Introduction

The concepts of populism and democracy have become central to contemporary political debates. Democracy, often considered the ideal form of governance, has undergone multiple transformations throughout history. According to Svensson (1995), democracy can be understood as a representative system of government that emphasizes the sovereignty of the people and political equality. One of its core variants, liberal democracy, combines representative government with the protection of individual rights. Liberalism, rooted in the value of freedom, recognizes the necessity of state authority to ensure order and the protection of rights, while simultaneously warning against the danger of concentrated state power.

Populism, by contrast, is based on the division of society into two antagonistic groups: the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite.” Populist leaders claim to embody the will of the people and present themselves as the only true alternative to an illegitimate system. While populism may emerge across the political spectrum, it often thrives on anti-elite sentiments and distrust in democratic institutions. (Molloy, 2018) Closely tied to populism is anti-politics—a form of political disillusionment and rejection of traditional institutions, which undermines confidence in representative democracy. (Wood, 2022) Both phenomena, when combined, pose significant risks to the functioning and stability of liberal democratic regimes.

This article critically examines these risks, with particular attention to polarization, concentration of power, attacks on the media, and the weakening of judicial independence. By drawing on theoretical perspectives and contemporary examples from Hungary and Poland, it highlights the challenges populism and anti-politics present to modern democracies.

​

Liberal Democracy, Populism, and Anti-Politics

The theoretical underpinnings of liberal democracy can be traced back to the works of John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville. Mill emphasized the fusion of liberty and democracy, envisioning government as a mechanism to promote the well-being of citizens. He highlighted the importance of civic participation but simultaneously questioned whether all individuals possessed the necessary knowledge to engage effectively in governance (Mill, 19th century). Tocqueville, meanwhile, warned against the despotic tendencies of majoritarian rule, stressing the need for institutional safeguards that preserve individual liberty (Tocqueville, 19th century).

​

These theoretical insights remain highly relevant today, as democracies face increasing polarization, rising populist movements, and public disillusionment with political elites. Populism frames the people as a homogeneous moral force, while elites are portrayed as corrupt actors serving foreign interests or their own gain (Molloy 2018; Rooduijn 2024). Populist leaders frequently employ emotionally charged rhetoric, proclaiming that the nation faces an existential crisis requiring radical solutions. This style of communication, often simplified and confrontational, resonates with large audiences, particularly in the age of social media.

​

Anti-politics, on the other hand, reflects a deep distrust of representative mechanisms, advocating for direct participation through referenda, civic initiatives, or technocratic solutions (Wood 2022). While not inherently opposed to democracy, anti-politics undermines the legitimacy of existing institutions, thereby creating opportunities for populist leaders to concentrate power.

​

Risks to Liberal Democracy

​

1.Polarization

One of the most evident risks is the polarization of society. While a certain degree of political competition can be healthy, excessive polarization transforms opponents into enemies, thereby eroding democratic norms (McCoy 2024; Talisse 2024). In highly polarized contexts, ruling parties may justify undemocratic practices under the guise of protecting the “greater good.” Supporters, perceiving the opposition as existential threats, often tolerate such practices. This vicious cycle gradually undermines democratic institutions and increases the risk of authoritarianism.

​

2. Personalization of Power

​

Populism often centers on charismatic leaders who claim to uniquely represent the will of the people. This personalization of power weakens collective decision-making and erodes institutional checks and balances. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) identify indicators of authoritarian behavior, including rejection of democratic rules, denial of opponents’ legitimacy, tolerance of violence, and readiness to restrict civil liberties. Populist leaders frequently exploit crises to consolidate authority, often portraying political opponents as criminals or national security threats.

​

3. Restrictions on Media Freedom

Independent journalism is essential for accountability in liberal democracy. However, populist governments often target the media to control public narratives. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s administration has systematically curtailed press freedom since 2010. According to Human Rights Watch (2024), the Hungarian government centralized control over public broadcasting, marginalized independent outlets, and harassed investigative journalists. The erosion of media freedom not only reduces pluralism but also creates a climate of fear and self-censorship, thereby weakening one of the core pillars of democracy.

​

4. Erosion of Judicial Independence

Judicial reforms in Poland illustrate another risk associated with populism and anti-politics. Since 2015, the Law and Justice Party (PiS) has systematically undermined the independence of the judiciary by appointing loyal judges and bypassing constitutional procedures (Schmitz, 2024). These actions have weakened the system of checks and balances, reduced public trust in legal institutions, and challenged the core principles of the rule of law. The EU has repeatedly expressed concern over these developments, highlighting their potential to destabilize democratic governance and concentrate power within the ruling party.

​

Strategies of Resilience

Mitigating the risks of populism and anti-politics requires a multifaceted approach. First, democratic resilience depends on informed and critically engaged citizens. Education systems must strengthen media literacy and critical thinking to help citizens distinguish between facts and manipulation. Second, institutions such as independent courts, free media, and watchdog organizations must be shielded from political interference. Third, civil society plays a crucial role in maintaining democratic accountability by mobilizing citizens and fostering participation in public life. As Mareš and Výborný (2013) argue, militant democracy—actively defending democratic values—may be necessary to counter movements that seek to dismantle democratic institutions.

​

Conclusion

Populism and anti-politics represent significant challenges to liberal democracy. By fostering polarization, concentrating power in charismatic leaders, curbing media freedom, and undermining judicial independence, they weaken the core values of democratic governance. The cases of Hungary and Poland illustrate how these dynamics manifest in practice, with consequences that extend beyond national borders.

Yet these phenomena should not be viewed in isolation. They are symptoms of deeper structural issues—citizens’ alienation from political elites, unmet expectations, and declining trust in institutions. To safeguard democracy, liberal regimes must adapt through institutional reforms, greater transparency, and sustained efforts to rebuild trust between citizens and political representatives. Education and active civic engagement are essential in this endeavor. Only through such measures can liberal democracies withstand the destabilizing pressures of populism and anti-politics in an increasingly volatile world.

​

References

​

Human Rights Watch. Hungary: Media Curbs Harm Rule of Law. February 13, 2024. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/13/hungary-media-curbs-harm-rule-law.

Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. 1st ed. Prague: Prostor, 2018. ISBN 978-80-7260-394-7.

Mareš, Miroslav, and Štěpán Výborný. Militant Democracy in Central Europe. 1st ed. Brno: CDK, 2013. ISBN 978-80-7325-326-4.

McCoy, Jennifer. “Polarization Harms Democracy and Society.” Peace in Progress Magazine (blog), 2024. Available at: https://www.icip.cat/perlapau/en/article/polarization-harms-democracy-and-society/.

Molloy, David. “What Is Populism, and What Does the Term Actually Mean?” March 6, 2018. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43301423.

Rooduijn, Matthijs. “Populism Has Been Used to Describe Countless and Often Conflicting Political Parties, but It Can Be Defined.” Democratic Audit UK, 2024. Available at: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63210/1/democraticaudit.com-Populism%20has%20been%20used%20to%20describe%20countless%20and%20often%20co
nflicting%20political%20parties%20but%20it%20can%20be%20de.pdf

​

Schmitz, Rob. “Poland’s Judiciary Was a Tool of Its Government. New Leaders Are Trying to Undo That.” NPR, February 26, 2024, Europe section. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1232834640/poland-courts-judicial-reform-donald-tusk.

Svensson, Palle. Theory of Democracy. 1st ed. Brno: CDK, 1995. ISBN 80-85959-02-X.

Talisse, Robert B. “When Is Political Polarization Good and When Does It Go Bad?” Greater Good, 2024. Available at: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/when_is_political_polarization_good_and_when
_does_it_go_bad.

Wood, Matthew. “The Political Ideas Underpinning Political Distrust: Analysing Four Types of Anti-Politics.” Journal of Representative Democracy 58, no. 1 (January 2, 2022): 27–48. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2021.1954076.