Populism and Authoritarianism

Abstract

Over the last few years, authoritarian populist parties and politicians have emerged in many different and varying parts of the world. Trump in the United States. Orbán in Hungary. Duterte in the Philippines. Most if not all of these leaders have come to power by utilizing a form of populism, namely, by claiming to represent the will of the people and dividing the general populace into antagonistic and sympathetic camps. This trend in authoritarian populism is notable in two respects. First, it encompasses a wide swath of the world’s large and powerful countries, many of which are democracies. Second, the trend has broad support in each country’s respective populace. For example, in the United States, Trump was chosen by large portions of the American electorate. Many scholars agree that this global turn to authoritarian populism is a result of the failures of globalization. When promises of increased economic growth failed to materialize, globalization has instead resulted in deindustrialization, accelerating inequality and dramatic economic restructuring, political unrest, and a rise in nationalism. These trends were intensified during and after the 2008 financial crisis, making many populations worldwide dissatisfied with the world order. The electoral successes of authoritarian populist parties beg the question if authoritarian populism and its leaders can ever result in truly progressive policies and if populism can be democratic at its core? This chapter will analyze three case studies of the authoritarian populist parties’ successes and investigate the extent to which progressive policies have emerged from these party’s leadership and whether populism fits within a democratic model of governance.