he rise of populism in the first two decades of the 21st Century has changed the face of national politics, economy and societies in many states across the globe. Populist leaders ascend to political power using the democratic processes. Simply put, people are tricked into voting for them in the name of greater empowerment of the ordinary citizens and better protection of their interests. These populist leaders mask their lust for power and their personal/ political agenda behind such rhetoric. They promise to work for the ordinary people and ordinary people take their promises as genuine. Such leaders often appeal to base instincts rather than reason. More often than not there are efforts to form and promote a cult of personality. Where the effort is successful large numbers of people start believing whatever comes out of the mouth of the populist leader.

In modern history, the phenomenon can be traced to the mid-19^th Century. It has manifested itself in various ways since then. The concept of people was used then in a different context: people were the honest, self-sacrificing agents of revolution and modernity. However, this conception changed with the passage of time. In the Twentieth Century, people also came to be seen as having destructive and primitive instincts. Isaiah Berlin rightly pointed out: “Populism is apolitical; populists use the state to pursue their goals. Populist movements stand for the majority, constituted by a group of perverted people against political, economic and cultural elite.” The people thus became a rhetorical tool for the populist politician: not always the agents of positive change.

In the world today, many states are ruled by populist government leaders. They include President Vladimir Putin of Russia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, Viktor Orban of Hungary, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Netanyahu of Israel, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Andrzej Duda of Poland and Matteo Salvini of Italy. Populist leaders have tried to grab sympathies of the masses by raising false hopes. Populist politicians often capitalise on and exploit existing societal grievances, aiming to strengthen their electoral prospects and maintaining their hold on power. They often employ rhetoric and strategies that deepen divisions within the society, rather than seeking to bridge those.

By harnessing the discontent of certain segments of the population, they appeal to sentiments and present themselves as the voice of the people against established elites or marginalised groups. Populist leaders tend to adopt an “us versus them” narrative, pitting the “ordinary people” against perceived enemies, whether political opponents, minority communities or international institutions. They are often seen disregarding complexity and nuances of important issues. While they may claim to champion the interests of the majority, their strategies often overlook the long-term consequences of their divisive rhetoric. By fueling animosity and exacerbating societal divisions, they can hinder constructive dialogue, erode trust in democratic institutions and hinder cooperation among various groups.

Populism tends to divide, polarize and fragment societies along social, political and economic lines. The narrative speaks of good, pure, honest, trustworthy people led by a populist, messiah-like leader who knows everything and has solution for everything against crooked, hypocrites and corrupt people led by anti-people leadership. Populist parties are populated by people who are generally ignorant of socio-economic issues and believe in quick fixes, which never happen, yet they believe that their messiah will one day turn thing around and take them towards the best. Make America Great Again is one such slogan. Their blind love for their populist leader seldom weakens. That is where the threat to social fabric and democracy lies.

Many state and government leaders today are seen as populist and authoritarian. They include President Vladimir Putin of Russia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, Viktor Orban of Hungary, Netanyahu of Israel, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Andrzej Duda of Poland and Matteo Salvini of Italy.

Populism has irreparably altered the nature of politics in many societies, injecting political polarisation and toxicity. There are no two ways about it. These factors are detrimental to political pluralism, liberal democracy and the strengthening of governance in a state. The world slipped into democratic recession during the first decade of the 21^st Century, so argue Mark Beeson and Nick Bisley, Larry Diamond in their book: Issues in 21^st Century World Politics. They add that not only has the democratisation slowed down but, more worrisomely, there is an upward trend towards authoritarianism.

In his book The Precipice, Noam Chomsky points out that in the third decade of the 21^st Century, the institutions and values of liberal democracy have come under attack by numerous authoritarian leaders worldwide. Extreme nationalism, populism, xenophobia and fascist tendencies have begun reshaping the political landscape not only in Europe and the United States but also in the rest of the world. An international think tank stated in a report that half of the world’s democratic counties are experiencing an erosion of democracy, intensified by war in Ukraine and economic crisis. Of the 173 counties covered by the IDEA report, 104 were democracies; 52 of those were in decline. Meanwhile, the number of countries moving towards authoritarianism become double (27) those of states moving towards democracy (13).

According to Alberto Alesina and Nolan McArty the cycle of poverty and rising income inequality constitute an important cause of political polarisation. Studies conducted by Carothers and O’Donahue on countries afflicted by severe political polarisation demonstrate that economic growth can actually make political polarisation even worse. Populists are notorious for exaggerating things; even outright lying. But they are most likely conscious of this. In fact, the signs of Dunning-Kruger Effect are inherent in the personalities of populist leaders. In the US, some commentators labelled the Trump administration as a“Dunning Kruger presidency.” Anson noted that Trump’s supporters were not the only people exhibiting signs of the effect; the president too was showing similar signs. American columnist Martie Sirois wrote that Trump was “pretty much an imbecile in everything, only he didn’t know he [was] an imbecile.”

In Pakistan, Imran Khan the populist prime minister (2018-2022), failed to create an atmosphere conducive to political reconciliation. Political stability remained elusive and there was no progress towards reducing the national economy’s acute reliance on external borrowing. If anything intolerance, panic and chaos in the society increased. Yet, he continues to use a populist rhetoric to target the country’s political, judicial and military leadership in order to accomplish his political objectives.

Democratic societies need to be wary of populism. Where it has taken hold there is a greater need for strengthening democratic institutions, promoting civic education to enhance citizens’ understanding of democratic principles and values, encouraging active political participation, inclusivity and diversity. It is crucial to develop robust mechanisms whereby fake news can be effectively stopped from spreading. Last but not least, international cooperation is vital to foster democratic values and strengthen democratic institutions in the affected societies.

The writer is a researcher and columnist. He can be reached at zakiir9669@gmail.com