THE IMPLICATIONS OF POPULISM ON THE STABILITY AND LEGITIMACY OF DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the impact of populism on democratic legitimacy and stability, resolving main questions regarding the nature, characteristics, and impact of populist movements in contemporary democratic contexts. The study systematically addresses theoretical traditions and empirical case studies, explaining the main features and discursive practices of populist movements, including their binary construction of society, emotive rhetoric, and utilization of digital media technologies. Case studies of the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States illustrate how populist politics enhance social cleavages, foster instability, and delegitimize democratic institutions through economic protectionism, nationalism, and anti-elitism. The study concludes that while populism surfaces initially as a response to legitimate democratic shortcomings, its long-term impact tends to result in further erosion of democratic legitimacy and institutional capacity. Addressing the threat posed by populism involves consolidating democratic processes, reclaiming public trust, and promoting inclusive and transparent political participation.

Keywords: populism, democratic legitimacy, democratic stability, political discourse, anti-elitism, nationalism, protectionism, social media, mobilization, polarization, institutional erosion, case study, United Kingdom, Germany, United States.

Introduction

Populism is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon requiring thorough analysis and clear definition in the context of democratic regimes. The aim of this paper is to establish clear theoretical and methodological grounds by defining terms, approaches, and concepts prevalent in contemporary literature. Specifically, the study addresses the questions of clarifying the nature of populist discourse, identifying common characteristics of populist movements, and assessing their impact on democratic stability and legitimacy. Structurally, the paper consists of three main chapters: first, 'Introduction to Populism Studies,' which gives a review of theoretical and methodological problems; second, 'Impact of Populism on Democratic Legitimacy and Stability,' which addresses theoretical debates and practical implications; and third, 'Case Studies of Populist Impact on Democratic Legitimacy and Stability,' which presents real examples from different countries. Renowned scholars such as Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser have played a key role in shaping our understanding of populism. They define it as an ideology that divides society into two opposing camps: "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite" [19, p. 6]. Building on this, Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart view populism as a response to progressive social changes, rooted in cultural unease and economic uncertainty [21, p. 35]. Meanwhile, Engesser and colleagues emphasize the significant role of digital media in boosting the visibility and spread of populist messages, which has fundamentally transformed how political messages are communicated [6, p. 1110].

This research is becoming more important because of the growing global success of populist parties and leaders, especially in Europe and North America. Understanding how populism works and influences democratic systems is crucial—not just for scholars, but also for policymakers and common people—because it directly affects the strength and future of democratic institutions.

The research question of this paper: “Do the implications of populism affect the stability and legitimacy of democratic systems?”.

1. Populism Studies

1.1. Populism as a political discourse

Populism, as a discursive construction, is fundamentally structured around the definition and redefinition of radical opposing boundaries between a positively constructed "ingroup" and a negatively defined, antagonistic "other." In her classic monograph «The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean» (2015), Ruth Wodak argue that populist discourse systematically constructs a social "enemy," marking radical moral and existential differences between "the people"—depicted as moral, pure, and threatened—and "the other," depicted as morally corrupt, threatening, and coercively dominant. Wodak refers to the manner in which populist leaders are inclined to appeal to and enhance prevailing social anxieties and fears, channeling these against minorities, migrants, or so-called elites, to establish support on the basis of fear-mongering. They are inclined to incorporate dehumanizing mechanisms in such a discourse that strip the "other" of humanity and individuality, which is rather presented as homogeneous, threatening, and culturally foreign. By using such rhetorical tools, populist leaders position themselves as guardians or saviors of the endangered "people," justifying their agendas and policy narratives by appealing to a sense of crisis and urgency. The theoretical underpinnings of accounting for such processes were laid out by Ernesto Laclau in «On Populist Reason» (2005), where he describes the structural logic of populist discourse. Laclau argues that populism arises in a chain of equivalence which unifies heterogeneous grievances of society, which—through rhetorical articulation—are united against one common enemy. Thus, through this process, the notion of "the people" is also formed as an organic political subject, one being relational and identified negatively against some outside, exterior force. This binary logic serves to reduce complex political and social dynamics into simplified oppositions, thereby enhancing the accessibility and emotional resonance of populist messaging. Wodak further emphasizes the role of linguistic and rhetorical strategies in reinforcing this dichotomy. Populist discourse frequently employs metaphors of war, contagion, invasion, and natural catastrophe to heighten perceptions of threat. The "other" is regularly described using language that connotes impurity or endangerment to national integrity, thereby intensifying social divisions. These rhetorical choices provoke emotional responses, fostering collective identification with the populist cause. Moreover, populist communication often draws on national myths and selectively interpreted historical narratives, invoking notions of cultural purity and past greatness to frame present-day political challenges. These appeals serve not only to reinforce populist legitimacy but also to justify exclusionary and restrictive policy agendas. Nostalgic references function to strengthen internal group cohesion while simultaneously undermining the legitimacy of those cast as outsiders. In conclusion, populist discourse—as theorized by Laclau (2005) and further exemplified in the analysis of Wodak (2015)—operates through a deliberate pattern of polarization, dehumanization, and emotionally charged rhetoric aimed at mobilizing support and consolidating power. The strategic portrayal of a menacing "other" lies at the heart of populist communication, allowing complex societal problems to be framed in stark and persuasive terms. This mode of discourse not only reshapes political identities but also exerts a polarizing influence on democratic societies, hindering nuanced debate and fostering ideological division.

Over the past two decades, populist discourse has markedly intensified, a development largely attributable to the proliferation of new media technologies. As noted in Marcia Macaulay’s edited volume «Populist Discourse: International Perspectives» (2019), contemporary communication platforms—particularly social media—have transformed political engagement by enabling populist actors to communicate directly with broad audiences, thereby bypassing traditional media gatekeepers. These technologies facilitate the speed dispersal of populist messages, intensify polarizing narratives, and foster emotive engagement through interactive, unmediated channels. Social media also facilitate message customization, allowing populist leaders to ready appeals targeted to specific demographic groups, enhancing reach and rhetorical impact. In a parallel analysis, Zizi Papacharissi (2015) examines the role of affect in digital political communication and contends that new digital media technologies produce "affective publics"—groups of individuals who become tied together by shared affective states and identification about political goals, e.g., populist movements. Such affectively charged digital public spheres offer rich soil for populist dissemination of discourse because they offer avenues for swift mobilization on the basis of diminished, dichotomized issues and increasing ideological divisions. Macaulay further contends that social media's inherent traits of concision, instantaneity, and emotional emphasis are complemented by populist rhetoric's stylistic proclivities to be blunt, emotive, and anti-elite. Online media do not only amplify but also iterate such messages through algorithmic feedback, and the echo chambers thus reinforce dominant thinking and limit exposure to counterarguments. Therefore, populist accounts gain a self-reinforcing momentum, verified time and time again in ideologically integrated areas of audiences. The reordering of political speeches in terms of the strength of these changes in technology has deep impacts on democratic institutions. Pervasive spread and normalization of populist rhetoric through electronic media feed fuel to sharpening societal polarizations, challenge the legitimacy of consolidated democratic standards, and unravel the fabric of well-informed deliberation of the public. It is thus critical to examine the confluence of populism and new communication technologies with a view to addressing current democratic vulnerabilities as well as devise viable counter-moves to populist political strategies.

The discourse of contemporary populist movements in Europe and the United States departs markedly from the communicative patterns traditionally employed by classical political parties, signaling a profound shift in the landscape of political communication. As observed by Hidalgo-Tenorio, Benítez-Castro, and De Cesare in «Populist Discourse: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Politics» (2019), modern populist actors deliberately adopt simplified, emotionally charged language intended to resonate with broad societal audiences. This approach contrasts sharply with the more complex, policy-driven, and institutionally formal rhetoric characteristic of established political parties. Contemporary populist leaders emphasize authenticity, direct expression, and anti-elite narratives, framing themselves as outsiders who embody the "true voice" of the people in opposition to entrenched political elites. This departure is further elucidated by Benjamin Moffitt in «The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation» (2016), where he argues that modern populism is inherently performative. It relies heavily on spectacle, personalization, and confrontation as integral components of political engagement. This performative style diverges significantly from the restrained, policy-oriented communication traditionally favored by classical parties, which have historically prioritized institutional authority, detailed policy articulation, and moderated public engagement. Populist leaders exploit visual media to stage emotionally charged events, crafting narratives of crisis and urgency that captivate public attention and reinforce populist claims. Through such dramatization, populist figures often bypass rational-critical discourse, instead appealing directly to voters' emotions and intuitive responses. In addition, the widespread use of digital platforms has enabled populist actors to circumvent traditional media filters, deepening the communicative divide between populist and classical political forces. The immediacy and accessibility of social media allow populists to communicate directly with their constituencies, employing informal, provocative, and often combative language styles that are less feasible within conventional media formats. Through platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, they disseminate concise yet impactful messages that rapidly circulate among emotionally and ideologically aligned users. These platforms also foster interactive communities in which populist narratives are continuously reinforced through engagement mechanisms like shares, comments, and likes, contributing to the formation of insular echo chambers. Moreover, contemporary populist discourse capitalizes on widespread public dissatisfaction with traditional politics, tapping into grievances related to perceived governmental inefficiency, corruption, and disconnection from citizens’ concerns. While classical parties are often encumbered by institutional bureaucracy and procedural constraints that hinder swift action, populist movements present themselves as agile, responsive, and capable of delivering straightforward solutions to complex challenges. This perceived contrast in responsiveness and efficacy significantly enhances the appeal of populist messaging, particularly among socio-economically vulnerable or politically disillusioned populations. The divergence between populist and traditional discursive practices is also evident in rhetorical strategies such as scapegoating, identity-based appeals, and the delineation of a threatening "other." Populist rhetoric frequently targets specific groups—such as immigrants, ethnic minorities, or supranational institutions—as sources of national decline or insecurity, fostering social division. These strategies serve to strengthen in-group cohesion through a shared sense of threat and grievance, while simultaneously marginalizing and stigmatizing those portrayed as outsiders. In contrast, traditional political parties tend to pursue broader appeal through inclusive, moderate language aimed at minimizing polarization and maintaining electoral viability. In sum, the integration of performative communication, emotionally resonant language, digital media engagement, and polarizing rhetoric distinctly differentiates the discursive strategies of contemporary populist movements from those of classical political actors. This transformation not only reshapes the nature of political messaging but also influences voter perceptions, democratic participation, and the broader dynamics of political discourse. Populist communication thus represents more than a stylistic innovation; it constitutes a substantive reconfiguration of how political meaning and legitimacy are constructed in the digital age.

1.2. Populist movements and their common hallmarks

A defining non-ideological feature of contemporary populist movements is their strong emphasis on mass political mobilization among economically and socially marginalized groups, who often attribute their disadvantaged status to perceived threats posed by global elites and migrants. In his influential article «Populist Mobilization: A New Theoretical Approach to Populism» (2011), Robert S. Jansen argues that such mobilization typically transcends fixed ideological positions, focusing instead on broad, resonant appeals aimed at those who feel excluded from established economic and political structures. Jansen observes that populist leaders strategically harness collective grievances, converting diffuse discontent into organized political action by constructing unifying narratives of struggle against elites and external forces—such as migrants—portrayed as undermining national economic security and cultural identity. Building on this analysis, Jan-Werner Müller, in «What is Populism? » (2016), contends that populist mobilization commonly involves reducing complex socio-economic realities to a moral binary between the 'pure people' and the 'corrupt elites,' with migrants often represented as tools or byproducts of elite-driven globalization. Müller emphasizes that populist actors deploy a variety of mass mobilization techniques—including public rallies, demonstrations, and targeted social media campaigns—to engage disenfranchised social groups, speaking directly to their fears and insecurities while circumventing the more nuanced policy discourse typical of mainstream political parties. Contemporary populist rhetoric persistently casts global elites as detached from, or even opposed to, the interests of ordinary citizens, framing them as principal beneficiaries of globalization’s disruptive effects. This framing resonates particularly strongly among marginalized constituencies who associate globalization with economic displacement, stagnant wages, and erosion of cultural cohesion. The simultaneous scapegoating of migrants serves to consolidate group identity among populist supporters, offering a tangible object for frustration and blame. Through morally charged language and narratives of betrayal and loss, populist leaders effectively transform feelings of exclusion into collective political engagement. In this way, the strategy of mobilizing mass support through appeals to perceived threats from elites and migrants has become a central component of contemporary populism. By privileging emotional resonance over ideological consistency, populist movements have succeeded in rapidly expanding their political reach, reshaping democratic participation and challenging the norms and practices of traditional party politics.

The growing success of populist movements across Europe is the result of a multifaceted interaction between economic, cultural, international, political, and societal dynamics. In their influential article «Causes and Consequences of the Rise of Populist Radical Right Parties and Movements in Europe» (2017), Jasper Muis and Tim Immerzeel argue that economic insecurities linked to globalization—such as rising unemployment, outsourcing, and austerity measures—play a central role in fueling populist sentiment. These economic pressures heighten individuals’ sense of threat and vulnerability, rendering populist messaging particularly persuasive among voters who feel economically excluded or abandoned by mainstream political actors. From a cultural perspective, Muis and Immerzeel further emphasize that rapid social transformations, particularly those involving immigration and increasing multiculturalism, intensify fears surrounding cultural identity and national cohesion. Populist parties adeptly tap into such anxieties by constructing narratives centered on the preservation of national identity and cultural homogeneity, portraying immigration and minority presence as existential threats to traditional values. In doing so, they present themselves as defenders of cultural integrity amid growing global and multicultural influences. Global events are also significant in the populist resurgence. The authors note that crises such as refugee waves, terrorism, and geopolitical conflict heighten public uncertainty and consolidate populist narratives. Populist politicians are very good at exploiting these crises, framing them as results of elite neglect or failure, thereby bolstering their own legitimacy as credible alternatives to discredited political elites. Political disillusionment also contributes to populist traction. Widespread disillusionment with mainstream party systems and traditional political institutions has created increased alienation and suspicion on the part of segments of the electorate. Populist movements exploit this disenchantment by presenting themselves as the authentic voice of the ordinary citizen, positioning their platforms in conscious contrast to what they characterize as callous and unresponsive political elites. Apart from economic, cultural, and political circumstances, social dynamics—including increasing polarization, social fragmentation, and declining cohesion—also play a fundamental part in facilitating the rise of populist movements. As Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart argue in «Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism» (2019), societal polarization has deepened in recent years, largely as a result of conflicting views on progressive social issues. These divisions have widened existing social cleavages, creating favorable conditions for populist mobilization. Populist actors capitalize on these societal fractures by underscoring sharp distinctions between opposing social groups, thereby reinforcing polarized collective identities and intensifying social segmentation. Taken together, the success of populist movements in Europe reflects a complex interplay of economic grievances, cultural anxieties, international disruptions, political disenchantment, and societal fragmentation. These factors have collectively shaped an environment in which populist rhetoric and parties have gained considerable traction and maintained enduring appeal (Muis and Immerzeel 2017; Norris and Inglehart 2019).

2. Impact of populism on democratic legitimacy and stability

This chapter has examined how the growing popularity of populist movements intersects with the stability and legitimacy of democratic governance. It begins by outlining the central theoretical frameworks that explain how populist ideologies and strategies interact with core democratic principles, often challenging their legitimacy and threatening institutional resilience. Notably, scholars such as Christian F. Rostbøll have explored how populist discourse undermines foundational democratic norms—particularly the requirement of publicity in democratic deliberation—thereby weakening procedural legitimacy (Rostbøll 2023). Dieter Fuchs and Hans-Dieter Klingemann similarly emphasize that socio-economic anxieties tied to globalization contribute to declining public confidence in democratic institutions, further eroding their perceived legitimacy (Fuchs and Klingemann 2019).

Following this theoretical discussion, the chapter presents a series of case studies to illustrate how these dynamics unfold in various socio-political settings. Zoran Lutovac’s analysis of so-called “stabilitocracies” offers insight into regimes that maintain a façade of stability while simultaneously undermining democratic norms and institutional checks (Lutovac 2020). In a similar vein, Paul Blokker’s examination of populism as a constitutional project reveals how populist movements seek to restructure legal and constitutional frameworks to entrench their power, thereby threatening democratic equilibrium (Blokker 2019). Craig Calhoun’s study of nationalist populism in the context of Brexit provides further empirical evidence of how such movements can deepen social divisions and destabilize democratic systems (Calhoun 2017). This layered analytical structure provides a comprehensive view of the diverse and multifaceted ways in which populism affects democratic legitimacy and institutional stability.

2.1. Populism and Democratic Legitimacy

Populism frequently emerges as a response to crises of public trust in democratic institutions and processes. Christian F. Rostbøll underscores that populist movements flourish particularly in contexts marked by widespread political disaffection and diminished institutional credibility. He argues that populists exploit democratic shortcomings—such as limited transparency, political alienation, and perceived inefficacy—to present themselves as authentic voices of the people, standing in opposition to an out-of-touch and often delegitimized elite (Rostbøll 2023). Expanding on this perspective, Nadia Urbinati, in «Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy» (2019), examines how populism strategically leverages public disillusionment with representative institutions to justify confrontational and radical political tactics. According to Urbinati, populists portray distrust in institutions not merely as a symptom of dysfunction, but as evidence of elite corruption and systemic failure, thereby legitimizing demands for sweeping institutional transformation. This reframing of democratic discontent serves to intensify political polarization, weaken institutional norms, and destabilize governance. Together, these analyses illuminate how populist movements capitalize on pre-existing trust deficits within democratic systems, transforming public frustration into a powerful political force that reshapes democratic practice in fundamental and enduring ways.

Populist actors frequently call for a return to what they describe as "genuine democratic rule," portraying themselves as the true representatives of the people in opposition to allegedly corrupt or out-of-touch elites. However, the practices and policy approaches of populist movements often undermine the very democratic institutions they claim to defend, thereby deepening existing crises of legitimacy. In their chapter «Globalization, Populism and Legitimacy in Contemporary Democracy» (2019), Dieter Fuchs and Hans-Dieter Klingemann argue that populist rhetoric skillfully exploits widespread dissatisfaction with the performance of democratic systems, particularly grievances linked to globalization and socio-economic change. While populists promise to restore democratic sovereignty and citizen control, their actions frequently erode institutional checks and balances, weaken protections for minority rights, and compromise the integrity of democratic deliberation and decision-making. Yascha Mounk, in «The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It» (2018), offers a complementary perspective, contending that populist governance often leads to the systematic erosion of democratic norms. This occurs through the centralization of executive authority, the curtailment of judicial independence, and restrictions on media freedom. Populist leaders typically justify these measures as necessary to enact the unmediated will of the people, framing institutional constraints as illegitimate obstacles imposed by entrenched elites. Rather than alleviating democratic deficiencies, such practices tend to intensify public mistrust and exacerbate disillusionment with democratic institutions. The populist appeal to restore democracy to the people thus functions simultaneously as a rhetorical device and a legitimizing narrative for actions that ultimately compromise democratic governance. By challenging core democratic principles such as pluralism, institutional accountability, and tolerance, populists contribute to the very erosion of legitimacy they claim to rectify. This dynamic reveals a fundamental paradox at the heart of populist politics: the ability to mobilize authentic democratic frustrations while simultaneously aggravating the systemic weaknesses of democracy itself.

2.2. Populism and Democratic Stability

Populism plays a significant role in fostering a pervasive sense of “otherness” across diverse social groups, often intensifying ethnic, class-based, and national tensions. This, in turn, raises the risk that conflicts will be addressed through confrontation or violence rather than democratic dialogue. In «Populism, Stabilitocracy and Multiculturalism» (2020), Zoran Lutovac argues that populist rhetoric actively constructs divisive narratives grounded in rigid dichotomies of “us” versus “them.” These oppositions frequently rely on cultural, ethnic, or national identities, which are depicted as inherently incompatible or adversarial. Lutovac underscores that populist discourse often portrays minorities and immigrants as existential threats to national unity or economic stability, thereby deepening societal fractures and contributing to an environment prone to fragmentation and conflict. Building on this perspective, Rogers Brubaker, in «Ethnicity Without Groups» (2004), explores how populist movements strategically manipulate and reinforce ethnic and cultural boundaries to mobilize political support. He notes that populists often craft narratives that frame certain groups as external threats to the cohesion or prosperity of the majority population. By emphasizing group distinctions and rigid boundaries, populist actors contribute to rising intergroup tensions, increasing the likelihood of confrontational responses—particularly in contexts where democratic mechanisms for conflict resolution are weakened or circumvented. This tendency to frame complex social issues through exclusionary and polarizing narratives exacerbates societal instability. Populist rhetoric often fosters sentiments of alienation, mistrust, and competition among social groups, undermining the integrative role of democratic institutions designed to facilitate peaceful, inclusive conflict mediation. In populist contexts, mechanisms such as dialogue, compromise, and consensus-building are frequently displaced by more adversarial and divisive forms of political engagement. As a result, the potential for societal disputes to escalate into open conflict increases, posing serious threats to social cohesion and the stability of democratic governance.

Another defining feature of populist discourse is its frequent absence of clearly defined policy agendas or coherent programmatic visions, which often leads to volatility and unpredictability when populist parties enter government. In his influential article «Populism as a Constitutional Project» (2019), Paul Blokker emphasizes that populist movements tend to prioritize emotionally resonant and rhetorically potent messaging over the development of substantive policy frameworks. He argues that populists typically advocate broad, transformative changes—often framed as constitutional or systemic reforms aimed at restoring power to “the people”—while offering little in the way of concrete, implementable policy solutions. This lack of clarity can result in erratic governance, marked by ad hoc decision-making and reactive political behavior, which ultimately undermines administrative continuity and weakens public confidence in governmental competence. Expanding on these observations, Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, in «Populism: A Very Short Introduction» (2017), argue that the vagueness and ideological flexibility of populist platforms are not accidental but rather deliberate strategic choices. This ambiguity allows populist leaders to appeal to diverse constituencies and to shift their positions in response to changing political conditions and public moods. However, this adaptability often comes at the expense of coherent governance. Rather than offering structured and sustainable policy alternatives, populist movements frequently rely on symbolic gestures and performative politics—approaches that may energize supporters in the short term but generally fail to deliver effective responses to complex socio-economic challenges. Over time, such patterns of governance can erode institutional credibility and contribute to broader political instability. The absence of clearly articulated policy programs within populist movements is further compounded by their frequent rejection or circumvention of established democratic and institutional norms—norms that ordinarily ensure governance stability and continuity. As a result, populist administrations are often marked by abrupt policy reversals, internal power struggles, and high turnover among political elites, all of which contribute to a volatile and unpredictable political climate. This instability has far-reaching consequences, including diminished administrative capacity, weakened policy coherence, and heightened levels of both social and political tension. Accordingly, the populist reluctance to engage in structured policymaking not only hinders effective governance but also serves as a key driver of institutional and political instability.

The eventual replacement of classical democratic principles with populist alternatives can significantly erode the effectiveness and integrity of democratic institutions. In his critical study «Could Populism Be Good for Constitutional Democracy? » (2019), Bojan Bugaric explores the complex and frequently adverse effects of populism on democratic governance. While he acknowledges that populist actors often frame themselves as reformers intent on revitalizing democracy by addressing public disillusionment, he ultimately concludes that populist rule tends to undermine essential democratic norms such as pluralism, judicial independence, and the separation of powers. Populist appeals to direct representation of the “general will” frequently serve to justify the dismantling of institutional checks and balances, resulting in the concentration of executive authority and the erosion of accountability. Such developments substantially impair the democratic system’s capacity for inclusive representation, independent oversight, and effective policy deliberation. Building on these concerns, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their widely cited work «How Democracies Die» (2018), demonstrate how populist leaders often use democratic mechanisms to incrementally weaken the very norms and institutions that uphold democratic integrity. They argue that by strategically exploiting constitutional freedoms, populist governments may gradually erode key democratic safeguards, such as judicial autonomy, press independence, and opposition rights. These measures are frequently justified as necessary corrections to elite obstruction, framed as barriers to the authentic expression of the people’s will. Over time, such practices hollow out institutional structures, reducing their ability to manage political conflict and protect civil liberties. This substitution of liberal-democratic principles with populist frameworks often results in pronounced institutional dysfunction and increased policy instability. As state institutions become more closely aligned with narrow populist interests rather than broader public welfare, their capacity to ensure effective, accountable governance declines. Public trust erodes, participation diminishes, and the resilience required for a functioning democratic system is gradually lost. In this way, the populist displacement of traditional democratic norms undermines not only institutional legitimacy but also the state’s ability to respond adequately to complex and evolving societal challenges.

2.3. Case Studies of populist impact on democratic legitimacy and stability

The The United Kingdom offers a salient case study for examining these dynamics, particularly through the lens of Brexit, the associated devolution crisis, and the ensuing governmental instability. In his analysis «Populism, Nationalism and Brexit» (2017), Craig Calhoun contends that the Brexit campaign was largely propelled by populist rhetoric that harnessed nationalist sentiment and widespread dissatisfaction with established political structures. Populist actors promoted narratives centered on reclaiming sovereignty and national identity, positioning supranational institutions such as the European Union as external threats to domestic autonomy. This strategy resonated with public concerns about immigration, economic precarity, and cultural change, deepening existing societal divisions and transforming the nature of political discourse in the UK. As Calhoun notes, the populist framing of Brexit amplified public demands for national self-determination, with lasting implications for democratic governance and institutional stability. Expanding on this analysis, Matthew Goodwin and Caitlin Milazzo, in «UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics» (2015), demonstrate how populist parties such as UKIP effectively harnessed widespread public dissatisfaction and alienation from mainstream political institutions to shape public sentiment in favor of Brexit. Their work illustrates how populist strategies intertwined economic disenfranchisement with cultural anxieties, reinforcing a growing perception that political elites were increasingly detached from the concerns of ordinary citizens. This narrative of exclusion and disconnect proved instrumental in shaping voter behavior during the referendum, giving voice to long-standing grievances and contributing to heightened political polarization. The aftermath of the Brexit votes further exacerbated existing tensions within the United Kingdom’s devolved political framework, precipitating a significant constitutional crisis. Populist rhetoric, with its emphasis on national sovereignty and majoritarian rule, deepened rifts between England and other constituent nations of the UK—particularly Scotland and Northern Ireland—where continued EU membership was perceived as politically and economically vital. In Scotland, the Brexit outcome reinvigorated calls for independence, grounded in the argument that the democratic preferences of the Scottish electorate were overridden by the broader UK majority. In Northern Ireland, Brexit reignited sectarian and nationalist tensions, undermining delicate political balances and placing additional strain on the peace process established by the Good Friday Agreement. These developments contributed to a climate of sustained political instability, marked by frequent leadership changes, cabinet reshuffles, and inconsistent policy direction. The populist impetus behind the Brexit campaign not only altered the UK’s position in global politics but also disrupted domestic political cohesion, weakening the effectiveness and unity of its governing institutions.

A parallel trajectory can be observed in Germany, where the rise of PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has significantly amplified religious intolerance and nationalist rhetoric. In his comprehensive study «Radical Right Populism in Germany: AfD, Pegida, and the Identitarian Movement» (2021), Ralf Havertz examines how these movements exploit societal fears related to immigration, Islam, and multiculturalism to advance exclusionary political agendas. He argues that both PEGIDA and the AfD rely on populist discourse that portrays Muslim communities and immigrants as existential threats to national cohesion and cultural identity, thereby legitimizing xenophobic attitudes and intensifying public prejudice. These movements also draw strength from broader discontent with mainstream political responses to migration and integration. By presenting themselves as the authentic voice of the marginalized “ordinary citizen,” they position traditional political elites as indifferent or complicit in cultural decline. Havertz underscores how the AfD, through targeted political campaigns and provocative rhetoric, has effectively mobilized nationalist sentiment and anti-immigrant resentment, contributing to social polarization and a rise in hate-based incidents. Similarly, PEGIDA has organized large-scale public demonstrations that articulate overt opposition to multiculturalism, significantly influencing public discourse and shaping political agendas. Adding historical depth to this analysis, Hans-Georg Betz, in «Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe» (1994), contextualizes the emergence of such movements within periods of socio-economic uncertainty and cultural transformation. Betz argues that economic instability, coupled with rapid demographic shifts, creates a fertile environment for populist mobilization, as public anxieties are channeled into resentment against perceived threats to national identity. Right-wing populist actors exploit these sentiments by offering simplified solutions—often centered on restrictive immigration policies, cultural nationalism, and a return to traditional values—which deepen social divisions and fuel political conflict. The rise of PEGIDA and AfD has significant implications for democratic stability and societal cohesion in Germany, challenging inclusive democratic principles and promoting division based on ethnicity, religion, and national identity. By systematically fostering hostility toward immigrant communities and religious minorities, these movements not only undermine democratic pluralism but also create conditions ripe for social and political conflict, threatening long-term societal harmony and institutional stability. The ascent of PEGIDA and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has had profound implications for democratic stability and social cohesion in Germany. These movements challenge the principles of inclusive democracy by promoting divisions along ethnic, religious, and national lines. Through the systematic cultivation of hostility toward immigrant populations and religious minorities, they erode democratic pluralism and contribute to an environment in which social and political conflict becomes increasingly likely, thereby threatening the long-term stability of democratic institutions and societal harmony.

In the United States, populism—most prominently represented by Donald Trump and the rise of the so-called “new Republicans”—has significantly altered the country’s political and economic landscape, centering on economic protectionism and a marked retreat from global multilateralism. In «The Global Trump: Structural US Populism and Economic Conflicts with Europe and Asia» (2019), Paul J. J. Welfens analyzes the far-reaching economic ramifications of Trump’s populist agenda, particularly his rejection of global free trade in favor of protectionist measures. Welfens highlights how the administration used populist rhetoric to advocate for tariffs, renegotiated trade agreements, and stricter immigration policies—initiatives that resonated with voters concerned about economic precarity, national security, and cultural identity. Trump’s brand of economic nationalism entailed a direct challenge to the liberal international order, asserting that globalization had disproportionately benefited foreign interests at the expense of American workers and industries. By casting himself as the defender of national economic interests, Trump galvanized support among constituencies negatively affected by globalization, especially in manufacturing regions and rural areas. Welfens notes that these protectionist policies not only disrupted existing international economic arrangements but also weakened multilateral institutions, contributing to heightened global uncertainty and diplomatic tension. Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, in «Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism» (2019), expand this analysis by arguing that Trump’s populism also drew strength from cultural anxieties. They assert that Trump effectively fused economic grievances with cultural nostalgia, appealing to segments of the American electorate who felt alienated by rapid demographic and social change. This combination enabled the consolidation of a broad electoral coalition under a populist banner, reshaping Republican Party politics and redefining conservative identity in the United States. Trump’s populist isolationism was most clearly reflected in foreign policy decisions such as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord and renegotiating NAFTA, actions emblematic of a broader skepticism toward international cooperation. These measures diminished America’s global leadership role and created power vacuums subsequently filled by rival states, reshaping international political dynamics. Thus, Trump’s populist agenda fundamentally transformed both domestic governance and the United States’ position in global affairs.

Conclusion

This study has examined the implications of populism for democratic legitimacy and institutional stability. The findings demonstrate that populist movements exert considerable influence on democratic systems, often intensifying existing crises while introducing new forms of instability. By simplifying complex political issues into emotionally charged dichotomies—pitting a morally “pure” people against allegedly corrupt elites and external threats such as migrants or supranational institutions—populist discourse undermines the pluralism vital to democratic deliberation (Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser 2017). The comparative case studies of the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States underscore the practical consequences of populist governance. In the UK, Brexit-related populism deepened regional and national divisions, contributing to political instability and a constitutional crisis (Calhoun 2017). In Germany, the emergence of movements like PEGIDA and the AfD fueled ethnic and religious tensions, posing direct threats to democratic integrity and social cohesion (Havertz 2021). In the United States, Trump-era populism led to a foreign policy of isolationism and a domestic agenda of protectionism, both of which disrupted established democratic practices and institutions (Welfens 2019). The academic literature consistently highlights the structural instability inherent in populist governance, often driven by a lack of coherent policy planning and institutional continuity (Blokker 2019). Populist administrations tend to focus on symbolic gestures and short-term political gains, resulting in erratic decision-making and weakened institutional performance, which in turn further erodes democratic legitimacy. Ultimately, populism emerges as both a symptom and a driver of democratic instability. It thrives in environments marked by public dissatisfaction with conventional democratic mechanisms, offering emotionally resonant yet oversimplified solutions that accelerate the degradation of democratic norms. This research confirms that populism’s impact on democratic systems is largely negative, undermining both their legitimacy and their functionality. Effectively addressing the populist challenge will require renewed efforts to restore public trust, reinforce democratic institutions, and promote inclusive and constructive political discourse.

References:

1. Betz, Hans-Georg. Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
2. Blokker, Paul. "Populism as a Constitutional Project." International Journal of Constitutional Law 17, no. 2 (2019): 536–553.
3. Brubaker, Rogers. Ethnicity Without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
4. Bugaric, Bojan. "Could Populism Be Good for Constitutional Democracy?" Annual Review of Law and Social Science 15, no. 1 (2019): 41–58.
5. Calhoun, Craig. "Populism, Nationalism and Brexit." In Brexit: Sociological Responses, edited by William Outhwaite, 57–76. London: Anthem Press, 2017.
6. Engesser, Sven, Nicole Ernst, Frank Esser, and Florin Büchel. "Populism and Social Media: How Politicians Spread a Fragmented Ideology." Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 8 (2017): 1109–1126.
7. Fuchs, Dieter, and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. "Globalization, Populism and Legitimacy in Contemporary Democracy." In Democracy under Threat: A Crisis of Legitimacy? (2019): 3–21.
8. Goodwin, Matthew, and Caitlin Milazzo. UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
9. Havertz, Ralf. Radical Right Populism in Germany: AfD, Pegida, and the Identitarian Movement. New York: Routledge, 2021.
10. Hidalgo-Tenorio, Encarnación, Miguel-Ángel Benítez-Castro, and Francesca De Cesare, eds. Populist Discourse: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Politics. New York: Routledge, 2019.
11. Jansen, Robert S. "Populist Mobilization: A New Theoretical Approach to Populism." Sociological Theory 29, no. 2 (2011): 75–96.
12. Laclau, Ernesto. On Populist Reason. London: Verso, 2005.
13. Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown, 2018.
14. Lutovac, Zoran. Populism, Stabilitocracy and Multiculturalism. Belgrade: Institute of Social Sciences, 2020.
15. Macaulay, Marcia, ed. Populist Discourse: International Perspectives. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019.
16. Moffitt, Benjamin. The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016.
17. Mounk, Yascha. The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.
18. Muis, Jasper, and Tim Immerzeel. "Causes and Consequences of the Rise of Populist Radical Right Parties and Movements in Europe." Current Sociology 65, no. 6 (2017): 909–930.
19. Mudde, Cas, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser. Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
20. Müller, Jan-Werner. What Is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016.
21. Norris, Pippa, and Ronald Inglehart. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
22. Papacharissi, Zizi. Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
23. Rostbøll, Christian F. "Populism, Democracy, and the Publicity Requirement." Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory 30, no. 3 (2023).
24. Urbinati, Nadia. Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019.
25. Welfens, Paul J. J. The Global Trump: Structural US Populism and Economic Conflicts with Europe and Asia. Cham: Springer Nature, 2019.
26. Wodak, Ruth. The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage, 2015.