The Populist Paradox

I.              Introduction

In the maze-like halls of political thought, there lurks a mysterious and intriguing creature, demanding the attention of researchers from varied fields. It can be described as the peculiar cousin of traditional politics, a tight-rope performer standing on the verge of paradox. This character is populism, a perplexing riddle of the political realm that defies scholarly rules.

Populism is a diverse, complicated, and convoluted idea that is tightly correlated with several key concepts in comparative and international politics such as democracy, nationalism, and economic development.

As we see the rise of more populist leaders around the world, it becomes prudent to ask why? Why are people rallying behind a self-proclaimed messiah making big promises? And more importantly, why now? The answer lies in the uncertainties and (opportunities) of a shifting world order. Ever since the Cold War, the United States has remained the undisputed hegemon of the world such that model of development in the Global South was also premised on the ‘western ideal’. This is changing now, with China’s rise and Russia’s possible revival. The reform agendas for populist leaders like Erdoğan, at least for the sake of public appeals, appear to be directly contradicting policies like the Washington Consensus. The call for self-reliance and de-globalization has garnered support in many parts of the world and for obvious reasons. Russia’s dominance in Europe, China’s threat to US hegemony and lack of technical capabilities in US are all examples that support this. The call for self-reliance and de-globalization has garnered support in many parts of the world and for obvious reasons. Russia’s dominance in Europe, China’s threat to US hegemony and lack of technical capabilities in US are all examples that support this.

Besides de-globalization and changing world order, polarization is also a factor for increase in populism lately. Globally, people’s tolerance to racial, ethnic, linguistic, or religious diversity seems to have declined. While populist leaders can be blamed for increase to an extent, they have benefitted from the existing divisions more than creating them.

II.            A Review of Populism Definitions

 Populism has garnered more attention as a concept in recent times due to social-media and increased political interest of masses. While the origins of the term ‘populism’ can be traced to 20th century, yet political halls have been buzzing with debates and discussion on populism since much before that. William Allen White, a journalist wrote about the contemporary populist movement in the US in the late 19th century[1]. According to Aytac and Onis, populism is a mass movement led by a charismatic leader. This leader typically perceives themselves as being on the outside of the traditional political system. They deploy "anti-establishment rhetoric and plebiscitarian linkages" in their public addresses to challenge those in authority and gain popular support. These leaders rise during adversity and attempt to foster economic transformation.[2] The authors also argue that populism can be either: right-wing or left-wing. Jair Bolsonaro, the former president of Brazil can be characterized as a ring wing populist due to his authoritarianism and his admiration for the military rule in Brazil.  Bolsonaro also rose to power with the anti-establishment rhetoric, expressing his desire to disrupt the status quo of corruption in elites[3]. Alternatively, Hugo Chávez, the former Venezuela can be categorized as a Left wing populist. While Chávez also had an anti-establishment rhetoric, he became popular for being the champion of the poor. He brought a new constitution in 1999, hours after being sworn in, to strengthen government control on social welfare programs[4].

Another prominent scholar, Ernesto Laclau, known for his work on populist theory argues that populism involves the construction of a "people" by a political leader or movement. The "people" in this context are not pre-existing, permanent individuals, but rather a fluid and dynamical idea formed by the players in politics. Populism, according to Laclau, is a type of political communication and articulation, an approach of integrating and mobilizing dissimilar opinions and frustrations into a common political identity. Populist leaders create a chain of equivalency by combining different needs and grouping them together, such as "the people."[5]  Erdoğan’s Islamic-nationalist rhetoric wanting to unite conservative Muslims across class, regional, and socio-economic divides into one consolidated political identity is an example of this.

Cas Mudde would agree with these scholars. In his book, he too, emphasizes the binary division of society into these two groups as a defining feature of populism[6]. Jan-Werner Müller also reaches a similar analysis. He argues that populism’s core is the rejection of pluralism. His definition focuses on the struggle of people against the ‘elites’ and defines populism as a form of politics that pits a ‘virtuous’ and ‘homogenous’ set of people against ‘dangerous’ elites who are a threat to the people’s identity and voice. He emphasizes the exclusionary tendency of populism. He also emphasizes that once a populist leader acquires power, they will create an authoritarian state[7].

III.          Working Definition of Populism

While these scholars have analyzed populism in their own unique ways, their definitions of populism hardly depart from a set of similar central assertions. If we pick out the commonalities from the definitions above, they will all illuminate the following:

·      There is a charismatic leadership and a mass movement behind them

·      A populist leader appeals to the Masses

·      This leader positions themselves as an ‘outsider’ and promotes and anti-establishment sentiment

·      There is a mobilization of grievances

·      Such a leader rises during economic and social discontent

·      This leader exhibits authoritarian tendencies and uses Exclusion or Division Politics.

Based on the aforementioned, populism may be characterized as a political philosophy or method that capitalizes on a major section of the population's perceived grievances and frustrations, frequently presenting them as oppressed or victimized by existing elites or institutions. Populist leaders prefer to depict themselves as defenders of the "common people" against a corrupt or self-serving wealthy, arguing for the eradication of perceived injustices and the return of authority to the people. Ironically, this can result in the decline of a country's democratic health and the emergence of authoritarian governments.

Leaders like Trump, Erdoğan and Chavéz are clearly on the rise in the modern world. This may tempt one to assume that populism is a modern concept, gaining momentum. That is untrue. Adolf Hitler, one of the most famous dictators the world has seen, was a populist leader. He came to power when Germany was suffering humiliation at the end of World War I. Aytac and Onis argue that populist leaders use speeches to criticize the people in power and try to gather public support through direct voting or approval[8]. On 10th February 1933 at the Berlin Sportplast, Hitler addressed the people for the first time, as the Chancellor of Germany. Here, he promised to ‘resurrect’ a ‘Neue Deutsche Reich’ (new German Empire), undivided and rooted in ‘healthy’ soil[9]. All his speeches that followed became famous for Hitler’s characterization of himself as the savior of people, emphasizing the socio-economic challenges in Germany because of the previous establishment and dire need for reform. Ironically, Hitler was able to position himself as the ‘defender of democracy’ through speeches like this. Perhaps this makes a good example of the illusions of populism because Hitler’s rise to power and the mass support behind him was proof that the German people at the time were buying into his idealism. In modern times, Vladmir Putin makes a great example of the ironical legacy of populist leaders. Putin distinguished himself from the beginning by portraying the image of a man of the people rather than a member of the privileged few. However, now he himself is a member of the establishment elite and harsh on threats from the ‘outside’[10].

IV.          The Erdoğan Case Study

Vladimir Putin’s close ally and longtime counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has also been criticized by many for exhibiting populist tendencies in his leadership, particularly through his use of religious-nationalist rhetoric and his ‘man of the people’ appeal to the masses. However, during his early years in power, he was not brought up in discourses of authoritarian populist leaders. Things only changed after consolidation of power over time.

On July 15, 2016, a faction within the Turkish military attempted a coup against Erdoğan’s government. This was at a politically sensitive time when Erdoğan’s authority was being challenged domestically.

Following this, several commentators and critics suggested that the event was used politically to consolidate power. Erdoğan, positioning himself as the defender of democracy, launched an extensive crackdown on alleged dissidents and opposition elements in an attempt to eliminate threats to his rule. Patriotism was promoted heavily, portraying a ‘new, strong Turkey’ under Erdoğan, who went on to further strengthen his political position.

Subsequent revelations and allegations by political insiders and journalists have raised concerns among scholars and citizens alike. Critics argue that warnings about institutional vulnerabilities were ignored. After the attempted coup, Erdoğan directly appealed to the masses, framing the incident as a battle between the people and traitorous elites, promising strong retaliation against internal and external enemies. This narrative was amplified across major media outlets, often in strong support of Erdoğan.

Media’s approach under Erdoğan has been widely criticized for aligning closely with the government, often overlooking institutional lapses and amplifying state narratives. Free speech rests on the shoulders of a handful of independent journalists and smaller platforms acting as disruptors. Journalists critical of the government have faced dismissals, arrests, or legal action, while opposition figures have increasingly taken on the role of questioning authority. Anyone opposing the Erdoğan government often faces legal or institutional pressure soon after.

Clearly, Erdoğan is heading towards authoritarianism. Whether or not he will fully consolidate into an authoritarian populist leader depends on several factors:

i. Increasing Centralized power: As of now, Erdoğan’s control over institutions and the state apparatus has increased significantly. Politically motivated arrests, state-sanctioned crackdowns, and suppression of dissent have been widely reported. If centralized control continues to expand, electoral processes themselves may face credibility concerns.

ii. Institutional Checks and Balances: As power centralizes, checks and balances weaken. The judiciary and other institutions have increasingly come under executive influence.

iii. Freedom of Speech: Press freedom rankings have declined significantly. Major media outlets are controlled by pro-government entities. Journalists who question authority face legal consequences. The rise of pro-government media narratives presents a serious concern for democratic discourse.

iv. Policy Actions and Objectives: Many policies are seen as favoring loyal business elites, while others target dissenting or minority groups. Economic challenges such as unemployment persist despite nationalist mobilization. Over time, public opinion may shift if economic grievances outweigh identity politics.

Erdoğan’s early electoral success was a reaction to dissatisfaction with previous political elites and economic instability. His promises of reform and economic growth positioned him as a champion of the people. However, over time, Erdoğan himself has become central to the establishment he once opposed—closely aligned with powerful elites and presiding over a highly centralized system. People chose him, and people may ultimately challenge his authority.

V.            The Populist Paradox in Democracy, Nationalism, and Economic Prosperity: A Balancing Act

Erdoğan’s case study evidences that populism can very well be a double-edged sword. While populism may have potentially to address legitimate concerns such as distribution of wealth, creating employment opportunities and promote inclusivity, it can also veer towards authoritarianism, exclusion, and economic instability. The following sections dissects how populism interacts with democracy, nationalism, and economic development.

      i.         Democracy: Populist leaders can have both positive and negative impact on the health of a democracy. If the leader turns out to be a legitimate champion of the people, they can strengthen the institutions to enhance checks and balances one each other and ensure the elites are also treated equally. They can also bring attention to issues of marginalized communities and increase the participation of citizens in democratic processes. In this way populism can steer authoritarianism towards democracy. On the other hand, if a leader centralizes power unethically, favors the elites and limits checks and balances, it can lead to democratic backsliding and pave way for authoritarian rule. In such a situation, populism can steer democracy into authoritarianism. Erdoğan currently hangs in between both positive and negative, leaning more towards the negative.

    ii.         Nationalism: Populism often intertwines with nationalism. By deploying nationalist rhetoric that appeals to the masses, fostering a sense of national identity and unity among the common people, populist leaders often emerge as heroic defenders of the nation. This often has notes of latent polarization and intolerance which enables the leader to launch exclusionary and divisive policies under the garb of nationalism. What follows is a mass segregation of society where certain groups are labeled as ‘others.

   iii.         Economic Development: Economic reform and securing a better deal for the masses is a core characteristic of any populist leader. Similar to democracy, impact of this too, can vary in society. On the positive side, redistribution of wealth, employment opportunities. Trump’s economic protectionism is a good example of this wherein he placed tariffs on steel and aluminum, to protect domestic industries and preserve jobs. On the flipside, the short-term focus enough to garner support of the masses during elections can lead to lapse of reforms. Such scenarios also become a fertile breeding ground for corruption and deter foreign investments.

[1]William A. (1896).  Populism, Its Rise and Fall. Peter H. Argersinger, ed. Lawrence. University Press of Kansas.

[2] Aytaç, S. E., & Őniş, Z. (2014). Varieties of Populism in a Changing Global Context: The Divergent Paths of Erdoğan and Kirchnerismo. Comparative Politics, 47(1), 42–45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43664342

[3] Stewart, I. (2019, January 1). Right-Wing Populist Jair Bolsonaro Sworn In As President Of Brazil. NPR. URL: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/01/681429911/right-wing-populist-jair-bolsonaro-sworn-in-as-president-of-brazil

[4] Partlett, W. (2013, March 14). Hugo Chávez’s Constitutional Legacy. Brookings. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/hugo-chavezs-constitutional-legacy/

[5] Laclau, E. (2005). On Populist Reason. Verso

[6] Mudde, C. et al. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

[7] Müller, J.W. (2016). ‘What is populism?’ University of Pennsylvania Press

[8] Aytaç, S. E., & Őniş, Z. (2014). Varieties of Populism in a Changing Global Context: The Divergent Paths of Erdoğan and Kirchnerismo. Comparative Politics, 47(1), 42–45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43664342

[9] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (1933). ‘Hitlers Aufruf an das deutsche Volk (Hitler's call to the German People)’ (Film). Accessed at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Library of Congress. URL: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1001953

[10] Gurganus, J. (2017, November 21). Putin’s Populism Trap. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. URL: https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/11/21/putin-s-populism-trap-pub-74788