Populism has emerged as a prominent feature of liberal-democratic political landscapes across the world . These populist surges have drawn significant impact on the systems they gained traction against, and many have questioned whether populism threatens or strengthens liberal-democracy. This potentially ambiguous relationship drawn between populism and liberal-democracy has been connected to the duality within the concept of liberal-democracy itself, with its two-strand model outlining both a liberal pillar and a classically democratic pillar. Given this account, liberal-democracy can be considered a misnomer, incorporating a combination of distinct and potentially discordant values; one therefore cannot declare whether or precisely how populism proves a threat to liberal-democracy overall without unpacking and identifying which of these pillars are threatened or supported by the populist. If the associated populist impact on the strands contradict, whether populism poses a threat to the system as a whole depends on which of the two pillars are regarded as the central pillar in the concept of liberal-democracy; ultimately, we assess which impact greater influences the system overall.
This essay argues that populism demonstrates ‘illiberal democracy’ in action- supporting the democratic pillar, yet conflicting with and threatening the liberal pillar. Given this analysis, I will adjudge that populism does prove a threat to liberal-democracy overall; due to the fact that the liberal pillar and its associated values, practices and institutions can be considered more fundamental and characteristic to the recognisable functioning of the liberal-democratic system, the significant populist threat to this element outweighs the potential benefits of populism associated with the democratic strand. This analysis of precisely how populism threatens the world’s hegemonic political-economic system carries implications that may inform the potential responses to it on the international scale. In this essay, I first discuss the democratic functions of populism and how, taking the democratic pillar to be fundamental, this potentially indicates that populism strengthens liberal-democracy; following this, I will emphasise the centrality of the liberal pillar to the liberal-democratic system, and therefore, after examining how populism heavily conflicts with this element, one can conclude that populism does constitute a threat to liberal-democracy.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Considering the democratic pillar of liberal-democracy to be its central element, populism can potentially not only be seen to not threaten it, but operate as a mechanism working harmoniously alongside to strengthen its principles. This stems from the fact that populism stands continuous with this democratic pillar, through its exhibition of democratically-associated functions and shared core values in this regard. One presentation of this is populism’s capacity to generate and increase political engagement. The first condition of populism is to make a call for ‘the people;’ being intrinsically majoritarian and plebiscitary in this way allows populism to operate as an instrument of direct democracy that promotes grassroots mobilisation and civil empowerment. This creation of an unfiltered channel where the populate can air grievances relatively directly to a leader who can then authentically represent them, ultimately serves to strengthen participation . Populist movements are postulated to and have succeeded in mobilising formerly disengaged citizens to the political process, reflected in the robust empirical evidence accumulated in CentralEastern-Europe, that illustrates turnout increasing when at least one populist party is represented in parliament prior to elections. This attempt to restore the disruptive noise of the people not only supports democratic engagement and contributes to a more vibrant social culture, but also protects the longevity of the formal political system itself, slowing the potential for discontent to channel into violent revolutionary thought , as demonstrated in the Arab Spring revolts. Thus, given the observed global ‘participation crises’ of recent years that could, in the longer-term, precipitate civil-unrest and state breakdown, populism can be conceptualised as a redemptive style of politics that conserves liberal-democracy by way of its democratic pillar, precipitating mass-engagement.
This idea that populist discourse reinvigorates disengaged sects of society links to a second reason it can be seen to uphold liberal-democracy, in serving its democratic pillar. The emancipatory potential generated by its ability to represent and amplify socio-economically excluded communities grants populism the capacity to radically transform the political process into one more representative and inclusive, and thus strengthen one of the core features of democracy. Mouffe , for example, from a post-Marxist, post-structural perspective, posits that the driving force of populism on both ends of the political spectrum is speaking to the unheeded struggles of ‘left-behind’ citizens, with Kazin and Laclau deeming populism a strategy for new social groups to be incorporated and represented in the democratic process. Recent displays of populist discourse fostering greater democratic social inclusion range from Sanders in the US to Morales in Bolivia, with both operating to….
These democratically-focused functions have led scholars to conclude that populism’s beneficial nature lies in its remedial reinforcement of democratic dynamics in a context where systems are stifled by elitism, dry pragmatism and technocracy. Populism is thus framed as a redemptive force that behaves not as a threat, but a corrective to the liberal-democratic system, regarding a perceived democratic deficit within one of its pillars. This idea links to the conception that populism operates and can be defined as a mere method or strategy, capable of bearing a tonic effect in its articulation of identities and grievances delegitimised in public discourse. Taggart goes as far to argue that populism acts as a health indicator in representative political systems, drawing attention to malfunctionings so that elites become aware they must take politics back to ‘the people-’restoring faith in and thus longer-term support for, liberal-democracy. Scholars also note that populism, therefore, can be seen to counteract the increasingly inaccessible and unaccountable character of recently depoliticised systems, effectively articulating resistance against a post-democratic regression derived from the global hegemony of neo-liberalism. This may ground the belief that not only is the relationship between populism and liberal-democracy positive, through the support of its democratic pillar, but that progressive European populism provides the most effective method to recover and expand global democratic ideals.
However, these arguments illustrating how populism works to strengthen rather than threaten liberal-democracy take premise that the democratic pillar is the core, fundamental pillar of liberal-democracy, and that populism’s provision of democratic functions, impacts and ideals mean it can be broadly concluded that populism, overall, wholly serves and supports the concept of liberal democracy. This assumption can be challenged on grounds that populism inherently conflicts with and significantly threatens the other, liberally focused, pillar of the system. This liberal pillar, at odds with populist thought, arguably proves more fundamental to the recognisable functioning of liberal-democracy, since the characteristic emphasis on liberal values, practices and institutions that are attributed by this strand distinguishes the system distinctly from other forms of democracy. Therefore, although populism remains continuous with the democratic pillar, I will argue that the populist’s ingrained, ideological incompatibilities with its core liberal pillar establish it as a threat against liberal-democracy as a whole.
For example, when considering its impact on the liberal pillar, populism can be demonstrated as an opposing force to and significant threat against liberal-democracy. This stems from many forms of populism proving ‘illiberal,’ and thus discontinuous with the liberal strand, due to conflict regarding ideological assumptions and values. The core populist belief in the ‘volonte-generale,’ where society is seen to fall under one singular, yet collective will and body of the people, draws us to populism’s first inherent incompatibility with liberal-democracy. Society being characterised by a common will of single-interest conceives a conceptualisation of the demos as a ‘homogeneous unity,’ carrying a monolithic interpretation that juxtaposes ideas from liberal-democracy; to liberal-democrats, the people are understood as an irreducible plurality, of heterogeneous social groups with divergent values, interests and opinions. Contrastingly, under populist theory, the united peoples easily form a common body, figure-headed by a representative leader, due to a perceived closely shared identity- an outcome the liberal-democratic society cannot accommodate, given its diverse, integrated nature. Hence, liberal democracy and populism, in carrying differing interpretations of the people, consequently embody irreconcilable understandings of democracy, with liberals remaining anti-tribal and populists embracing homogeneity. Such a conflict in perception of society, a core concept that provides the foundations for both ideologies’ value principles, means populism elementally opposes, and thus may threaten liberal-democracy, particularly when emphasising its liberal pillar. This argument defines populism under the ideational approach, where although it may prove thin-centred and able adopt ‘host-ideologies’ spanning the political-spectrum, it is articulated more specifically than merely a method for action, conceptualised as a set of ideas with its own cosmology.
This populist belief in societal unity demonstrates further incompatibilities with liberal-democracy, through its antagonistic implications. A monolithic perception of society will ultimately become exclusive, cultivating a cultural antipathy and demarcating those who do not conform or exist within the ‘charmed circle’ as a threat to the homogeneity, rejected from recognition as ‘true’ peoples; this includes socio-economic elites or minorities, dependent upon the designated image of ‘the people.’
Stuck on your essay?
