Populist Politics: A Threat to Democracy?

Populist Politics: A Threat to Democracy?

by Miguel Teles

Populism has a long history in the democratic arena. Nevertheless, new populist movements are currently on the rise across the free world at an unprecedented rate. the UK, particularly with Brexit, and other movements such as Viktor Orban in Hungary or Mateusz Morawiecki in Poland. These movements have all been classified as Populist, they all have been accused of using “cheap” and rhetorical political speech to mobilize the electorate, and of being a threat to democracy. The question “Are populist politics democratic politics?” is what this article attempts to address. In exploring populism’s relationship with democracy is fundamental to understand what populism is, and what these movements have in common. Understanding populism will enable us to assess why populist politics are incompatible with modern liberal democracies and pose a threat to the regular functioning of democratic institutions. This assignment focuses on the recent populist movements in Europe, and although does not classify them as undemocratic, they can pose a threat to democracy.

Populism is often regarded simply as a political style, a way of communicating. The idea that populism can be defined as the use of non-factual arguments and the presentation of “to good to be true” solutions to complex problems, may not be inaccurate, but it is a simplification. Muller (2016) argues that the use of irresponsible political measures is poor criteria to define populism, because simply there is no absolute clear line between responsible and irresponsible measures, charges of irresponsibility tend to be bias and subjective, for instance, while free trade agreements may boost GDP growth, their distributional consequences can clash with certain values. Populist parties cannot also be defined by their type of electorate, usually described as mostly men with low wages and low education levels. In some countries, like France and Austria, they have achieved a size which resembles “catch all parties” (Muller 2016).

Populism can be defined by their claim to represent “the people” against a morally corrupt elite (Thompson 2017; Mavrozacharakis 2018; ECPS website, Abts and Rummens 2007; Akkerman 2003). Nevertheless, the anti-elite stance is not enough to call a party populist, as said by Muller (2017) is not uncommon for parties to run against elites, what differentiates populists are their anti-pluralism, their claim that they and they alone represent the people. Populist party measures are characterized by anti-globalization, anti-immigration and against supra-national institutions. Domestically they oppose high taxes, central banks interdependence and too much state involved in the economy (Thompson 2017). Populism can manifest on both the right and left wings of the political spectrum (Muller 2016; Akkerman 2003), nevertheless its key claims remain consistent across ideological divides.

The antagonist relation between “the people” and the “Elites” is central to Populist thinking. Consequently, to understand populism, we need to understand these two concepts. Populism defines “the people” as a homogenous group which can be defined along class, ethnic or national lines (Sousa 2021; Abts and Rummens 2007). This notion is a problematic concept since its homogeneity is imagined to fit in the populist idea (Thompson 2017). In consequence, what is “the people” tend not to be always clear since it would pose a threat to its homogeneity. Populist politicians perceive “the people” as a silent majority that was forgotten by the ruling elite, which they claim to be the true representatives. Populists tend to disregard the faction of the population who do not fit in their concept of “the people”, usually using terms as “the good people” or the “true people”. For example, British politician Nigel Farage giving a speech after the Brexit referendum saying “it was a victory of the real people” disregarding the 48% who vote against (Muller 2016), emphasizing Canovan (1999) argument that what divides “the good people from the rest is if they agree with the leader”. Besides, in order to mobilize its electorate populist parties give privilege to strong leadership. The personification of a single strong leader which fights for “the people” against the corrupt elites is a common feature (Thompson 2017). In contrast, the concept of Elite is simple to understand, as Thompson (2017) explained, it’s a post 2008 crisis, financial elite. They are the mainstream politicians, the big funds and commercial banks, influent consulting firms supported by intellectualized experts, central bankers and traditional liberal media. Populist argues that this elite is working against the people for their own interest and agendas, even representing foreigner interests.

The relationship between populism and democracy is inherently close, as populist phenomena are exclusively found within democratic framework. Nevertheless, there is a debate between scholars if populism is a democratic impulse or if it constitutes a threat to democracy (Bryder 2009). To comprehend the relationship between populism and democracy, it is crucial to define both concepts. While the first paragraph focused on defining populism, our attention now turns to democracy. However, as said by Ralf Dahrendorf “populism is simple, democracy is complex”. Samuel Huntington in his book “The third wave” (1991) defines democracy as the selection of leaders through competitive elections by the people they govern. American president Abram Lincoln eloquently referred to democracy “as the power of the people by the people for the people” (Sousa 2021). Although these simple definitions may suggest that populist politics align with democratic principles, it is erroneous to rely solely on them. Western modern constitutional democracies are underpinned by far more complex notions of democracy. These liberal democracies, combining parliamentarism with free-market systems and fostering a pluralistic society, aim to balance governmental power through political consent. This liberal characteristic is reflected in a checks and balances system which aims to assure freedom and protection to the citizens (Sousa 2021). The conflict between liberal these checks and balances and populism becomes evident when considering the latter’s preference for direct forms of democracy, where all power belongs to the people. For instance, the utilization of non-elected judges in superior courts contradicts populist principles (Akkerman 2003). Furthermore, Abts and Rummens (2007: 415) argue that while democracy thrives on an open and diverse society integrated onto a political stage, populism is rooted in a closed collective identity that suppresses individuality.
Muller (2016) suggests that “populism is the shadow of representative democracy” highlighting that while a democratic regime is a prerequisite for populism to flourish, this doesn’t inherently make populism democratic; rather, the two coexist. Cas Muddle characterizes populism as an “illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism”. This aligns with Muller´s argument, emphasizing that populism arises not from irrational citizens with undemocratic ideologies but as a mass movement in response to the failure of representative democracy and a loss of faith in the social contract between the people and the ruling class.

Nevertheless, there is an argument suggesting that populism can be perceived as a corrective element, even a means of promoting democracy. Populism has the potential to compel ruling elites to broaden their political agenda, providing a voice to groups that do not feel properly represented and bring attention to issues which affect the majority, such as the refugee and migration crisis. By redirecting citizens’ attention to politics, populism can motivate action and encourage democratic participation (Akkerman 2003: 154; Mudde and Kaltwaaser 2012: 21). However, as Mavrozacharakis (2018) concludes there is no empirical research to support the idea that populism can act as a corrective element for democracy. Furthermore, this argument overlooks populist aggressiveness towards democratic institutions. A notable example would be populist´s relation with the rule of law, a fundamental component of liberal democracy. Populist preference for direct democracy conflicts with constitutional courts, which possess the authority to scrutinize populist political initiatives. Since these judges are appointed rather than directly chosen by “the people”, their legitimacy is questioned. Equally significant is Populist view of higher courts or supra-national courts that adjudicate on human rights. Populists perceive these institutions as part of the liberal elite, working against the interests of “the real people” (Thompson 2017). Additional evidence of populists’ aggressive stance toward democratic institutions is their inclination for a strong executive. Populists often disregard parliamentary procedures, favoring executive orders and decrees, posing a threat to the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches (Thompson 2017).

In conclusion, populism often simplistically perceived as a political style, extends beyond communication strategies. Defined by its anti-elite stance and claims to exclusively represent “the people,” populist movements exhibit consistent features such as anti-globalization, anti-immigration, and opposition to supra-national institutions. The antagonistic relationship between the populist-defined “people” and the perceived corrupt elite is central to populist thinking, shaping their political discourse and mobilization strategies. This article has addressed the complexity of defining populism, challenging notions that focus solely on irresponsible political measures or the demographics of populist electorates. Instead, it has emphasized the importance of understanding the anti-pluralism inherent in populism, where populist parties claim to be the sole representatives of “the people.”