Psychology
The Rise of Populism and Its Effects on Establishing Institutions
Quick fact
Since 2010, nearly 30% of the world's countries have experienced democratic decline, and many of these declines have been associated with populist leaders who, once in office, systematically weakened judicial independence and restricted press freedom.
Why this is interesting
We often assume that democratic institutions are stable, but around the world, popular leaders are being elected by appealing to 'the people' against 'the establishment.' What happens to courts, the press, and the rule of law when those leaders are in power?
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Rise of Populism and Its Effects on Establishing Institutions
Populism is more of a political style than a fixed ideology. It claims that a pure, homogeneous 'people' are being betrayed by a corrupt or self-serving elite. This narrative is simple and emotionally powerful. Populist leaders often emerge in times of economic anxiety, cultural change, or perceived corruption. They speak plainly, promise to 'drain the swamp' or 'return power to the people,' and they often come to power through elections. Once in office, they may start to change the rules of the game. They might appoint loyalists to the courts or the central bank, undermine the tax authority, or pressure the press. Their goal is to concentrate power in their own hands, often out of a genuine belief that they alone embody the will of the people. Because they see themselves as the voice of the people, they view any obstacle—such as a court ruling or critical journalism—as an illegitimate attempt by the elite to block the people's will. This fundamentally changes how institutions function. Institutions that used to be neutral referees become tools of the government, or they are so weakened that they can no longer hold the leader accountable.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism behind populist institutional erosion is often gradual and legal on the surface. Populist governments may pass laws that reduce the retirement age for judges (expelling old ones and appointing new loyalists), change electoral boundaries to favor themselves, or pass 'national security' laws that restrict civil society. They also use rhetoric to delegitimize institutions: calling free press 'fake news' and judges 'enemies of the people.' This serves a dual purpose: it mobilizes their base, and it demoralizes the opposition. Crucially, voters often support such measures because they see institutions as part of the elite that has failed them. So, the very democratic machinery that made the populist's election possible is dismantled from within. The long-term effect is not necessarily immediate dictatorship—it is more often 'democratic backsliding,' where institutions become weaker, less independent, and less capable of constraining executive power. This can lead to authoritarianism if the leader continues to consolidate power and opposition is effectively silenced. The key lesson is that institutions—like courts and the media—are not self-sustaining; they depend on public trust and a culture that respects their role. Populism that exploits and deepens distrust can hollow them out, compromising the democratic system.