Advertisement Continue reading the main story

‘Populism Will Always Stand

In Tension With Democracy’

Cas Mudde, a Dutch political scientist, wrote in a 2015 column for The Guardian that “populism is an illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism.”

In other words, Mr. Chávez, like other populist leaders, told his supporters that their problems were caused by unresponsive, undemocratic elites and institutions. A strong leader, he argued, was necessary to break through those shadowy forces and impose the will of the people. That message was popular, as were initial steps.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

“However, this comes at a price,” Mr. Mudde wrote. This “majoritarian extremism” reframes democracy not as a negotiated process meant to include and serve everyone, but rather as a zero-sum battle between popular will and whoever dares to oppose it — including judges, journalists, opposition leaders or even government technocrats labeled, in some countries, as a “deep state.”

This is why Kurt Weyland, a University of Texas political scientist, wrote, in a 2013 academic article , “Populism will always stand in tension with democracy.”

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Populist leaders like Mr. Chávez, by deriving their authority from a promise to champion popular will, “see any institutions outside their control as obstacles to be bypassed or overcome,” Professor Weyland wrote.

This reveals a contradiction between how democracy is perceived and how it actually works.

“Despite all democratic rhetoric, liberal democracy is a complex compromise of popular democracy and liberal elitism, which is therefore only partly democratic,” Mr. Mudde wrote in an academic journal in 2004.

Subscribe to the Interpreter Newsletter Understand the world with sharp insight and commentary on the major news stories of the week. Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Recaptcha requires verification I'm not a robot reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are already subscribed to this email. View all New York Times newsletters. Manage Email Preferences

Not you?

Privacy Policy

That requires handing power to unelected institutions, which are necessary to preserve democracy but at odds with the image of pure popular will. This contradiction leaves an opening for populists to challenge those institutions.

But when populist leaders take authority away from institutions to “return power to the people,” as such leaders often say, in practice they are consolidating this power for themselves.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

“The logic of personalism drives populist politicians to widen their powers and discretion,” Professor Weyland wrote.

This is why populists often cultivate cults of personality. Mr. Chávez, in addition to hosting a Sunday talk show, held rallies and appeared almost constantly on television. This practice is typically driven by more than ego; such leaders derive their authority not from the rules-based system that governs consolidated democracies, but from raw popular support.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

This works only as long as those leaders can claim to have a unique relationship with the public that enables them to attack internal enemies — say, the judiciary or the free press — on their behalf.