The Problem with ‘Populist’ Politicians
They claim to represent the will of the people as they tear down our foundations of freedom and democracy.
When political parties ride to power calling themselves “populist,” their leaders can sound as if they are restoring power to the people as they carry out their radical reform movements.
But here’s what populist parties — from the extreme-right AfD in Germany to Donald Trump’s Republicans in the United States, from the Conservative Party of Canada to the United Conservatives in Alberta — have in common. Their idea of freedom and democracy is fundamentally different from what most of us are used to.
A “liberal democracy” doesn’t mean one governed by liberals or Liberals. The term, originating in 18th-century Europe, instead means a form of democracy that protects individual liberties and group rights, and ensures diverse voices are heard.
Populists, by stark contrast, push a version of democracy that focuses only on the will of the majority — often at the expense of minorities and dissenters.
I am not talking about routine legislative changes, which — as Jon Stewart points out — are well within the democratic purview of populist leaders (no matter how much they anger progressives and moderates). Nor do I count conventional attempts to amass power in the hands of the leader and their entourage. (Governments of all stripes do that.)
No, I’m pointing to how populists see institutions like courts, legislatures and independent bodies as barriers to the will of the people and work to weaken them, all while consolidating power. Over time, this approach doesn’t just create a less fair and open society — it risks destroying democracy altogether, leaving behind a system that looks democratic in name only. This is something progressives, moderates and conservatives should resist.
The populist approach to democracy
Populism is often described as simply anti-elitist. Yet, as the Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde reminds us, its defining feature is its rejection of pluralism: a democratic approach that embraces diversity, advocating for the coexistence and active participation of multiple groups, perspectives and interests to ensure no single entity dominates decision-making.
It’s true: populists frame democracy as the unfiltered expression of the “will of the people,” sidelining institutions and expertise. However, their concept of “the people” is rarely inclusive. Instead, they imagine a homogeneous majority whose values they espouse, casting minorities and dissenters as obstacles or threats to “democracy.”
It is important to note: the “majority” populists envision is seldom more than half of the population. (Not even Trump won a majority of the popular vote, and Conservative majorities in Canada are often based on pluralities, not majorities. This doesn’t account for the fact that non-voters usually make up one-third of the population in both countries.)
Nonetheless, populists exaggerate the size of their base, convincing both their followers and their opponents that “their side” is much bigger than it is. (Think: crowd sizes.) Their version of “the people” is too big to challenge, yet somehow small enough to be victimized by the corrupt establishment.
Similarly, populists often invoke freedom, but their concept of it is tied to loyalty to the dominant group rather than universal liberties. As the French political thinker Benjamin Constant observed more than 200 years ago, this echoes ancient democratic systems where freedom was reserved for those who conformed to the ruling group, with outsiders excluded and individual rights subordinated to collective will.
In the modern (liberal democratic) sense, freedom is about individual rights and group protections. It is about both liberties and responsibilities, whether embedded in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the U.S. Constitution. Aided by elaborate sets of checks and balances, this pluralistic vision embraces diversity and ensures that no single group or perspective dominates. For generations in both countries, liberals, progressives and conservatives have all agreed to defend this core democratic principle.
By contrast, the ancient notion of democracy was steeped in the type of majoritarianism that today’s populists admire. Freedom was a collective privilege, granted to those who were accepted into the dominant group. In ancient Athens, “the people” enjoyed freedom as a protected class, while outsiders were excluded and often regarded as threats to the community’s way of life. In this view, individuals were subordinate to the collective. Those who aligned with the ruling majority were free to live as they pleased, so long as their actions reinforced the prevailing norms. Populists are often accused of being retrogressive in their attempts to “make their countries great again.” Hearkening back to ancient Greece takes this rear-view peering to a whole new level.
The tensions between liberalism and democracy
The erosion of liberal democratic norms under populist governance highlights a tension once identified by political theorist Carl Schmitt, a member of Germany’s Nazi party: the inherent contradictions between liberalism and democracy.
Schmitt argued that “liberal democracy” is in many ways an oxymoron, attempting to reconcile two fundamentally different principles. Understanding this tension sheds light on why populism so effectively exploits the cracks in the system.
At its core, liberalism is about protecting individual rights and freedoms, often through mechanisms that constrain the power of majorities. Institutions like federalism, independent courts, media and boards and commissions exist to ensure that no single group, even a rare electoral majority, can dominate or oppress others. Liberalism values deliberation, compromise and the rule of law — all of which prioritize stability and the protection of minority rights over the immediate will of the many.
Democracy, on the other hand, is fundamentally majoritarian. It presumes there is a singular common good. It emphasizes the direct expression of the people’s will, often through electoral processes that produce clear winners and losers. Democracy produces decisions reflecting the preferences of the most numerous group or groups in society, even when those preferences conflict with established norms or the rights of the less numerous.
As Schmitt pointed out, liberalism seeks to temper the blunt force of majorities, while democracy resists the constraints imposed by liberal institutions. This tension creates a constant push and pull within democracies like Canada and the United States.
The more liberal a system becomes, the less responsive it may appear to the will of the majority. The more democratic it becomes, the more likely it is to erode the safeguards that protect individual and minority rights.
Populists thrive on exploiting this tension. They argue that liberal institutions — courts, legislatures, the press, academics — are undemocratic because they obstruct the majority’s will. By framing liberal safeguards as barriers to true democracy, populists justify their attacks on pluralism and the institutional checks and balances that preserve it.
Populists claim to restore democracy by removing liberal constraints, but in doing so, they create conditions that undermine both liberalism and democracy.
The genius of liberal democracy lies in its attempt to balance these competing principles, allowing the most populous groups to govern while protecting the rights of minorities and individuals. However, this balance is inherently fragile. When populists tip the scales too far toward majoritarianism, they reveal the contradictions at the heart of the system. Liberal institutions can appear elitist and disconnected, giving populists the ammunition they need to dismantle them.
Schmitt’s insights remind us that liberal democracy is always a work in progress — a delicate balance that requires constant vigilance to maintain. He would know: as an eventual Nazi, he helped tilt democracy toward illiberal ends. In this sense, the challenges posed by populist movements today are not new, but they underscore how easily the system’s internal tensions can be exploited to erode its foundations.
The pPopulist playbook in action
Once in government, many populists set about dismantling the pillars of liberal democracy. The process follows a predictable pattern, which should sound familiar to people living under populist rule these days.
Ignoring the rule of law. Populists erode the rule of law by interfering with judicial independence and introducing discriminatory legislation. Independent boards are stacked with loyalists or bypassed altogether, while laws target marginalized groups or political opponents. This creates a two-tier legal system where some citizens enjoy full rights while others are subjected to restrictions, undermining equality and justice.
Eliminating checks and balances. Populists view legislatures, courts, parliamentary officers, independent agencies and other orders of government as obstacles to their agenda. They bypass legislative debate through strict party discipline and closure, dismiss constitutional constraints and other orders of government, replace watchdogs with loyalists and centralize power by overriding municipal authority.
Undermining electoral integrity. Populists often attack the integrity of elections to tilt the playing field in their favour. Measures such as introducing restrictive voter ID laws, threatening to gerrymander districts or outlawing vote tabulating machines cast doubt on the fairness of elections. These tactics weaken public trust in electoral systems while consolidating power for the ruling party.
Consolidating power. Populist leaders frequently usurp authority from other institutions to tighten their grip on power. This includes undermining academic freedom by controlling university governance or silencing dissenting scholars. Similarly, tearing up the traditional public servant’s bargain — marginalizing civil servants in the policy-making process or replacing non-partisan expertise with loyalists — turns the bureaucracy into an instrument of the ruling party.
Cronyism. By hollowing out institutions and prioritizing loyalty over competence, populists create fertile ground for cronyism. Populists thrive on a narrative of “cleaning house” and dismantling elite networks, but they often replace these networks with their own. Key government positions are awarded based on political allegiance rather than expertise, ensuring loyalty but weakening governance. Public resources are redirected to allies through key appointments, lucrative contracts, quid pro quo dealings, pay-to-play rules or pork-barrel spending, with little regard for accountability.
To accomplish all of this, populists conflate their party’s interests with “the people’s,” justifying actions that enrich themselves or their supporters. Scandals are reframed as attacks by the enemy, further polarizing public discourse and insulating leaders from accountability. In this way, populist regimes often replicate or even exacerbate the corruption they claim to oppose.
Left unchecked, populism’s erosion of pluralism creates an environment where dissent is suppressed, and loyalty to the regime is rewarded. Critics clam up for fear of retribution. Independent institutions crumble, elections lose legitimacy, and public trust erodes.
What begins as a promise to restore power to the people ends as a system where power is concentrated in the hands of a few. Democracy’s form remains, but its modern substance — pluralism, accountability and individual rights — is gutted. If left unabated, this trajectory leads not just to authoritarianism but to a society defined by fear, exclusion and inequality (a recipe for the sort of fascism Schmitt helped establish in Germany).
Restoring pluralism through a conservative turn
Restoring pluralism in Canada and the United States will require the “real people” to reassert themselves — not the narrow, exclusionary version championed by populists, but the diverse, moderate, silent majority who have watched their democratic institutions erode while assuming they would remain resilient.
Populism thrives when the real majority disengages, allowing a vocal and aggrieved minority to hijack the political process. Drowned out by radical voices, people in the real mainstream of society get trapped in a spiral of silence.
The first step in pushing back is recognizing that populists represent a minority view, and that democracy is not self-sustaining — it demands vigilance, participation and, most of all, a collective reaffirmation of its foundational principles.
Part of this renewal means rediscovering a model of leadership that predates populist demagoguery: an “old chap” democracy, stripped of its past exclusivities but grounded in its core ideals. The strength of this model lies in the expectation that leaders would act with honour, not because they were inherently virtuous but because the people selected those who respected the system, played by its rules and accepted its outcomes.
In a well-functioning liberal democracy, elites do not seek to stoke division for the sake of factional gain; they understand that governance is about stewardship and trusteeship of the public good, not spectacle. The challenge now is to restore this ethos while preserving the legitimate grievances that populism has surfaced —grievances about economic insecurity, political alienation and institutional complacency. This means the people must start selecting honourable representatives, while they still can.
The burden of this work falls most heavily on conservatives. Populism has consumed the right in both Canada and the United States, distorting its fundamental role as a guardian of order, stability and continuity. If pluralism is to be preserved, it will be not because progressives impose it, but because conservatives rediscover their own first principles. The instinct to preserve — to honour institutions, to safeguard traditions, to maintain social cohesion — runs deep in conservative thought. The task ahead is not to reinvent conservatism but to reclaim it from those who would tear it down in the name of a grievance-fuelled populism.
Tories in Canada and anti-Trump Republicans in the United States must take back their parties, not out of nostalgia, but out of necessity. A democracy in which one side plays by the rules and the other seeks only to destroy them cannot endure. If the conservative movement truly wishes to conserve anything, let it be the time-honoured traditions of pluralism and honourable leadership. That is the real conservative impulse — and it is long overdue for a revival.
[Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article appeared on the author’s Substack, Decoding Politics.] ![[Tyee]](https://thetyee.ca/design-article.thetyee.ca/ui/img/yellowblob.png){kind=small}
