Populism Vs. Liberal Democracy: a Delicate Balance

Liberal democracy and populism are two political ideologies that, on the surface, seem committed to the idea of popular sovereignty. Both purport to appeal to "the people" and advocate for the rights of individuals over "the elite"—those perceived as more powerful than the ordinary citizen. However, upon closer examination, these concepts rely on fundamentally incompatible interpretations of "the people," leading to antagonistic and contradictory understandings of democracy itself. This discord presents a significant challenge to the common assumption that populism might be beneficial for the demos, or the populace.

Populism: A Symptom or Threat?

While the populist movement can indeed signal an underlying malfunction or failure within our liberal democratic system, it can hardly operate as the corrective it purports to be. Instead, it should be viewed as a primary threat to the very fabric of liberal democracy. This system, in turn, must take proactive measures to address both populism as a symptom and the underlying issues fueling its rise. Until recently, liberal democracy enjoyed a period of dominance; most citizens appeared committed to this form of government, economies were expanding, and radical parties were largely absent from the political landscape.

Political analysts previously believed that democratic systems in places like France and the United States were stable and unlikely to change significantly in the foreseeable future. However, recent events have proven otherwise. Citizens have grown increasingly restless, and populist movements are on the rise globally, from America to Europe. Across both continents, long-standing political systems are undergoing significant changes. Notable developments include the Brexit vote, the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Czech Republic's 2017 electoral victory for a populist party, and, most concerningly, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's endorsement of "illiberal democracy." These changes pose potential threats to the structure and stability of liberal democracy. The election of Donald Trump to the White House serves as the most visible example of democracy's current crisis, but it is far from the only incident. In Poland and Hungary, populist leaders are using similar tactics to undermine the free media and independent institutions, as noted by Bustikova and Guasti in "The Liberal Turn or Swerve." Even in the supposedly stable democracies of Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands, extremist movements are gaining traction. There is no doubt that we are experiencing a "populist moment," but the critical question remains: will these movements ultimately pose a genuine threat to liberal democracy?

Defining the Concepts

To address the question of populism's potential threat to liberal democracy, we must first clearly define both concepts. Liberal democracy is predicated on two foundational principles: the equality of all citizens and inclusive citizenship. These principles are safeguarded by mechanisms such as majority rule, separation of powers, and checks and balances, which ensure that no single entity or group can monopolize power.

In contrast, populism is not merely an expression of dissatisfaction with economic conditions or fear of security threats. While populism claims to accept democratic principles, it often challenges constitutionalism, as evidenced by leaders like Orbán, who advocate for a form of governance they term "illiberal democracy." This system seeks to translate popular preferences into public policy without the constraints that liberal democracies face, according to Lipset. From this perspective, populism poses a threat not to democracy itself but to its liberal iteration. Populism can also be characterized as "the people" versus "the elite." In contemporary discourse, "we the people" encompasses all citizens, regardless of beliefs or length of citizenship. Populists perceive the elite as inherently corrupt and the people as fundamentally righteous, leading to the belief that the people can and should govern themselves. Populist leaders thus position themselves as the sole representatives of the people's will, the only legitimate force in society.

The Populist Paradox

Given this context, one might argue that populism is the enemy of its own existence and, by extension, a threat to liberal democracy. Should we take this threat seriously? On one hand, liberal democracy unquestionably faces significant challenges. However, we might find some solace in the results of a recent cross-national survey. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the performance of democratic institutions in Europe and North America, support for representative democracy in these regions remains high, at 80%. In contrast, only 13% support a system with a strong leader who can make decisions without judicial intervention. While people are not opposed to representative democracy, they are open to considering alternative forms of governance. Seventy percent favor referendums on major national issues, and 43% believe experts should make decisions on these matters. According to a Voter Study Group survey conducted by William Galston, 78% of respondents believe democracy is preferable to any other form of government, while 83% consider living in such a system to be very important. Nonetheless, 23% support the idea of a powerful leader who bypasses Congressional consultation and electoral concerns, and 18% would prefer military rule. Openness to non-democratic alternatives is most prevalent among voters who espouse economic liberalism and cultural conservatism, characteristics often associated with U.S. populists. Approximately 50% of those who supported Barack Obama in 2012 but voted for Donald Trump in 2016 favored a strong leader and did not view democracy as the best form of government.

Populism in Practice

In practice, not every manifestation of populism poses a threat to liberal democracy. While the Brexit referendum raised concerns about parliamentary sovereignty and policy direction, it ultimately represented a policy decision made through democratic means. In systems with robust liberal-democratic institutions, debates over issues such as immigration, trade, and national sovereignty can still occur. Galston argues that "broadly defined, populism expresses the belief that ordinary people are being exploited by elites, whether intentionally or not." It is true that populists tend to idealize "the people." Yet, in a democracy, all politicians must appeal to the electorate to secure their votes. While populism can exacerbate societal divisions, politics is inherently divisive. Nonetheless, unchecked populism can pose a direct threat to liberal democracy. Moves to weaken press freedom, undermine constitutional courts, consolidate executive power, and discriminate against minority groups based on race or ethnicity can erode liberal democracy from within. Viktor Orbán's overt hostility toward liberalism should not be ignored, as it may foreshadow more severe challenges to come.

The Path Forward

According to the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer, citizens are less committed to democracy than they once were. While more than two-thirds of older Americans believe it is essential to live in a democracy, less than half of younger Americans share this sentiment. Younger generations are more open to authoritarian alternatives; two decades ago, only 25% of British citizens favored a "strongman ruler" who bypassed parliamentary and electoral processes, but today that figure has risen to 50%. This trend is increasingly reflected in political developments from Great Britain to the United States and from Germany to Hungary, where respect for democratic norms and principles is waning. One possible explanation for younger generations' disconnection from democracy is their lack of experience with undemocratic political systems. Those born in the 1930s and 1940s, who witnessed the threats of fascism and communism as children or were raised by those who fought against them, have a better understanding of the alternatives. To address these challenges, supporters of liberal democracy must take threats to democratic institutions seriously. An independent judiciary, press freedom, and law enforcement are foundational to liberalism and must be protected. Concurrently, political reforms are necessary to restore the effective functioning of liberal-democratic institutions. Liberal democrats must also learn to balance national sovereignty with the preservation of liberal-democratic principles.

It is important to recognize that the challenges facing liberal democracy arise from within the system rather than from the system itself. In the United States, for instance, Donald Trump's promise to build a "big, beautiful wall" along the Mexican border became a potent symbol of regained sovereignty. While it is reasonable to argue that any nation has a finite capacity for immigration, labeling citizens concerned about immigration as ignorant does little to address the issue or reduce political tensions. In conclusion, the rise of the populist movement has the potential to undermine liberal democracy and should be regarded as a potential threat to this form of governance. In recent years, we have witnessed populism's triumph in countering democratic values, such as human rights conventions, and distancing itself from foundational democratic principles like the separation of powers in countries like Great Britain and Hungary. Thus, we can conclude that liberal democracy and populism are inherently incompatible, as one fundamentally threatens the existence of the other.

Did you like this example?

797

33