Can Democracy and Populism Coexist?: An International Perspective
In Nepal on April 10, when discussing the concept of democracy, one often recalls Abraham Lincoln’s famous phrase: "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." This notion echoes globally. Additionally, Winston Churchill astutely noted that although democracy has flaws, it remains superior to every form of governance tried over time. The attraction of democracy stems from its foundation in popular will; however, how it manifests differs greatly across contexts. Much like the communities it serves, democracy embodies varied cultural backgrounds, historical experiences, and regional nuances.
Although democracy has been prevalent worldwide following the decline of communism, it remains a flexible concept rather than an identical model for every nation. Different communities demand political systems adapted to their distinct requirements, yet some fundamental tenets should form the bedrock of any democratic framework. True democracy encompasses more than just majority rule—it also includes protections like freedom of expression and assembly, adherence to legal standards, and defense of everyone’s rights, particularly those of minority groups. Even though transparent, impartial, representative, and periodic voting processes are crucial elements, these components aren’t enough on their own to sustain genuine democratic control. Absent strong mechanisms to limit governmental authority, democratically chosen administrations might abuse power or veer towards autocratic practices. For maintaining transparency, democracy necessitates dividing responsibilities across different government bodies—the legislature, administration, and judiciary—while fostering an autonomous press and active civic organizations that serve as watchful monitors.
In recent years, amid growing worries over the worldwide downturn in democracy, ex-US President Joe Biden aimed to reinforce America’s longstanding claim as an advocate of democratic ideals. To achieve this, he organized the Summit for Democracy, which invited representatives from numerous countries globally—though notably excluding Bangladesh more than once. Critics saw this initiative primarily as a move to offset China’s increasing power and emphasize its non-democratic practices. In reaction, China released a document called “China: Democracy That Works,” arguing that its political system adheres to democratic standards. Yet, it remains true that regular Chinese citizens lack the chance to vote directly for their leadership. Surprisingly perhaps, this fact does not appear to trouble them greatly. Ultimately, deciding upon the type of democracy most fitting for their country rests with the Chinese populace themselves. After all, as Mahatma Gandhi wisely stated, "True democracy can never be forced; it must emerge organically."
The word "democracy" is so widely respected that even governments with autocratic tendencies avoid openly dismissing it. This contradiction is evident in North Korea, formally known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Even though it stands out as one of the globe’s harshest and most secluded systems, controlled by a singular lineage for more than seven decades, the country holds periodic voting sessions where individuals vote secretly. Yet, these electoral processes serve merely ceremonial purposes, presenting just one pre-selected candidate. Due to the limited availability of credible data regarding North Korea, understanding the actual workings of their governance remains challenging.
The belief that democracy would spread globally following the end of the Cold War has been challenged by real-world developments. Rather than moving toward a uniform model of liberal democracy, numerous countries have embraced various forms of democratic governance, with some straying considerably from core democratic principles. Today’s most significant threat to democracy comes from the surge of populism. Originally conceived as a cause championing common people over ruling elites, contemporary populism frequently fosters fragmentation rather than cohesion. Populist figures use religious beliefs, national pride, and ethnic identities to stoke emotional responses and secure backing. Such discourse usually eschews concrete plans, exacerbating social rifts and silencing opposition voices.
Across South Asia, populism commonly merges with religion and nationalism, influencing political discussions via identity-based strategies that intensify social rifts. Political figures frequently leverage religious emotions and nationalistic talk to solidify backing, which can be seen in India’s Hindutva movements and Pakistan’s Islam-oriented discourses. In contrast, Bangladesh showcases a different scenario, marked by recurring negative feelings towards both India and Pakistan indicative of a mixed populist tactic. These methods successfully rally popular endorsement but typically distract from crucial governmental problems, amplify polarization, and sideline minority groups. Upon attaining office, populist chiefs usually sidestep oversight mechanisms, centralizing control under the pretense of serving “the populace.” Such actions erode democratic frameworks, attacking autonomous courts, unfettered press, and civic organizations, all while using misinformation and inflammatory comments to quell opposition. Should this trend continue without intervention, populism could dismantle the same democratic systems it professes to defend, as indicated by contemporary administrations throughout the area.
The main difference between democracy and populism can be seen in how they handle pluralism. In a democratic system, majority rule coexists with safeguards for minority rights and differing viewpoints, considering diversity essential for effective government. On the other hand, populism typically emphasizes the preferences of the majority, seeing provisions for minorities or institutional oversight as barriers to implementing “the people’s will.”
Populism, however, is not necessarily detrimental. With effective management, it has the potential to foster democratic reforms, highlight overlooked problems, and contest established elite groups. Nonetheless, unregulated populism may lead to the centralization of power, erode institutional standards, and marginalize opposition voices.
As an essential component of democracy, populism possesses a double-edged character; it has the potential to bolster civic engagement yet may undermine fundamental democratic values if not properly controlled. To ensure the integrity of democracy, it should rise above populist tendencies, upholding its dedication to diversity, transparency, and robust institutions. The warning from American writer James Bovard rings true: “Democracy needs to be more than just two wolves and a sheep deciding together what’s for supper,” underscoring the importance of safeguarding individual liberties and reinforcing procedural oversight.
Reza works as both an author and a development specialist.