr


https://t.co/8fKDiKjSWc


https://t.co/jkaicC1F2x


https://t.co/PpxWT4Jef4

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?