Two decades of populism in democracies. A New Study Shows How Populism Affects Human Freedom

Populism has become one of the most widely discussed political phenomena in recent years. But how, and especially under what circumstances, does it negatively affect human freedom in democratic countries? This is the question explored by an extensive analysis co-authored by researcher Niclas Berggren, who works at the Faculty of Business Administration at the Prague University of Economics and Business. Among other findings, the study suggests that populists may pose a threat to human freedom even when they hold only a minority of seats in parliament.

The study by Niclas Berggren and Christian Bjørnskov, published in the European Journal of Political Economy, draws on what is known as the minimalist or ideational conception of populism. According to this approach, populists portray society as divided between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite”, arguing that politics should directly express the will of the people.

According to the authors, this is precisely where tension arises between populism and liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is based not only on elections, but also on independent institutions, the separation of powers, the rule of law and the protection of minorities. Populists often regard these safeguards as obstacles protecting the interests of elites.

Populism Can Move in Either Direction

“While populism itself is neither inherently left-wing nor right-wing, in the study we distinguish between left-wing and right-wing populism. Left-wing populism is typically associated with socialist ideas and primarily understands ‘the people’ as socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Right-wing populism, by contrast, is more commonly linked to nationalism and conservative positions, identifying ‘the people’ with the dominant domestic population,” explains Niclas Berggren.

According to the study’s theoretical framework, right-wing populism therefore has stronger incentives to restrict civil liberties, freedom of expression, the media, civil society or minority rights. Left-wing populism, by contrast, is more closely associated with restrictions on economic freedom because it views the liberal market as a source of inequality and elite power. In the study, Niclas Berggren and Christian Bjørnskov work with data from 76 democratic countries covering the period from 2000 to 2020. Their analysis combines figures from the Human Freedom Index, which measures personal and economic freedom in the countries concerned, with a database on political-party populism that quantifies the extent to which individual parties can be considered populist. The researchers then calculate the overall level of populism in the countries according to the share of legislative seats held by those parties.

Right-Wing Populism Is More Dangerous

The statistically strongest effects concern right-wing populism. The study shows that right-wing populist representation in parliament is associated with a weaker rule of law, poorer regulatory quality, weaker civil liberties and deteriorating security. This is particularly the case when the parliament as a whole leans further to the right. In more left-leaning parliaments, these relationships are weaker or statistically indistinguishable from zero.

“Our explanation is that right-wing populists may themselves have a strong interest in restricting oversight institutions, civil society or the rights of groups that do not fit their conception of ‘the people’. They gain real influence when they find enough allies on the right-hand side of parliament’s ideological spectrum, or when traditional right-wing parties partially adopt their agenda,” explains Niclas Berggren.

Left-Wing Populism Mainly Threatens Security

In the case of left-wing populism, the study identifies the strongest effect in the area of security, with the relationship becoming more pronounced in more left-leaning parliaments. “Some left-wing populist parties may regard the police, the criminal justice system or other enforcement institutions as instruments through which elites impose their dominance and structural injustice on the people. Reforms presented as a democratisation of these institutions may, in certain contexts, instead lead to their weakening, as well as to poorer enforcement of the law or reduced impartiality,” says Niclas Berggren.

As Niclas Berggren and Christian Bjørnskov note in the study, institutional changes often take place gradually. “Judicial independence, regulatory quality, freedom of expression and the rules governing the exercise of state power rarely change overnight. However, if similar pressure is repeated over several electoral terms, incremental shifts can develop into long-term change,” adds Niclas Berggren.

What about Czechia?

„It is quite clear that right-wing populism in the Czech Republic has strengthened since around 2014, and its influence in the Chamber of Deputies more than doubled by 2020. During the same period, we can also observe a slight decline in human freedom, both in terms of personal freedom and economic freedom,” Berggren explains.

At the same time, he emphasizes that the decrease in these freedom indicators has been relatively limited in the Czech case. “I therefore believe this reflects the resilience of relatively strong political and legal institutions that have withstood the influence of populism and continue to safeguard the integrity of the legal system, the media, and the overall balance of power,” says Berggren.

Strong Institutions Are the Key to Resilience against populism 

The study underscores the importance of institutional safeguards that remain effective even when the government and a parliamentary majority are moving in the same direction. The authors mention, for example, rules protecting the independence of the courts and the judiciary, restrictions preventing a single majority from gaining one-off control over appointments, the budgetary autonomy of key institutions, stronger parliamentary oversight, minority rights in the legislative process, access to information and limits on the government’s discretionary powers in law enforcement. 

“Democracy cannot rely solely on regular and fair elections. Its resilience depends greatly on whether institutions safeguarding the rule of law, civil liberties and equality before the law are capable of withstanding a situation in which the political majority decides to undermine them,” concludes Niclas Berggren.