Introduction and Contribution

Since coming to power in 2002, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) have significantly undermined Turkish democracy. This has most visibly involved police repression, systematic prosecutions of the AKP’s critics, and partisan control and censorship of the media. Although opposition persisted in parliament, municipalities, campuses, and professional associations, the playing field is rigged against the AKP’s opponents.

Yet these visible forms of repression are only part of a broader process of Turkey’s autocratization. In “The Capture of Turkey’s Universities Under the AKP,” Ayça Alemdaroğlu shows how the regime has, through a host of less spectacular but durable mechanisms, used its control over higher education to turn universities into channels for distributing opportunity, disciplining dissent, and cultivating loyal staff and students. These mechanisms — including baseless investigations and dismissals of academics, online citizen reporting against faculty, and patronage around university jobs — have weakened academic life and transformed Turkish higher education into a key instrument of the AKP’s governing project.

Importantly, Turkey’s democratic erosion has accelerated in tandem with the massive, rapid growth in colleges and student enrollment. For Alemdaroğlu, this should temper any assumption that higher education is automatically a space of democratic resistance. Universities can produce critique, organization, and dissent, but the higher education system can also facilitate authoritarian consolidation through appointments, disciplinary procedures, funding, surveillance, and patronage. Comparable processes to subordinate universities have unfolded in India, China, and Russia. Instructors may publish or teach critical material while students may organize against the state, but autocrats can hedge against these risks by capturing the university system writ large. In the United States, where universities have become central to “culture wars,” Alemdaroğlu’s article serves as a cautionary tale about how quickly institutional autonomy can erode, especially in the absence of protections against executive encroachment.

The Growth of Turkish Higher Education

The AKP did not eviscerate higher education in one fell swoop but did so incrementally, building on the efforts of its predecessors. For example, after the 1980 coup d'état, Turkey’s military government centralized key aspects of university appointments, which the Erdoğan regime has expanded. In addition, the country’s 1980s neoliberal turn refashioned universities as instruments of profit and efficiency rather than spaces of academic freedom. Since the AKP attained power, higher education has grown at an unprecedented scale: there were 76 universities with 1.7 million enrolled students in 2002, compared to 206 universities and 8 million students in 2020. This has afforded the regime vast new terrain on which to exercise control.

Unsurprisingly, such rapid growth has increased quantity at the expense of quality. From a political standpoint, however, this is not especially costly for the AKP. For example, meager investments in research capacity have served to weaken the independence of academics and their ability to criticize the regime. Meanwhile, university hiring processes reflect the preferences of AKP loyalists, thus expanding the scope of co-optation. These are not unintended consequences but core features of a system geared toward patronage.

University expansion has helped the AKP widen its reach across social groups and economic sectors. Lucrative construction projects, public-sector jobs, faculty appointments and access to scarce resources have become channels through which the party awards supporters and cultivates loyalty.  In other words, higher education has served as a means of patronage, ideological inculcation and political control. The government framed expansion as a democratizing challenge to secular urban privilege and as part of a project to cultivate a more conservative, religiously grounded youth.

Waves of Capture

Alemdaroğlu periodizes the AKP’s higher education agenda into three waves that illustrate the shift from episodic intervention to routinized control. The first wave, which began soon after the AKP came to power, was not immediately visible to international observers as part of a broader authoritarian turn. Though it was clear to those targeted. For example, a 2005 penal code criminalized the “denigration of Turkishness,” which state prosecutors used to target faculty in literature and journalism, particularly those who had published on the Armenian genocide and the systematic mistreatment of Kurds.

By contrast, the second wave, beginning after the failed 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, was much more dramatic. The AKP government presented the coup attempt, which it attributed to the Gülen movement, as a national emergency requiring sweeping state action. Faculty and employees were dismissed and suspended en masse, while Gülen-affiliated universities were shuttered and had their assets frozen. In addition, investigations were conducted against those who signed a 2016 “Academics for Peace” document, which called for an end to state violence against Kurds. Turkey’s Constitutional Court found the investigations illegal in 2019, but by which time many academics had already lost their positions, passports, income, and professional standing.

The final, ongoing wave has “shifted toward a permanent institutional model, moving control and coercion into the everyday governance of the university.” Faculty are routinely disciplined for “verbally disrespectful speech” or conduct incompatible with “public morality and decency,” while AKP loyalists are appointed to senior academic posts by direct presidential decree. In addition, online citizen reporting through the state’s communication system has created another channel for targeting faculty. Although the rise from 130,000 applications in 2006 to 6 million in 2020 reflects the system as a whole, it shows how citizen complaints became part of everyday state monitoring, including at universities.

Ultimately, the Turkey case shows how democracy erodes through both dramatic ruptures and quiet, cumulative transformations. Alemdaroğlu emphasizes that the degraded condition of Turkish higher education does not merely reflect AKP’s autocratization but has actively enabled it.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

Introduction and Contribution

Democracies face a host of ongoing challenges, including the rise of elected autocrats, income inequality, mainstreamed forms of xenophobic nationalism, and political apathy. All of these challenges pose threats to democratic participation — elected autocrats restrict it, inequality makes it easier for oligarchs to sway election outcomes, and xenophobia can discourage cultural outsiders from voting.

Apart from practical threats to democratic participation, an established intellectual tradition has viewed participation with deep skepticism. In this view, democracy is good simply because it ensures peaceful transfers of power and protects individual rights. Collective decisions, however, cannot be meaningfully viewed as representing the “will of the people” owing to manipulation, apathy, and the high costs of acquiring political knowledge. Is this “realist” vision the best one can hope for in democratic life?

In “Can deliberation have lasting effects?,” James Fishkin, Valentin Bolotnyy, Joshua Lerner, Alice Siu, and Norman Bradburn show how a three-day deliberative experiment in late 2019 had large and long-term effects on turnout and voting behavior. Those most likely to exhibit these civic behaviors nearly a year later had come to follow politics more closely and see their political opinions as valuable. At the same time, the experiment’s effects on participants’ policy views were significant only in the short term — most deliberators eventually reverted to their previously held policy positions.

That three days of deliberation had such lasting civic effects suggests that efforts to create more inclusive forms of democratic participation are both possible and scalable. Moreover, it suggests that academic skepticism about democratic participation is not an argument against citizens’ capacities for reasonable decision-making; rather, it is an argument against our imperfect contexts of participation. Deliberative experiments may offer hope for improving these contexts.

The Deliberative Experiment and Its Effects on Policy Views

In September 2019 — one week prior to the experiment — a treatment group (i.e., those who would deliberate) of 523 registered voters from around the US and a control group of 844 voters were surveyed on their political attitudes. Members of the treatment group then deliberated on five issue domains (the economy, environment, immigration, health care, foreign policy) in small groups and on 47 policy proposals (e.g., redistributing wealth in some way). 26 of these proposals were characterized by extreme partisan polarization, meaning significant numbers of those who identified as Democrats or Republicans held the most extreme views. After the deliberations ended, both the treatment and control groups were surveyed. Then, three subsequent surveys were conducted in late 2020.

Among the treatment group, deliberation produced significant, short-term depolarization on 20 of the 26 (polarized) policy proposals. In other words, the averages for participants who identified with each party moved closer together (though not necessarily toward the center). These changes were large, sometimes 40 percentage points, as in the case of Republicans abandoning extreme positions on immigration. Meanwhile, the control group’s policy positions changed hardly at all — pointing to the key role played by deliberation. Within the five issue areas, averages among deliberators shifted leftward on all but the economy.
 

Image

Figure 1. Policy-Based Score (PBS) Changes over Time
Note: Policy-based score (PBS) is constructed for each individual based on responses to 26 questions identified as the most polarizing. The upper chart shows the participant group, and the lower chart shows the control group. T1 is the survey wave prior to the deliberations, T2 is right after the deliberations, and T3 is 10 months after, in July 2020.
 

By late 2020, however, the treatment group’s policy positions mostly reverted to their pre-deliberation levels. The differences between these two points in time were still significant compared with the control group, yet relatively small in absolute terms. These policy reversions are perhaps unsurprising: deliberators returned to an environment of heightened polarization and aggressive campaigning during the 2020 election cycle. (To be sure, and from the standpoint of finding solutions to collective problems, policy reversion is not especially concerning — the aim of deliberation is to bring citizens together to reason and compromise, which the experiment accomplished.)

A Civic Awakening?

The lack of long-term policy effects suggests that three-day deliberations may be limited in their ability to create a more encompassing, participatory society. However, the treatment group demonstrated large and persistent changes in their intention to vote (i.e., turnout) and their candidate of choice. Among the control group, Joe Biden was favored over Donald Trump by about four percentage points — very close to Biden’s actual margin in the popular vote. Among the treatment group, however, Biden was favored by 28 percentage points. The gaps in turnout were similarly large. (Note that these are intentions, not reports of actual decisions. However, Tables 6 and 7 in the article show similar effects for recollected votes after the election.)
 

Image

Table 2. Voting Intention for Participant and Control Groups, Time 4
 

These civic outcomes are especially surprising because (a) voting behavior is thought to be stable and deeply rooted in one’s psychology and social context, and (b) experimental efforts to increase turnout have been most successful when undertaken shortly before elections, as opposed to one whole year prior. The effects were most pronounced among political moderates and those without college degrees — perhaps pointing to the educative effects of deliberation.
 

Image

Figure 5. Effects on Vote Intention Captured by Predictive Modeling, by Education
Note: Middle are those participants who have Policy-Based Scores between 3 and 5 (inclusive) at Time 1. Non-middle participants are all other participants. Positive prediction error shows that, on average, participants were more likely to vote for Biden than predicted by the model. Vote intention data are collected at Time 4, in October, 2020. Full calibrated model used to construct this figure can be found in the APSR Dataverse.
 

Why did deliberation produce only short-term policy effects but long-term effects on voting behavior? The authors posit that deliberation caused an “awakening of civic capacities.” They reason that deliberation was a transformative experience in terms of stimulating political engagement and a sense of efficacy. And indeed, the treatment group was, in the long term, more likely than the control group to follow the 2020 election campaign, believe their political opinions mattered, and acquire general information about American politics. (The latter is measured in terms of knowing which party controlled the House and Senate.)
 

Image

Figure 9. Having “Political Opinions Worth Listening to”
Note: Policy-based score is constructed for each individual based on responses to 26 questions identified as the most polarizing. Responses to the question “How strongly would you disagree or agree with the following statement?”[I have opinions about politics that are worth listening to.] were collected at T1 (just before deliberations), T2 (just after), and T3 (10 months later, July 2020).
 

The authors close by discussing efforts to scale up civic engagement, such as the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform. In all, “Can deliberation have lasting effects?” provides a rigorous case for the value of deliberation in strengthening democratic participation.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

Azerbaijan | Brazil | Colombia | Egypt | Georgia | India | Kenya | Liberia | Mongolia | Nepal | Nicaragua | Nigeria | Peru | Russia | South Africa | Thailand | Turkey | Ukraine | Venezuela

AZERBAIJAN
 

Emin Huseynov is an Azerbaijani journalist and human rights defender, co-founder of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety, and Director at the Institute for Human Rights. Over 20 years, he has worked to defend press freedom and document repression in Azerbaijan. In 2014, amid a government crackdown, Emin spent over 10 months hiding in the Swiss Embassy in Baku before reaching safety in Switzerland. He was then arbitrarily stripped of his citizenship. Since 2015, Emin has been actively working to raise awareness of gross human rights violations in the South Caucasus, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia on major international platforms, including the United Nations, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe.

BRAZIL
 

Pedro Telles is a Program Director at the Democracy Hub (D-Hub), dedicated to network-building, capacity-building, and strategic support for democracy defenders globally. He is also an adjunct professor at Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) and a Senior Atlantic Fellow for Social and Economic Equity at the London School of Economics (LSE), with extensive experience working in civil society, government, philanthropy, and elections. He is a co-founder of multiple organizations focused on advocacy and civic engagement, such as Ctrl+Z, Quid, and Advocacy Hub, and is a board member of Avaaz, Transparência Brasil, and Legisla Brasil. He has also worked at Greenpeace, Luminate, and the Legislative Assembly of São Paulo.

COLOMBIA
 

Andry Gonzalez is an economist with a master’s degree in Urban Planning and a Fulbright alumna. She served as an adviser to the Office of the Vice President of Colombia, Francia Márquez, advancing racial equity and territorial development. She currently works as a Program Manager at Open Society Foundations. She believes democracy must be meaningful in everyday life and that true development requires redistributing power, not just resources. She is passionate about supporting young people and women from marginalized communities to step into spaces of influence and shape the future of their territories.

EGYPT
 

Ahmed Attalla F. Ali is an Egyptian political and human rights activist and researcher. He is a co-founder of the grassroots pro-democracy April 6 Movement, contributing to its political direction and governance after the 2011 revolution. Since 2018, he has served as Executive Director of the Egyptian Front for Human Rights, leading documentation, research, legal assistance, and international advocacy. He has published studies and articles on civil-military relations, social movements, human rights, and EU–MENA relations. He holds a Law degree and a diploma in Political Science, and is currently pursuing an MA in EU Studies at UCLouvain, Belgium.

GEORGIA
 

Tamar Rukhadze is a media and civil society professional with nearly 30 years of experience promoting independent journalism and freedom of expression in Georgia. She began her career as a reporter in 1997, later leading major newsrooms before focusing on advancing media ethics, accountability, and resilience through civil society and international initiatives. Tamar previously served as Executive Director and Board Chair of the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics and has held senior positions with IREX on USAID-funded programs. In 2025, she became Deputy Director of Batumelebi & Netgazeti following the arrest of founder and CEO Mzia Amaglobeli.

INDIA
 

Smita Mankad is a social entrepreneur and independent board director with experience across the corporate, government, and social sectors in India, combining grassroots community development with board-level governance. She serves on the boards of Fabindia and the Mahindra and Bajaj Groups, among others. At Fabindia, she established 18 community-owned companies, enabling more than 23,000 rural artisans to become shareholders for the first time. Her pro bono work supports initiatives focused on rural livelihoods, reducing malnutrition, creating safer cities for women, expanding educational opportunities for underserved children, and mentoring women. A champion of sustainability, she also maintains a zero-waste-to-landfill home and is a Vital Voices USA, Oxford Chevening, and Swedish Institute Fellow.
 

Dilip Kumar Pandey is a PhD scholar, a former MLA from Timarpur, and an ex-Chief Whip in the Delhi Assembly. He comes from a farming family in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, and holds an MCA degree. Known for his anti-corruption work and association with UNCAC, he is also an author of 5 books, including the bestseller, Gulabi Khanjar. A recurve archer, he is a music enthusiast who has written, sung, and composed various campaign songs for the Aam Aadmi Party. He runs the Radhika Prahlad Foundation, which supports medical care for the underprivileged, and has served as a member of Delhi’s Sahitya Kala Parishad. He is also an expert in inclusive policy, governance, political communication, and co-existential philosophy.
 

Srikanta Kumar Routa serves as Head of Operations at The/Nudge Institute, where he orchestrates large-scale economic inclusion initiatives to uplift rural and tribal households from extreme poverty. With over 13 years of distinguished expertise in the development sector, he has successfully scaled the Graduation Approach to serve 200,000 families, facilitating $100 million investment through strategic government and private partnerships. An alumnus of TISS Hyderabad, Srikanta is recognized for his strategic acumen and operational excellence across India’s most remote terrains. He remains steadfast in his mission to foster universal equity and sustainable development for marginalized communities.

KENYA
 

Keith Andare is a Nairobi-based internet consultant working at the intersection of digital rights and climate action. He is the founder and executive director of the African Centre for Climate Research and Innovations (ACCRI), a pan-African civil society organization focused on environmental and digital transitions. Andare has extensive experience in digital rights and internet governance, having served as a member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for the Kenyan, East African, and African Internet Governance Forums. He is passionate about cybersecurity and digital democracy.
 

Aimee Akinyi Ongeso is a Program Manager at Open Society Africa and an Obama Africa Leader. She is a democracy and justice practitioner with more than 16 years of experience advancing legal empowerment, participatory governance, and community-led justice across Africa. Her work focuses on designing and scaling grassroots-driven models that integrate law, organizing, and economic justice to strengthen democratic systems, particularly in conflict-affected contexts.

LIBERIA
 

Lamii Kpargoi is a Commissioner of the Office of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Liberia with a professional interest in human rights advocacy. Over the last 20 years, Mr. Kpargoi has worked as a civil society activist, with 16 of those years spent practicing law in Liberia. He is known for his dedication to upholding democratic values, promoting press freedom, and advocating for human rights. As a Chevening Scholar, he earned an LLM in Labour Law and Corporate Governance from the University of Bristol in the UK in 2019-2020. Mr. Kpargoi is also a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow and a US State Department Community Solutions Fellow.

MONGOLIA
 

Nominchimeg Odsuren is a Mongolian politician and a current Member of Parliament, with a professional background in law and a strong focus on advancing the rule of law. Trained at the University of Tokyo and Columbia Law School, she specializes in comparative, private, and economic law. Her work promotes transparency, accountability, and effective governance. With a cross-cultural perspective, she applies global best practices to strengthen legal frameworks and support sustainable policy reform in emerging democracies.

NEPAL
 

Pratik Kunwar is a political innovator and the Founder of Shaasan, a nonprofit civic initiative solving problems at the intersection of governance, climate, and deep learning. His work has been featured by Time, Forbes, the UN, and the WEF, among others. He has advocated for his work at the European Parliament, World Forum for Democracy, Davos, and One Young World, among others. Pratik is an Asia Society Next Generation Leader (2024) and has served on the European Union's International Youth Sounding Board and on the Advisory Council of the WEF's Global Shapers Community. Pratik holds a Master's in Data, Economics, and Design of Policy from MIT.

NICARAGUA
 

Berta Valle is a Nicaraguan journalist and human rights advocate with extensive experience in media and international advocacy. Forced into exile in 2018, she became a leading voice for political prisoners following the arbitrary detention of her husband, Félix Maradiaga, in 2021. She is a co-founder of the World Liberty Congress Political Prisoner Support Team and the End Arbitrary Detention initiative at the University of Virginia, and serves as President of Fundación Libertad, advancing human rights and democratic restoration in Nicaragua. Her work also explores the use of decentralized technologies to strengthen financial freedom in repressive contexts.

NIGERIA
 

Ayodele Ganiu is a cultural policy advocate with over 16 years of leadership advancing democratic reforms in Nigeria’s culture sector. As the Founder of Unchained Vibes Africa (UVA), he combats a shrinking civic space through the "Freedom Vibes" initiative, which combines transformative art with strategic litigation. Known for translating complex governance issues into cultural narratives that defy censorship, his work has yielded landmark legal victories and policy reforms, earning UVA the 2026 Bertha Artivism Award. He holds a B.Sc. in Finance from the University of Lagos and advanced training in cultural policy from the UNESCO Chair’s Arts Rights Justice Academy at the University of Hildesheim.

PERU
 

Álvaro Henzler is a serial social entrepreneur with 20+ years of experience. He has founded ventures in education, social impact, civic engagement, and leadership development. President of Asociación Civil Transparencia, Peru’s leading democracy NGO, co-founder and Executive President of Mosaico, advancing collective impact across Latin America, and co-founder of EnseñaPerú (member of Teach For All network). He holds an MPA from Harvard Kennedy School and a BA in Economics from Universidad del Pacífico, was a Research Fellow at Harvard’s Ash Center, and an advisor during the Peru–U.S. FTA. He was named a WEF Global Shaper and Georgetown Impact Award recipient.

RUSSIA
 

Leonid Drabkin is a senior executive with extensive experience leading OVD-Info, one of Russia’s largest and most respected human rights organizations, where he focused on documenting political prosecutions and providing legal support. He brings eight years of NGO leadership experience, complemented by work in media development and the pharmaceutical sector across Russia and in international settings. Drabkin holds an MSc in Finance from the United Kingdom and is recognized for a results-driven, change-oriented approach to advancing human rights. He was named to Forbes 30 Under 30 and is currently working in exile following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

SOUTH AFRICA
 

Tania Coenraad is a governance, democracy, and development practitioner based in Cape Town. Most recently she served as the Chief of Staff and Head of Parliamentary Operations, providing strategic leadership on legislative affairs, parliamentary oversight, and stakeholder engagement in South Africa. With over 17 years of experience across Parliament, local government, and community development, she has advanced socio-economic inclusion and strengthened institutional accountability. Her work is driven by a commitment to ethical leadership, constitutional democracy, and development outcomes.

THAILAND
 

Bencha Saengchantra is a former Member of the House of Representatives and currently serves on the Education and Training Committee. Over eight years in parliament, she supported and advanced legislation promoting democratic reform, human rights, gender equality, and social justice. Her work has focused on strengthening rule of law, expanding civic participation, and improving quality of life. As a participant in the Fisher Family Summer Fellows Program, she seeks to deepen her understanding of democratic governance and collaborate with global leaders to advance legal reform, equality, and democratic resilience in Thailand, across Asia, and around the world.
 

Dr. Janjira Sombatpoonsiri is an activist scholar whose work examines how authoritarian power adapts in the digital age and how civic actors respond. She is a Research Fellow at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA) in Hamburg and a full-time Assistant Professor at Chulalongkorn University’s Institute of Asian Studies in Bangkok. Her research spans protest movements, democratic resilience, and digital repression. Her forthcoming book is A Thousand Cuts: Digital Repression and Democracy in Thailand (2027, University of Wisconsin Press). She hopes to develop a regional policy hub that fosters cross-learning and collaboration across Southeast Asia.

TURKEY
 

Zeynep Aksoy is a senior strategist based in Istanbul. At House of Impact, she works at the intersection of data, technology, and social research, translating behavioral insight into high-impact strategies for institutions and public actors. Her work spans large-scale national and local public initiatives. She holds a BA in Middle Eastern History and Politics and an MA in Political Theory from Sciences Po Paris. With a background in editorial and on-screen media, she continues to work across long-form and digital formats. She serves on the boards of SES Equality and Solidarity Association.

UKRAINE*
 

Kateryna Chernohorenko is the architect of digital transformation and a former Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine (2023–2025). During her tenure, she launched Reserve+ and Army+ mobile apps, digitizing millions of military records and dozens of services. She scaled DELTA, the NATO-certified combat system, and led the Drone and IT Coalition, mobilizing $3.3B+ in aid. Kateryna also established Ukraine's Cyber Incident Response Center and founded the Space Policy Directorate in the MoD of Ukraine. She leads the digital transformation program at the High Qualification Commission of Judges and teaches “E-Governance, Document Management, and Digital Democracy” at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
 

Illia Filipov* is a Ukrainian edtech entrepreneur and co-founder & CEO of EdEra. With a physics background from Taras Shevchenko National University, he chose to build educational infrastructure in Ukraine rather than pursue opportunities abroad. Since 2014, he has led the development of 300+ educational products, reaching over 2 million users on EdEra’s platform and millions more through solutions for government and business. He has worked with national institutions and international partners on education reforms, media literacy, and civic engagement, and served as an advisor to government bodies and the OSCE. His work focuses on expanding access to education to strengthen democratic systems.
 

Svitlana Kovalchuk* is Executive Director of Yalta European Strategy (YES), Ukraine’s leading platform advancing European integration and global dialogue on democracy, security, and development. For nearly a decade, she has led YES and the Victor Pinchuk Foundation's international initiatives, strengthening Ukraine’s global presence through the YES Annual Meeting in Kyiv and platforms at the World Economic Forum and the Munich Security Conference. She previously worked at the German Corporation for International Cooperation. Svitlana holds a PhD in Political Science and is an alumna of Harvard Kennedy School.
 

Valentyna Riznyk* is a Ukrainian public affairs professional and legal scholar with experience in local governance and national policymaking. She serves as Secretary of the Poltava Regional Organization of the political party “Servant of the People” and is a member of the Youth Council under the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine. Valentyna has worked as an assistant to Members of Parliament and as an advisor to political leadership, contributing to legislative processes and community engagement. She holds a PhD in Law and a Master’s degree in Political Science, with a focus on strengthening democratic institutions and public trust in governance systems.
 

*These fellows are jointly participating in CDDRL’s Strengthening Ukrainian Democracy and Development Program.

VENEZUELA
 

Pedro A. Urruchurtu Noselli is a political scientist and activist who serves as Senior Advisor on Foreign Affairs and Director of International Relations for María Corina Machado, as well as International Coordinator for Vente Venezuela. As a key strategist, he has helped mobilize international support for democracy in Venezuela, focusing on building global networks to counter authoritarianism. His work is defined by a commitment to diplomacy and political education, having trained more than 45,000 individuals. He is an alumnus of Georgetown University’s Global Competitiveness Leadership Program and was recently honored with the 2026 Impact Award for his courage. Pedro has faced political persecution for his work, including spending more than 400 days as a hostage in the Argentine Embassy in Caracas before his escape.