Wajeeha Najam
In recent years, many democracies have experienced what is termed a “populist wave,” credited with disrupting traditional party systems and posing perceived threats to the foundations of democratic governance. The Brexit vote in the United Kingdom and Donald Trump’s 2016 election in the United States are often viewed as pivotal moments in this global populist movement, reflecting discontent among citizens feeling alienated by globalization and technological advancements.
However, while populism has undoubtedly made inroads in various countries, its nature, coherence, and influence are frequently exaggerated by media portrayals and political elites. This misrepresentation fosters misunderstandings regarding populism’s true implications for democracy.
The metaphor of a “populist wave” suggests a homogenous, unstoppable force reshaping global politics. However, this portrayal fails to capture the nuanced reality of populism as a varied phenomenon. Populist leaders often appeal to distinct, context-specific grievances, resulting in differing electoral outcomes across regions.
Media coverage amplifies the perception of a “wave” by focusing on populism’s successes and ignoring its failures, which can artificially bolster populist parties by portraying them as viable alternatives to the status quo. For instance, media coverage of Spain’s far-right party Vox in 2023 emphasized its rise but scarcely acknowledged its electoral setbacks, reinforcing an inflated image of populism’s momentum.
This media bias not only influences public opinion but also impacts electoral dynamics by creating the perception that populist parties represent significant shifts in public ideology. In reality, populist success often hinges on factors such as leadership quality and strategic positioning rather than a broad transformation in voters’ ideologies.
Populism’s appeal does not derive solely from shifts in public opinion but is frequently a top-down development influenced by elite-driven choices. In the United States and parts of Europe, populism has gained traction due to concessions made by mainstream politicians who adopt populist rhetoric in response to perceived public dissatisfaction. This indicates that populism’s influence on democratic systems may be overstated; it is often a reactionary response to grievances and elite maneuvering rather than a transformative grassroots movement.
In Pakistan, for example, populist rhetoric historically thrived in political campaigns through leaders like Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Imran Khan, who mobilized support by addressing frustrations around economic inequity and elite corruption. However, once in power, these leaders often faced institutional constraints that moderated their populist agendas.
Globally, populist movements frequently leverage issues like immigration, framing it as a threat to national identity. Yet, evidence suggests a weak correlation between immigration levels and anti-immigrant sentiment. For example, Germany and Sweden, with high immigration rates, remain largely welcoming, while Hungary and Poland, with lower immigration rates, exhibit stronger anti-immigrant views.
In Pakistan, populist rhetoric centers less on immigration and more on foreign interventions and cultural dilution, with political actors using topics such as Afghan refugees or Western influences to evoke fears of identity erosion.
In the United States, generational divides on immigration show younger Americans generally favor more inclusive policies, indicating that anti-immigrant sentiment may be less widespread and enduring than populists claim. These issues often serve as symbols for broader societal anxieties rather than specific policy concerns, highlighting that the so-called populist wave may better reflect ideological and generational struggles than a unified backlash against immigration or multiculturalism.
The portrayal of populism as a response to economic grievances is pervasive yet often misleading. The 2008 financial crisis is commonly cited as a catalyst for populist movements, but data suggests that populism is not driven solely by economic distress. In Spain, while the economic crisis led to high unemployment, the right-wing populist Vox only gained significant traction later, after economic concerns had waned. Similarly, analyses of Trump’s 2016 election reveal that his support correlated more closely with cultural and racial anxieties than with economic hardship.
In Pakistan, economic discontent indeed fuels populist rhetoric, yet such movements often resonate more with frustrations surrounding social inequities and elite dominance. For instance, Imran Khan’s 2018 campaign’s anti-corruption rhetoric and promises of a welfare state struck a chord with a populace weary of elite privileges and inequality, even though economic distress alone was not the primary driver.
Populist parties may attract significant public attention but frequently face challenges in implementing their agendas. In coalition-based systems, populist parties often need alliances with mainstream parties, which usually require policy compromises. Cas Mudde, a political scientist, aptly noted that many populist parties are “dogs that bark loud, but hardly ever bite,” emphasizing their limited impact on policymaking.
In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, regarded as a populist figure, has tempered her policies to align with coalition partners and contends with the constraints imposed by the European Union. Likewise, in Pakistan, populist leaders face limitations from the military establishment and entrenched bureaucracy, constraining their ability to execute reforms. Imran Khan’s tenure exemplified these limitations as he struggled with institutional and economic constraints, tempering his initial populist agenda.
The narrative surrounding populism often equates it with democratic erosion, yet the true threat may lie in elite polarization and autocratic practices. In countries like Hungary and Poland, democratic erosion is attributed more to autocratic leaders like Viktor Orban and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who consolidate power by weakening democratic institutions. Their rise is not solely a result of populist sentiment; rather, they exploit structural opportunities to entrench their parties in power.
In the United States, elite polarization within the Republican Party has intensified over cultural issues, such as civil rights and national identity, with some elites undermining democratic norms to maintain power. Similarly, in Pakistan, elite conflicts contribute to political instability, where power struggles among elites often overshadow populist rhetoric as a threat to democratic stability. Such dynamics suggest that the true risks to democracy may stem from concentrated power among polarized elites rather than populist movements, which, while influential, do not typically dismantle institutional frameworks on their own.
In conclusion, the discourse surrounding populism and its impact on democracy often oversimplifies a multifaceted reality. While populism may appear as a formidable force reshaping political landscapes, its influence is contingent upon specific socio-political contexts, elite maneuvering, and institutional constraints. Rather than viewing populism solely as a threat to democratic norms, it is essential to recognize it as a symptom of deeper structural issues, including elite polarization and the erosion of democratic institutions.
The challenges posed by populism should thus be understood within a broader theoretical framework that considers the interplay between grassroots movements, elite actions, and the resilience of democratic systems. This perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of populism’s role in contemporary politics and its potential to both challenge and coexist with democratic governance.
The author is a Research Officer at Rabita Forum International (RFI).
