The Rise of Populist Leaders: A New Norm in Global Politics.

1. Motivation

The global political landscape has witnessed a significant shift in the past few decades, with populist leaders gaining traction across various regions. These leaders thrive on mass appeal, promising to address the grievances of the “common people” against an elite establishment. The motivation behind exploring this topic stems from the increasing frequency with which populist figures have emerged, reshaping democracies and challenging traditional governance structures. Understanding the mechanisms behind their rise, their governance styles, and their potential long-term impact on democracy is crucial in analyzing future political developments worldwide.

2. Introduction to Populist Leaders

Populist leaders are characterized by their anti-elite rhetoric, direct appeal to the masses, and claims of representing the “true will” of the people. They often portray themselves as outsiders who challenge corrupt institutions, promising to restore power to the people. While populism is not inherently negative, it can lead to governance that undermines checks and balances, weakens institutions, and prioritizes short-term emotional appeal over sustainable policy-making. Such leaders can emerge from both the political left and right, depending on the socio-political context of their rise.

3. Rise of Populist Leaders in the Modern World

The rise of populist leaders has been a defining feature of contemporary politics. Some key examples include:

Donald Trump (United States): With his “America First” agenda, Trump appealed to working-class voters disillusioned by globalization, promising to challenge the political establishment and the media. His rejection of the 2020 election results, culminating in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, underscored his challenge to democratic norms.
Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil): A former military officer, Bolsonaro capitalized on public frustration with corruption and crime, portraying himself as a tough, nationalist leader. Bolsonaro tapped into outrage over corruption scandals like the Petrobras affair and rising crime rates. His 2018 election promises included aggressive anti-crime measures, such as loosening gun laws.
Narendra Modi (India): Modi leveraged a mix of nationalism, religious sentiment, and economic promises to consolidate support, presenting himself as a leader who would uplift the common citizen. Modi blended Hindu nationalism with economic pledges, exemplified by the controversial 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act, which critics argue marginalized Muslims but solidified his base among Hindu majorities.
Viktor Orbán (Hungary): Orbán used nationalist rhetoric and an anti-immigration stance to position himself as the protector of Hungary’s sovereignty against globalist influences. Orbán’s anti-immigration stance—highlighted by the 2015 border fence against refugees—framed him as a defender of Hungarian sovereignty against EU “globalism.”
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey): Once a reformist leader, Erdoğan gradually embraced authoritarian tendencies, weakening democratic institutions and consolidating power under his presidency. Erdoğan shifted toward authoritarianism, notably after the 2016 coup attempt, which he used to purge dissenters and pass a 2017 referendum expanding presidential powers.

These leaders have risen due to factors such as economic inequality, cultural anxieties, dissatisfaction with traditional political parties, and the spread of social media, which amplifies direct communication with the populace.

Data supports this trend: the V-Dem Institute’s 2023 Democracy Report notes that 42% of the world’s population now lives under populist-influenced regimes, up from 20% in 2000. Factors fueling their rise include economic inequality (e.g., the global Gini coefficient rose from 65.8 in 1990 to 68.2 in 2020), cultural anxieties, distrust in traditional parties, and social media’s reach, which amplifies unfiltered messaging.

4. How Populist Leaders Will Become the New Norm in Running Governments

The trend of populism is likely to persist due to several factors:

Dissatisfaction with Traditional Politics: Established political parties have often failed to address economic disparities, fueling discontent that populists exploit. Voter turnout in established democracies has declined—e.g., U.S. presidential election participation dropped from 67% in 1960 to 62% in 2020—reflecting disillusionment that populists exploit.
Polarization and Media Fragmentation: The rise of alternative media platforms enables populist leaders to bypass traditional gatekeepers and communicate directly with their base. Platforms like X and Telegram enable leaders to bypass traditional media, with 70% of Americans now citing social media as a news source (Pew Research, 2023).
Economic and Social Uncertainty: Globalization, automation, and demographic shifts create anxiety, making populist rhetoric more appealing. Automation displaced 1.5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs from 2000-2020 (Bureau of Labor Statistics), while immigration debates intensify, making populist promises appealing.
Erosion of Institutional Trust: Corruption scandals and ineffective governance undermine faith in institutions, leading people to seek alternative leadership styles. Corruption scandals—like Brazil’s Lava Jato—have cratered trust, with only 24% of people in democratic nations confident in government (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2024).
Charismatic Leadership and Emotional Appeals: Populists effectively use rhetoric and symbolism to create a personal connection with their followers, fostering loyalty that transcends traditional party lines. Populists’ direct, emotional rhetoric fosters loyalty, as seen in Trump’s 75 million votes in 2020 despite controversies.

As these factors intensify, the emergence of populist leaders as a dominant governance style appears increasingly inevitable.

5. Transition to Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, or Totalitarianism

While not all populist leaders become dictators, their governance style often creates conditions that facilitate authoritarian rule. The following mechanisms illustrate this transition:

Undermining Institutions: Populist leaders often attack the judiciary, the press, and other democratic institutions, reducing their ability to act as checks on power. Trump’s attacks on the judiciary (e.g., calling judges “so-called”) and Orbán’s 2018 court-packing law exemplify this trend.
Eliminating Political Opposition: Through legal manipulation, intimidation, or propaganda, opposition parties and critics are marginalized. Erdoğan’s post-coup arrests of 50,000+ critics and Chávez’s disqualification of opposition leaders in Venezuela show how dissent is stifled.
Constitutional Manipulations: Leaders extend term limits, change electoral rules, or consolidate executive powers to remain in control. Putin’s 2020 constitutional reset allowed him to stay in power until 2036, while Modi’s BJP has faced accusations of electoral gerrymandering.
Control Over Media and Information: Populist governments often demonize independent media, promote state propaganda, and suppress dissenting voices. Bolsonaro’s demonization of outlets like Globo mirrors Chávez’s state media dominance.
Use of Nationalism and Fear-Mongering: External threats (real or exaggerated) and internal enemies (opposition groups, minorities) are used to justify increasing executive powers. Orbán’s “migrant invasion” narrative justifies emergency powers.

Yet, not all populists follow this path. Modi, for instance, operates within a robust multiparty system and hasn’t fully dismantled democratic checks, suggesting contextual factors—like India’s judiciary and press—can limit authoritarian drift. Venezuela’s collapse into competitive authoritarianism contrasts with Brazil’s institutional pushback under Bolsonaro, highlighting varied trajectories.

6. Effects of Populist Leaders on Democracy: Chances of Democracy Persisting or Being Replaced

The impact of populism on democracy is mixed. While populists may initially expand political participation by mobilizing disillusioned citizens, they also weaken democratic institutions over time. Possible outcomes include:

Erosion of Democratic Norms: Democratic backsliding occurs when leaders undermine judicial independence, limit free speech, and manipulate electoral processes. Freedom House’s 2024 report notes a 17-year global decline in democratic scores, with populist-led nations like Hungary dropping 10 points since 2010.
Shifting Toward Competitive Authoritarianism: Some countries retain elections but create an uneven playing field where opposition groups struggle to compete fairly. Turkey’s elections persist, but media censorship and opposition arrests tilt the field.
Complete Breakdown of Democracy: In extreme cases, democratic governance collapses, replaced by outright authoritarian or totalitarian rule. Venezuela’s democracy index fell from 5.0 in 2000 to 2.8 in 2023 (Economist Intelligence Unit), signaling near-total collapse.

Counterarguments suggest populism addresses real failures: elites often ignore rural or working-class woes, as seen in Brexit’s 52% “Leave” vote. Democracy can endure if civil society, courts, and global pressure resist—e.g., U.S. courts blocked Trump’s 2020 election challenges. The outcome hinges on institutional resilience and public response.

Despite these challenges, democracy can persist if civil society remains strong, institutions resist political capture, and international pressure is applied to curb authoritarian tendencies. Countries like the United States and Brazil have seen democratic institutions push back against populist overreach, suggesting that resilience is possible.

7. Implications for World Politics

The rise of populist leaders has profound consequences for global affairs:

Geopolitical Instability: Populist leaders often adopt unpredictable foreign policies, disrupting global alliances and trade agreements. Trump’s NATO skepticism and Bolsonaro’s Amazon policy shifts rattled alliances.
Weakening of Multilateral Institutions: Organizations like the UN, NATO, and the EU face challenges as populist governments prioritize nationalism over international cooperation. Orbán’s EU defiance and Modi’s selective UN engagement strain cooperation.
Rise of Protectionism: Economic nationalism can lead to trade wars, supply chain disruptions, and decreased global economic cooperation. Trade wars, like Trump’s China tariffs, cut global trade growth from 5% (2017) to 2% (2020) (WTO data).
Democratic vs. Authoritarian Divide: A global struggle emerges between democratic states and rising authoritarian regimes, influencing global power dynamics. Russia and China gain influence as Western cohesion falters.
Impact on Global Conflict and Diplomacy: Populist leaders often use aggressive rhetoric, escalating tensions in regional disputes and international conflicts. Erdoğan’s Syria incursions and Modi’s Pakistan rhetoric heighten tensions.

Conclusion

The populist wave reshaping global politics is unlikely to subside soon. While these leaders claim to restore power to the people, they often weaken democratic institutions and consolidate personal authority. The long-term consequences depend on the resilience of democratic systems and public awareness of the dangers of unchecked populism. As the world navigates this political transformation, vigilance and commitment to democratic values remain crucial to ensuring stable governance and international cooperation.