Until the first decade of the 21th century, scholars and reporters have identified contemporary populism as an element of anti-systemic revolt; furthermore, they have also recognized an incompatibility between populist phenomenon and government function. However, some recent cases of populist parties in power seem to be able to put into crisis more than one certainty regarding the nature and scope of the populist phenomenon. This observation raises the questions of this work: what harmful effects does populism in government produce on liberal institutions, pluralism, and representation in constitutional democracies? Do these effects merely erode the liberal component, or do they extend to produce a degeneration of democracy as a whole? And finally: what are the risks for democracy? The article corroborates the diarchic theories of democracy and aims to demonstrate the lack of compatibility between the principles of liberal democracy and populist principles, which have a negative impact not only on the liberal component, but also on the quality of democracy in its entirety.
The growing success of populist parties in western democracies has generated lively academic debate surrounding the changes this populist wave has created in various political systems. These parties have demonstrated their ability to shift from protest to governing parties, consequently shifting experts’ attention toward the effects of populism in power on democratic institutions. In light of examples in South America and Easter Europe, scholarly debate has centered on concerns that populist governments will deform democracy and democratic institutions, limit institutions and reduce both checks and balances and pluralism. Here we argue that in the context of a consolidated western democracy, populist governments identify themselves with government ‘as usual’, and that the populist ascent produces a greater impact on the political system as a vehicle for protest than it does on institutions once in power. We analyze the three examples of populism represented by the 5 Star Movement, Podemos and La République En March in order to examine the transformations produced by their successes in their relative political systems and their various effects on institutions once in government.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the characteristics of two political phenomena: populism and technocracy. Often seen as opposites, the two factors are linked by some elements: both are described by their proponents as remedies to the legitimacy crisis that modern representative democracies are going through; both tend to define certain practices and principles of constitutional democracy that are insufficient to ensure effective governance of society; both see as their main remedy a restriction of the classical functions of representation and of the institutions of mediation (parties and parliament among all). Nevertheless, the two phenomena seem to follow the dynamics of opposite extremes: in the phases when the democratic order is increasingly identified with technocracy, the populist democratic eschatology gains confidence on the basis of the promise to return to citizens the power stolen from them by non-elective institutions. We will attempt to identify some key features that unite the two phenomena and we will highlight the differences in principle, the possible relationships as part of a more general democratic vulnus and the different types of impact they have on democracy and its principles.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.