Technology
The Intersection of Populism and Constitutional Checks and Balances
Quick fact
In many populist governments, such as Hungary under Viktor Orbán, constitutional changes have reduced the independence of courts and other oversight bodies, effectively concentrating power in the executive.
Why this is interesting
Why do so many political movements today claim that 'the people' should get what they want, while critics warn that this can break the system that keeps us free?
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Intersection of Populism and Constitutional Checks and Balances
Imagine you're playing a game with a referee. The rules say the referee can stop the game if something wrong happens. Now, suppose the players decide they want to change the rules to ignore the referee's whistle. In a democracy, the people are like the players, and the constitution is the rulebook that includes a referee—the courts and other institutions—to make sure everyone follows the rules. Populism is a political outlook that says the 'will of the people' should be the ultimate authority. It often argues that any institution that blocks the majority's wishes is corrupt or anti-democratic. This puts populism in direct conflict with the idea of checks and balances, which are designed to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful. For example, a populist president might want to pass laws quickly, but the constitution requires the legislature and the president to agree, and if the law violates the constitution, courts can strike it down. Populists may see these checks as frustrating, and they may try to reduce their power by appointing friendly judges or changing the rules.
A deeper explanation
The underlying principle is the tension between majoritarian democracy and constitutionalism. Populism claims that only the people have legitimate authority, and it often defines 'the people' as a unified, homogeneous group with a single common will. This view contradicts the idea of constitutional checks and balances, which are based on the belief that power always needs to be limited because even the majority can be wrong or oppressive. Constitutions are designed to protect minority rights and maintain long-term stability, typically by requiring supermajorities for changes and establishing independent institutions like courts and electoral commissions. Populist leaders often portray these institutions as enemies of the people because they can overturn or delay popular policies. They may attempt to capture them by appointing loyalists, altering procedures, or stripping them of powers. Over time, this can shift a democracy toward 'illiberal democracy'—where elections still exist but civil liberties and institutional constraints are weakened. Understanding this conflict helps explain why populist movements often target judges, press freedom, and civil society organizations, and why defending constitutional checks and balances is a key strategy for preserving liberal democracy.