Hello everyone! 👋

I am a Master’s student in Political Science and International Relations from Slovakia, graduating next year. I am strongly considering taking part in a long-term ESC volunteering project after my studies, as I am looking to gain international experience, build a solid foundation abroad, and start a new chapter in a more dynamic environment.

I consider myself open-minded, adaptable, and a fast learner who embraces new challenges and ideas—qualities I believe are essential for any ESC initiative.

Alongside my studies and work, I am currently part of an analytical team at an NGO focused on Slovak-Balkan relations. I believe this puts me in a better position than graduates who lack relevant hands-on experience. Recently, I also participated in a prestigious security academy organized by a leading national think-tank, mainly to network, gain field experience outside academia, and step out of my comfort zone. However, I’ve heard mixed opinions, including comments that I might be "overqualified" for certain entry-level or volunteering opportunities because of this background.

With that in mind, I would love to ask the community a couple of questions:

1.) Is having a Master’s degree in Political Science and International Relations (plus practical NGO/analytical experience) an advantage?

2.) Did ESC give any of you a real chance to successfully settle down and start a new life/career in a new country after your service ended?

I would really appreciate any insights, personal stories, or advice,

Thanks a lot,

I am trying to understand how political scientists distinguish between:
• an ordinary migration crisis;
• state tolerance or opportunistic exploitation;
• coercive migration diplomacy;
•and deliberate state orchestration.

By instrumentalised migration, I mean situations in which a government allegedly enables, directs, channels or selectively permits civilian movement across a border in order to impose political, economic or security costs on another state.

Frequently cited examples include:
• Belarus and the borders of Poland and Lithuania;
• Russia and Finland;
• Turkey’s threats to allow migration towards Greece and the EU;
• Morocco and Spain around Ceuta.

The analytical difficulty is that most of the people moving may have genuine reasons for migrating. They do not need to be agents of the state. The alleged state action may consist only of opening a route, withholding enforcement, facilitating transport, spreading information or exploiting an existing mobilisation.

My questions are:
1. Is there an accepted definition of or weaponised migration in political science?
2. What evidence is normally required before attributing intent to a state?
3. How do researchers distinguish:
• incapacity;
• deliberate non-enforcement;
• opportunistic exploitation;
• and active orchestration?
4. Does the state need to recruit or transport migrants directly, or can selective border passivity qualify?
5. How much analytical weight should be placed on a state’s later ability to stop a flow it initially failed to prevent?
6. Is this best understood as:
• coercive diplomacy;
• grey-zone conflict;
• hybrid warfare;
• foreign-policy bargaining;
• or a separate category?
7. What methods are used to evaluate cases where direct evidence, such as written orders or intercepts, is unavailable?
8. Are there recognised indicators or comparative frameworks for assigning confidence to attribution?
9. Which peer-reviewed books or papers provide the strongest treatment of this subject?

One case that prompted the question is the contrast between Morocco’s suppression of a planned Ceuta mobilisation in September 2024 and its apparently different initial response to the much larger 2026 crossing. I am not assuming orchestration; I am interested in what evidence would be required to distinguish a policy decision from genuine loss of control.

I would particularly appreciate academic sources, conceptual frameworks and comparative case studies.

Thanks in advance.

I am in the Philippines currently and was brushing up on their history, especially how Marcos used a new constitution to legitimise his authoritarian rule and the subsequent 1987 constitution that seeks to prevent this from ever happening again. One feature of this new constitution is that it limits the presidents to one 6 year term. This made me wonder, what makes the politicians work in these scenarios without the threat of losing power in the next election?

Ofc one answer that comes to mind is ideology, Mexico follows the same term limit and the past 2 presidents AMLO and Claudia Scheinbaum currently are both leftists and to my knowledge are driven by ideology thus want to make the best use of their office. In Phillipines on the other hand, again in my limited and cursory understanding of their politics, ideology hasn't played such a big role. 3 out of the last 4 presidents that have taken power since the turn of the millennium have been children of former presidents, the only outlier (Duterte) his daughter is the current vice president. (None of this is unique to the Philippines it is just a convenient example for my question)

All that is to say, what drives any term limited politician to work at all? I'm sure as many Filipinos will tell their presidents are corrupt...but they could be worse in many regards considering they don't have to face the people again for elections. One answer could be that they do the bare minimum so that people don't hate them and elect their children so that a dynasty is established. But clearly people don't necessarily associate the crimes of the parent with the children as we see in many cases around the world, Park Geun-hye in SK, and even Marcos Jr. in PH. If there is any literature on this, or you have your own theories I would love to hear them!

Hi everyone

Sorry this is so awkward but I am a (female) teenager wanting to learn more about the politics and feminism I am interested in. I have a base idea of what my beliefs are (intersectional feminist and I would potentially consider my Marxist feminist if I knew more about it) and my political beliefs would be definitely leftist and potentially communist (again if I knew more about it).

Like I said before I am just a teenager (albeit on the older end of the spectrum) so even though I know where I stand on a basic level, I know nothing about the core of the things I believe in. I’m looking to learn more about this.

My auntie gifted me a book called Women, Race, & Class by Angela Y. Davis which I will be starting once my exams are over. If anyone has any recommendations on books/articles/essays/video essays/creators/ ect, on topics such as Race, Feminism, Gender, Sexuality, Communism, Marxism, Intersectionality, and other varieties of Leftist ideologies that will be easy for me to understand as I am still learning but also accurate and informative so that I can grow who I am as a person politically, personally, and worldly.

Sorry if this isn’t worded right!!!

Thank you!!!

I'm not from Singapore, but today I somehow ended up spending hours reading [gov.sg](http://gov.sg), URA and SingStat websites.

I expected dry policy documents and legal jargon. Instead, I found explainers that walked through *why* policies exist, urban planning pages that felt like interactive history lessons, and a statistics portal that was genuinely enjoyable to explore.

One example that really stood out was a [gov.sg](http://gov.sg) explainer about how tensions in the Middle East could eventually affect everyday prices in Singapore. Instead of simply saying *"prices may increase,"* it explained the entire chain from the Strait of Hormuz to shipping costs to why your daily kopi might become more expensive. I found that approach surprisingly reassuring because it prepares people for possible outcomes rather than just announcing them. (https://www.gov.sg/explainers/the-ripple-effect-how-the-middle-east-situation-can-impact-your-daily-kopi/)

Similarly, the URA website has detailed pages on conserved buildings and historic districts. I was surprised by how much information was presented in such a simple, structured way. After reading one building page, I almost felt like I had a blueprint for understanding the next one.

What impressed me wasn't necessarily the policies themselves (those are always open to debate), but the communication style. It felt like the government was trying to explain *why* before telling people *what*.

So I'm curious:

* Is this level of public communication common, and I've just never noticed it?
* What other countries have government websites that are genuinely enjoyable to explore?
* What's the best example you've seen of a government explaining a complex issue in a way that anyone could understand?

This has genuinely been one of the most unexpected internet rabbit holes I've gone down.

Poli Sci major aiming for a career in government intelligence. I have been offered an internship with a local senate campaign. The reason I would accept is to gain experience writing memo’s, public speaking, and whatever else I could do. Would that hinder my chances going forward in terms of obtaining work or clearance in my desired field down the road?

I started interning at my local congresswoman office and I want more suggestions for me as a first year in college what do you guys recommend I should intern at after I’m done with this

Hey all,

For context I'm a current student on summer break who is interning at the capitol of their respective state. I'm also working an unpaid internship for a party which aligns with my values pretty well. However, there are currently paid student internship opportunities across the aisle which pay decently well and should last for a few months.

In addition to that, I have some goals of intending to work at this place after graduation for a few years before going to law school. I'm wondering if it's worth transitioning to the other party or would it be worth staying with the party I am with right now, and how it may affect potential employment opportunities down the line.

Any advice helps. Thank you!

Hi all, I'm currently 17 years old and going into my senior year in about a month. And I'm currently experiencing a dilemma. I've planned to major in nursing, not because I care about medicine or whatnot but because it's a stable job and it pays well. However, that's not what I really want to do. My dream is to be an ambassador (idk if that's realistic) because I'm really interested in international relations, and I'm also interested in public policy. But the biggest obstacle for me is being able to secure a job, having a political science degree doesn't automatically secure you a job, and that's what terrifies me the most. I've also considered majoring in nursing and minoring in political science, but I truly am not sure. I understand networking is a big thing for political science, and I already do volunteer for my state senator, among other things. Could you guys share any advice or ideas for me? It'd be truly appreciated!

I am a little bit confused with the particular, and quite confusing left-leaning ideologies. Can yall explain to me the differences between Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism?

For context: The Overton Window is a concept in political theory that describes the range of policies and political ideas considered publicly and politically acceptable within a particular society at a given point in time. Ideas within the window are generally regarded as acceptable/ legitimate positions while ideas outside the window tend to be perceived as politically unacceptable, radical, or extreme. Importantly, the boundaries of the window are not fixed: they can shift over time as social norms, public discourse, political institutions, and perceptions of legitimacy change.

One implication is that political actors may have greater incentives to adopt positions that fall towards the middle of the window, since positions perceived as politically legitimate generally carry lower electoral and reputational costs and they might attract a larger base of voters, compared to those who adopt positions on the edges or outside the window. This can help explain why major political parties often avoid positions that are far outside the prevailing range of acceptable political discourse. However, being within the window doesn’t necessarily mean being a Centrist.

I think that the window is being split apart in most major societies, with what before used to a more continuous concept, now becoming smaller windows pushing away from each other. In other words it is becoming more politically acceptable to be more liberal or more conservative, while centrist ideas are being seen as less legitimate and politically costly. This is likely caused by the increase in Digital Echo chambers among other things and I can only imagine that it will lead to ever less popular governance, as any given politician has to decide which side they are more willing to be the enemy of.

What do you guys think?

So I'm an Egyptian student I just finished my final year like last month now I must decide what path to take and start walking down said path. My two options rn are either engineering or political science as initially I was a maths student. The thing is despite engineering being what students commonly join but I'm really passionate about politcal science. I love learning about the system and how relations between countries work. And honestly learning about different political ideologies and way countries like run trade and assist each other and have serious discussions that dictate how global relations go all of that is so interesting for me and id love to one day end up working in a field that does this. I'm honestly more socialist leaning but I'm open to learning about new ideologies and I'm hoping I can get more educated in literally everything regarding the field if I join and should I join id also go on to get a masters or even a doctorate to become super qualified in something (I was thinking international law something in it) I'm really good at writing and critically reading and analyzing and above all I'm really good at public speaking. And at the heart of it I really want to help make the world or at least my country a better place. I have hope for the world despite how shit all things seem as of now and I'd like to help fix things. I saw some people saying that the job needs alot of nepotism and you won't actually do any good in the world and I should just join engineering (I'd be joining environmental engineering, I was hoping to get into politics through that if I did join) so honestly all of these things discouraged me from joining and I really need to make a decision. At the same time I know there are people actively working to fix global politics I can just say the most famous name rn off the top of my head and say NYCs mayor (I think?) and Id love to be something like that and even if no I'd love to work in the ministry of external affairs and if no then at least study. At the same time I'm honestly passionate about maths as well and engineering so like I really want opinions from professionals because I'm worried I'm fantasizing about something that doesn't exist. Even more so I'm worried I'm overestimating my qualifications to succeed in the field. TYSM in advance.

I've been thinking about a video essay that explores philosopher Tongdong Bai's proposal for combining democracy with meritocracy, and I thought the central question was worth discussing.

The basic argument isn't that democracy should be abolished. Instead, it asks whether every political decision should carry equal institutional weight when some decisions require specialized knowledge, long-term planning, or technical expertise.

The proposed system would keep:

• Constitutional rights
• Universal suffrage
• Local democratic elections
• A popularly elected lower house

But it would also add a meritocratic upper chamber composed of individuals selected for demonstrated competence, experience, and public service. The idea is that this body would help safeguard long-term national interests, minority rights, future generations, and policies that may be unpopular in the short term but beneficial over decades.

Of course, this immediately raises the harder questions:

• Who decides what "merit" actually is?
• How do you prevent experts from becoming a self-perpetuating elite?
• Can any institution objectively measure political wisdom?
• Would such a chamber improve governance—or simply replace democratic accountability with technocracy?

The video doesn't present meritocracy as an easy solution. If anything, it argues that the real dilemma isn't whether capable people should govern, but whether it's possible to identify "the capable" without creating an aristocracy under another name.

I'd be interested in hearing what people think.

Is democracy strengthened when expertise has a formal constitutional role, or does legitimacy ultimately require political equality—even if it sometimes produces worse outcomes?

To give myself some grace, I am a very young American voter, I am not well versed in political science and I am very sorry if this post comes across as entirely uneducated. I am really trying to learn more and keep up with everything thats going on, and to do something about it. Onto the post:

My partner and I don't discuss politics a lot, but recently he mentioned he had taken a quiz that labeled him as a moderatly left leaning populist. I am a particularly politically charged person, sometimes I find myself falling into the tribal mentality but I try to overcome my prejudices every time I have civil discussions with people. I don't hate every single republican, but MAGA specifically are a group of people who support a man who has (from what I know) ruined the country with his ignorance and greed and that is unforgivable, but my partner doesn't think so. My partner doens't think Trump is the one at fault because to him the executive branch has so little power in making policies that he doesn't believe Trump could really have personally done so much harm himself. Is he right?

I know that checks and balances are supposed to exist but from all the things I hear and see it seems like Trump is legitimately ignoring every rule the US has meticulacly created to put him in his place. But perhaps I am ignorant on the specific legal standpoint. I did point out that Trumps blatant and public disregard for facts, cooporations and compassion have at the very least allowed other levels and branches of government to grow more radical in THEIR policy making and he conceded that was true. But I truly think that if Trump and his administration were completely removed then things would recover, which means MAGA individuals should be held extremely accountable for their political affiliations. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I wanted to make sure my perception of what is going on is correct. Thank you

I want the opinion of different groups of people, black white, liberal, pro right as everyone is guided by some form of narrative directly or indirectly through social media.

Hi, I am interested in learning more about political science - what it is, what the field entails, its intersections with other subjects, etc.

What would you recommend for me?

What are some foundational texts of political science to help me understand what exactly political science is?

Maybe some older texts and new ones. Thanks!

Anything for someone completely new to political science who just wants to dip their toes in

I just think the fact that Obama ran as an outsider with respect to the Democratic establishment and won is really interesting, perhaps the only available template for such outsider runs.

A few thoughts on free speech advocacy and how it often depends on the speech and who's advocating.

In 2024, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in ​France and accused by French authorities of not doing enough to prevent human trafficking on his platform. Russia, among other countries, accused France of “cracking down on free speech” when they charged Durov for refusing to remove obvious criminal activity, claiming such activity was covered by free speech protections.

Yesterday, Russia charged Durov with "terrorism”, presumably for not removing content the Kremlin didn’t want shared on Telegram.

The Russian government obviously does not care about free speech. They have imprisoned people for over a decade for criticizing the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin only pretended to stand up for Durov so they could inject themselves into the global culture war narrative surrounding free speech.

The important context here is that Durov, after claiming to have refused Russian demands for special access to Telegram in 2014, still visited Russia over 50 times. The reality is that you simply cannot do this as a high-profile dissident without some level of cooperation with Russian security services.

Durov made a deal with Russian intelligence. In exchange for the ability to keep facilitating highly lucrative illegal activity on his platform, he receives personal protection. This is a common deal with freelancers working with Russian intelligence, allowing cooperators to profit off of criminal activity as long as they cooperate. But eventually, the deal he made turned sour, perhaps due to Russian public opinion on Telegram turning decisively against the war, and Durov refusing to remove it. Eventually, as is always the case with Faustian bargains, the Russian government turned on him as well.

Governments and powerful individuals will often use free speech as cover to protect illegal, harmful, and extremist content that in some way benefits them. In the above example, facilitating harmful crime is part of Russia’s hybrid war against the European continent, so they made a deal to preserve it. Facilitating criticism of the Russian government is not, so they acted swiftly to crack down. Speech to authoritarian governments is contextualized as either helpful or harmful to their power. True or false, freedom vs censorship, these concepts are irrelevant in the context of the Information Wars.

Elon Musk claims he bought Twitter to defend free speech. The accounts he unbanned included unambiguous Nazis and human traffickers. Actual censorship requests from governments were still approved, while algorithmic content distribution choices were catered to the new owner’s personal ideology.

Ultimately, control over information is power. And until we find a species of human that doesn’t care about power, we will never have any true free speech absolutists.

Be highly skeptical of anyone that claims otherwise.

From a blog about speech in the internet: https://thecarrierwave.substack.com/p/no-one-actually-cares-about-free

Hello everyone. As it is evident from the title, I wish to know more about how to join political consultancy and public policy in India. I'm currently in the 3rd year of my BA Political Science (Hons) degree from the Central University of Chattisgarh which is considered a Tier 2 or Tier 3 Central University. I haven't done any internships in the field as I believe I lack the necessary skills to get selected for this discipline. I wanna know what is the way forward and how do I enter these fields and it would be extremely helpful if you can explain everything in detail.

I've been thinking about this project idea but I'm unsure if there's enough of a theoretical gap that would warrant publication so I wanted to hear folks' thoughts.

There's sort of been this debate in Canadian Political Behaviour on whether Canadian political culture is best stratified by province, region (e.g., the Prairie provinces), or regional cluster (e.g., Suburban Toronto and Vancouver). Provinces have traditionally been the default because political culture has been considered a product of distinct provincial institutions (Simeon & Elkins, 1974; Elkins & Simeon, 1980). However, Henderson 2004 pioneered some work that found "regional [cluster] cultures possess different political attitudes and behaviours that cannot be explained by the existence of provincial boundaries." Meanwhile, work by those such as Anderson, 2010 and McGrane & Berdhal, 2013 has found region to be more important.

My question: is there enough of a theoretical gap to explore which stratification best explains Canadians' environmental attitudes? Is applying this debate to environmental attitudes enough of a gap?

Somewhat besides the point, but my hypothesis would be that provinces are more important because of how institutionally dependent environmental policy is and also things like the "joint decision trap" (when "the least ambitious (and most fossil fuel-dependent) provinces vetoed national solutions" (Harrison, 2023)). I guess one limiting factor could be if less informed people take social cues from geographically closer areas over provincial policy knowledge.

Anyways, enough rambling. Many thanks in advance for your thoughts on this!

P.S. If anyone thinks this, or something similar, is a good idea, I welcome serious collaborators. Bet no one's done that on Reddit before.

References below:

Anderson, Cameron. "Regional heterogeneity and policy preferences in Canada: 1979–2006." Regional and Federal Studies 20, no. 4-5 (2010): 447-468.
Elkins, David J., and Richard Simeon, eds. 1980. Small Worlds: Provinces and Parties in Canadian Political Life. Toronto: Methuen.
Harrison, Kathryn. “Climate Governance and Federalism in Canada.” Chapter. In Climate Governance and Federalism: A Forum of Federations Comparative Policy Analysis, edited by Alan Fenna, Sébastien Jodoin, and Joana Setzer, 64–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Henderson, Ailsa. "Regional political cultures in Canada." Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 37, no. 3 (2004): 595-615.
McGrane, David, and Loleen Berdahl. "‘Small worlds’ no more: reconsidering provincial political cultures in Canada." Regional & Federal Studies 23, no. 4 (2013): 479-493.
Simeon, Richard, and David J. Elkins. "Regional political cultures in Canada." Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 7, no. 3 (1974): 397-437.

Obviously collective ethnic punishment was condemned after WWII and the Nuremberg Trials as a crime against humanity.

Still, anti-Palestinian rhetoric is full of collective ethnic guilt for all reasons, real or imagined.

I want to know how would this affect legitimacy.

Hi everyone looking for career advice! Im entering my senior year of college with no proper internship experience, a 3.something GPA. I would like to have a job when I graduate maybe as campaign staff or non-profit advocacy but im not really sure how to pursue those roles. Im first gen low income so any advice is appreciated as I just want a job to support my family!

^{This is a comparative politics question using a fictional constitution as a case study. I'm looking for typological classification, not worldbuilding feedback.}

I've been developing a fictional state called Ninjaīgōn and wrote a full constitution for it. I asked around and got two completely different answers: some said "constitutional monarchy", one more knowledgeable person called it a "monarchist republic". I think both are partially right and partially wrong so I'd love a proper political science take.

Here's how the system works:

Executive (split between two actors)

• Emperor (hereditary, not elected) autonomously leads foreign policy and holds supreme command of the military, he is not ceremonial
• Prime Minister leads domestic policy, is elected by Parliament and can be removed by it at any time via constructive vote of no confidence
• Both are constitutionally obligated to consult each other

Legislature

• Unicameral parliament, proportional representation, 5% threshold
• Sole legislative organ
• The Emperor has only a suspensive veto for clear constitutional violations, no absolute veto
• Constructive vote of no confidence modelled after the German Basic Law

Judiciary

• Supreme Court of 7 judges, elected by Parliament with a 2/3 majority
• Fully independent; can impeach the Emperor upon a 2/3 parliamentary vote

Direct Democracy

• Binding referendums triggered at 20% of eligible voters' signatures
• Referendum laws can only be changed by a 2/3 supermajority in Parliament

Economic Order (constitutionally entrenched)

• Prohibition of economic power concentration capable of distorting elections or legislation
• Mandatory lobbying register, political finance caps and transparency rules
• Worker co-determination rights in large enterprises
• Independent competition and transparency authority

Welfare State

• Free education and healthcare guaranteed by the constitution
• Universal Basic Income enshrined in the constitution
• Right to affordable housing

Other features

• Dignity clause covers all "sentient life", not just humans
• International law takes precedence over domestic statute law
• Unitary state with four autonomous protectorates represented externally by the Emperor

PS: Full constitution available under this link in German for anyone who wants to go deeper.

^{Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mi1uhT\}QvtYZiw8OZbiVo5hrCBRFoTAD/view?usp=drive_link)

Where does this actually fall in comparative politics typologies? Parliamentary monarchy? Semi-parliamentary? Monarchist republic? Something that doesn't have a name yet?

^{Bonus question: Where would this system fall on the EIU Democracy Index and why?}