Introduction
Since the 1990s, Latin American and America have witnessed a re-emergence of popular political parties and populist actors. This emergence is usually due to the crisis of democratic systems and most importantly, crisis of the representation form of democracy. When ‘the people’ do not feel that they can properly voice their dissatisfied-opinions effectively, or when they feel their interest are not with the (democratic) government, populism can begin to arise. According to Abts and Rummens (2007, p 418), democracy is based on the idea of an open and diverse integrate society. Populism on the other hand, is based on a close form of collective identity which represses individuality. Place side by side, it is apparent that populism is deemed a threat to the very existence of democracy. Therefore there have been growing scholarly debate about the concept of populism and its impact on democracy. Kaltwesser (2012, p 147) argues the growing interest in the topic of populism is due to the common opinion that populism embodies a sort of dangerous trend. This dangerous trend lays emphasis on the idea of popular sovereignty (which may pursue exclusion) as a problem for democracy. Nonetheless, some scholars like Akkerman (2003) and, Meny and Surel (2002) see populism as a progressive and a challenging tool towards democracy.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Thus this essay
contends the argument that, populism is not just seen as a threat to democracy,
it is also a seen as challenge to democracy. On the bases of being a threat,
populism is seen as somewhat an alternative to democracy. It also creates
situations that disrupt the processes of democracy. On the other hand, populism
as a challenge to democracy highlights the problems within a democracy and
pushes for the political elites and institutions to attend to such problems.
This argument
will be achieved through the following aims. Firstly, the existing relationship
between populism and democracy. Secondly, how populism is a threat to
democracy. Thirdly, how populism is a challenge to democracy. This essay will
then conclude by giving final thoughts on this topic of populism and a summary
of what this essay has addressed.
Populism and Democracy
This section
will look at the definitions of populism and democracy in brief. The importance
of this section is to solidify why this topic is an issue in the first place by
exploring the relationship between populism and democracy.
The origin of
the populism concept can be traced back to the end of the 19th century,
which when the so-called Narodniki in
Russia and the Populist Party in the United States and emerged (Canovan, 1981,
p 5 – 6). Urbinati (2014) defines populism as a virtue of political
mobilisation (p 128). It is the idea of people of a popular sovereignty and a
political style that strives on the division between ‘the people’ (i.e. a “we”)
and the elites (i.e. the leaders who claim to speak for the will of ‘the people’).
Democracy on the
other hand, is a highly contested concept in the social sciences which is as
old as time. All adjectives aside, Mudde and Kaltwasser (2013) define democracy
as “the combination of popular
sovereignty and majority rule” (p 10). In other words, it is a political
system in which people rule (Przeworski, 2010, p 8 – 9).
The relationship
between populism and democracy is that, populism emerged pertly as a by-product
of democracy. Since democracy is based on elections, it provides a mechanism by
which ‘the people’ can channel their dissatisfaction with the political establishment
(Mudde and Kaltwasser, 2013, p 17). In theory, the relationship between
populism and democracy is a positive one as argued by (Mudde and Kaltwasser,
2013, p 17) because it is viewed in support of popular sovereignty and majority
rule. As Arditi (2004) has indicated in his dialogue with Canovan (1999) there
are good reasons to think that populism follows democracy like a shadow. For
example, if aspirations generated by democracy are not satisfied with,
political discontent is created thus leading towards the rise of populism. Scholars
like Green (2006) argue that populism is democratic in nature even if many
populist leaders may not democratically incline once they reach power.
Therefore it is expected that populism plays a role during the first part of
democratisation by giving a voice to ‘the people’. This in turn attacks
authoritarian establishments and push for the realisation of a free and fair
election (Mudde and Kaltwasser, 2012, p 18).
In the form of
representation, scholars such as Taggart (2002, p 17) argue that populism is
fundamentally opposed to representation. However, Mudde and Kaltwasser (2013, p
17) argue that this is an overstatement. This is because populists rally only
against the wrong kind of representation, not representation in general. The
wrong kind of representation here is the kind that fails ‘the people’ and
limits itself away from the plebiscitary instruments. Populists criticise
parliamentary democracy because it takes the opinion of a part of ‘the people’
and merge it with the will of the state (Urbinati, 2014, p 128). Populists
therefore accept representation by some of ‘the people’ and not of the elites.
In its liberal
form, Meny and Surel (2002, p 6) argue that this relationship exists solely on
the contradictions of liberal democracy i.e. the promise of majority rule and
the protection of rights. Populism here advocates for the former as opposed to
the latter because it believes in “the
general will of the people”. Thus it is hostile towards the pluralist idea
of the protection of minorities.  As Mudde
(2010, p 1175) has argued, the primacy of the political i.e. “…the general will of the people cannot be
limited by anything, not even the constitutional protection of minorities, that
is vox populi, vox dei”. Populism seeks to implement an agenda in hostility
against liberalism and its principles of minority rights (Urbinati, 2014, p 128
– 129).
In the words of Dahl
Robert (1956), populism gives the demos total and final control over the
political order, in other words, the control of the majority. Laclau (2005) adds
that it takes the advantage of the government by opinion and makes the
impression that the opinion belongs to one public (Urbinati, 2014, p. 132-134).
Thus it can be said that populism is like a parasite that attaches itself to
democracy. Hence arguments arise on whether populism is a threat to democracy
or not.
A Threat to Democracy
This section
shows how populism is a threat by ways of its deep demarcation between ‘the
people’ and the elites, its explosive nature, its exclusive nature and lastly,
its automatic political assumptions.
Populism as a threat to democracy is exemplified through the way the term populism is given a negative connotation usually by the press, and when leaders reject the term as a description of themselves or their strategies (Panizza 2005). Populism is often used as disqualifying label for example, how Donald Trump’s presidential win has been presented (Fleurbaey, 2016). Some scholars connect the advent of populism with the suggestion that the democratic regime is not functioning appropriately. Thus its appearance is perceived as a threat about the defects, limits and weaknesses of a representative system.
Mudde and Kaltwasser
(2015) argue that populism establishes a political cleavage between the
populists versus the non-populists, which impedes the formation of stable
political coalitions. Canovan (1999) presents populism as a shadow of
democracy. She argues that the populist mobilisation arises in the gap between
‘the people’ and the elites, primarily as a way to counteract the pragmatic
excesses of established democracies (Adriti, 2004, p 28). Populism can hardly
exist without the politics of personality (Urbinati, 2013, p 161), thus it can transform
leaders into quasi-messianic figures for whom accountability is not a significant
matter. Alternatively, this gap between ‘the people’ and the elites becomes a
justification for using “…strong arm
tactics against political adversaries” (Arditi, 2004, p 30). The populist disdain
for institutional checks and balances can encourage a rule by decree and all
sorts of authoritarian behaviour while still maintaining a democratic façade.  This is because for populism, popular sovereignty
is the chief importance of democracy. Populism not only accepts the existence
of a dividing line between ‘the people’ and the elites, it also seeks to
construct a political model in which representative institutions are not essential
(Kaltwasser, 2012, p 188), representative institutions are essential to
(representative and liberal) democracy. Populist leaders claim to put powers
back into the hands of ‘the people’, thus voters lose trust in the problem
solving capacity of the democratic constitutional system Mair (2002, p 84).
This democratic form of system then becomes less and less attractive for the
electorate.
Another way in
which populism is a threat to democracy is their explosive nature. Bryder
(2009, p 10) argues that politically, populism discourses are often intolerant,
they legitimise on the exclusion of others who do not fit within their
definition of ‘the people’.  For example
populist parties usually oppose to immigrants, Lega Nord (a regional political
party in Italy) takes a hard-line towards Muslim foreigners. Alternatively, Diamond
furthers this example by arguing that populism has a possibility of
transforming into an illiberal threat to democracy (2017, p. 8). This is
because it targets certain social groups such as immigrants. While the members
of this targeted group are naturally not full citizens, some of them are.
Diamond further argues that if the rhetoric of European nativist parties such as
the Front National (FN) is studied, it will not be difficult to detect that
such parties hold a broader narrative on racism and this narrative also applies
to people of the targeted group of national origin who have in fact become
citizens or are even native born as well (2017, p 9).  Brdyer (2009, p 11) argues that populism
breeds a hostile environment towards intellectual and political elites. The
legitimisations of populists’ political opponents are ridiculed thus implying
that they are not seen as adversaries but as evil enemies. This ridicule hence
creates a permanent situation of conflict which is not conducive for democracy
to exist. As Carlos de la Torre (2010) has argued, almost every Latin American
populist leader is likely to describe political opposition as a full on war
between ‘the people’ and their enemies. From this viewpoint, the respect of
certain rules of the democratic game is ignored (Kaltwasser, 2012, p 199).
Subsequently, a great portion of the Latin American populace are living in
poverty and suffers different forms of exclusion, populism as a phenomenon has
a higher possibility of fostering inclusiveness but at the same time, at the
cost of public contestation. Diamond (2017, p 6) shares this same view. He
argues that populism becomes a threat to liberal democracy when it becomes
culturally exclusionary. Secondly, populism is a threat also when it clings to
its hegemonic pretensions by exhibiting contempt for pluralist notions which
intrinsically, respects differences and opposition (p 6 – 7). Furthermore, he
argues that populism becomes a threat to democracy when it rejects democratic
pluralism and presents that its leader and its party are the only true and
legitimate manifestation of the popular will of ‘the people’ (p 7). Therefore,
populism rejects an emblematic structure in which the political stage for a
democratic political debate is defined (Abts and Rummens, 2007, p 411).
Furthermore,
populism threatens democracy in its political assumptions. It can lead to high
levels of moralisation in politics making compromise and consensus extremely
difficult. Enyedi (2017) argues that populism is a threat to democracy chiefly
because it holds the possibility of providing the state with a moral status
that is usually absent. He also argues that when a state turns into this epitome
of ‘the virtuous people’ the defence mechanisms that were established against
tyranny (such as freedoms, the rule of law, checks and balances, autonomous
social institutions, tolerance, individual and group rights, or pluralism) are predictably
under threat (2017). Once the limitation of the oppressed people is achieved,
there is no self-limitation programme into the populism structure. Populism is
often swayed by public opinions due to its plebiscitary view on democracy,
decision becomes more responsive as oppose to being negotiated (Bryder, 2009, p
11) as done in democracies. The legitimacy of democratic institutions becomes
undermined. Thus the quality of the decision making processes within a
democracy becomes diminished (Decker, 2003, p 64). Subsequently, the populist
theory of voting can lead to a tyranny of the majority. If the outcome of an
election is deemed to be a reflection of the popular will of ‘the people’, it
is implemented immediately into public policy (Haskell, 2001, p 12). This means
that populism uses the notion and praxis of a majority rule to evade minority
rights.
Notwithstanding
these arguments on the threats that populism poses for democracy, there are
some scholars who argue on a different line. 
These scholars believe that populism has been painted in a bad light and
that in fact, populism rather exercises democracy, and it challenges democracy.
A Challenge to Democracy
This section
engages with the notion that populism is not just a bad phenomenon toward
democracy (as viewed in the previous section). Rather it presents itself as a
challenging tool toward problems of inequality, the party system and lastly, it
presents populism as a challenging tool toward global democracy.
Populism does
not aim to abolish the democratic system, instead, they want to restore and
reform it in such a way that it emphasises the fundamental principal of its
existence, which is the direct rule of the sovereign will of ‘the people’. In
the same manner, populism is treated as a reminder that democracy is not
something that is automatically given, but something that should adjust to
changing circumstances of the needs of ‘the people’ (Akkerman, 2003, p
156-158).
Populism is
deemed as constructive towards democracy when circumstances arising from
extreme inequality are objectively setting in motion, a limited circle of
privileged elite against the large portion of the populace. Scholars like Meny
and Surel (2002, p 15) see populism in a good light, a “fever warning”, as they both put it. They argue that populism
serves as a signal highlighting the defects of a representative democracy. Taggart
(2000) proposes populism as a health indicator in representative political
systems because it draws attention to any sporadic malfunctioning that
transpires in a political system thus, the elites become aware that they need
to take politics to ‘the people’ (Deiwiks, 2009, p 4 and Akkerman, 2003, p 154).
Populism more than anything, tries to challenge the status quo. Of which this
is done by way of introducing new issues of political agenda or by deconstructing
the political consensus on old issues of political agenda.  Populism depoliticises and brings
revitalisation to dull and stationary political discourse of mainstream parties.
According to Decker (2003, p 56), populism challenges and forces elites to deal
with matters by resolving them within the system which in turn, prevents the channelling
of discontent into violence and sectarianism procedures (Bryder, 2009, p 12).
Populism not
only posts a challenge to democratic system as a whole, but for party system
within democracy as well. Although populists organise themselves in political
parties because they want to be able to compete against mainstream parties, one
of their main postulates is the eliminations of political parties (Bryder,
2003, p13). Some populist parties can also try to “join the club” or “take over”
weakest members as explained by Meny and Surel (2002, p 19). Populist parties
such as the British populist radical right party, Veritas (a split from UKIP)
won 27 seats in parliamentary elections in 2005 in which shows the political
force populist parties have against mainstream parties. Bryder (2013, p 20)
argues that this populist style of leadership (that is, the direct relationship
between the leader and the followers) and form of organisation are often copied
by mainstream political parties. This is because it is believed that the
populist tactics will help gain lost electorates and also, sometimes mainstream
parties use populist challenge to out-vote authoritarian laws, which in usual democratic
political conditions will not be promising to establish.
Populism parties
does not only post challenges by being in the margins of a political scene,
they also challenge the notion of parliamentary democracy. Radical populism
contends the argument that all legislative power belongs to ‘the people’ and to
parliament thus legislative power should not be separated (Akkerman, 2003, p 156).
Balancing power through non-elected judges for instance is therefore opposing
to populist principle (Akkerman, 2003, p 159). Radical version of populism
disregards the principle of separation and spreading of powers. Normal Populist
movements fight over the meaning of representation in democracies. This is
because populist politicians present themselves as leaders above party
pluralism and make claims in the name of the will of ‘the people’ (Fleurbaey,
2016). Thus the constitutional procedures for election and representative
governance are challenged. Such strains can open the door to regime change in
the direction of better representation (Fleurbaey, 2016). Politicians are
regularly accused of having lost touch with the concerns of the “common
people”. Mostly in consolidated democracies, populism can lead to electoral
apathy. When ‘the people’ experience social distress arising economic
inequality, their governing leaders become indifferent (Fleurbaey, 2016). In
such case, ‘the people’ can turn away from practical politics and seek a break
from the established norms of democracy (Fleurbaey, 2016).
Globally,
populism as argued by Fleubaey (2016) plays two roles. Firstly it denounces
social inequality and decreases the privileges of the elite few. It also calls
for a renewed national unity in the name of ‘the people’. Secondly, by
highlighting ethic understandings of democratic popular sovereignty, it lays
bare the weakness of many liberal democratic norms, and shows how dependent on
underlying social conditions modern representative democracy can be. The
consequence of neoliberal supremacy is the creation of an oligarchic regime
which is reflected on the socio-economic and political levels of a democratic
society (Mouffe, 2017). Mouffe further argues that it is this presence or
oligarchy in European societies and politics that allows for the success of
right wing Populist parties. Populist parties are usually the ones who denounce
this oligarchy situation and assure to ‘the people’ to give back the power to them,
which has been confiscated by the elites. However, this is often achieved in
xenophobic demands. Additionally, Wodak (2017) argues that these right wing
populist political parties claim that only they represent the ‘real people’ (in
a nativist and culturist sense). This philosophy is a deep manifestation of an
authoritarian mind set. Wodak further explains that these right wing populist
parties tend to construct and reinforce threat and danger situations. However,
Mouffe argues that such populism is not needed in this situation. She calls for
a progressive kind of populism, a creation of a progressive ‘people’ which will
not lead to the establishment of a political frontier between an ‘us’ versus a
‘them’ which pits some dominated groups against others. Instead, there should
be a progressive construction of an ‘us’ that challenges the post-democratic
regression caused by the hegemony of neo liberalism.
Conclusion
Populism arises
from due to the problems of democracy, be it in its representative,
institutional, parliamentary or constitutional form. Benjamin Arditi
(2003, p 21) argues, that the usual way of identifying the relationship between
populism an (representative) democracy, is to say that populism arises
as the result of a crisis of representation. Populism also arises as a reaction
to either the inability or the rejection of elites to address the concerns of
‘the people’. For populism to arise there has to be this singular collective of
‘the people’. The populist ideology is a radical contestation of power an
opinion and should not be mistaken as an ideology of dispersion or antagonism.
Although populism claims to be in tally with popular opinions and popular will,
it is however, not totally friendly towards democracy, as presented in the body
of this essay. Populism is often presented in the press to define some recent
political developments with a negative connotation. However, some observers see
populism in a more optimistic light, as a form of direct democracy.
Although this
essay is limited to text based research, it has however been able to expand on
the thesis that populism is a double edge sword. While populism threatens the
structure of democratic procedures and infrastructures, populism is also deemed
to challenge democracy. Populism views democracy as a hegemonic conflict in
which the views of the elites dominate the views an opinions of ‘the people’.
Populist movements serve as a teller to the political elites within a democracy
that they are not doing something right to reflect the needs of ‘the people’. As
Kaltwasser (2012) argues that “Populism
can provide an ideological bridge that supports the building of important
social and political coalitions, of ten across class lines”. Hence in a
way, re-connects the democratic governments with its peoples’ needs.
As presented by
this essay, there is no one single answer to the question. Thus, populism can
be seen as both a threat to democracy and a challenge to democracy.
Bibliography
Abts, K and Rummens, S. (2007). Populism versus Democracy. Political Studies, 55(2), 405-424.
Akkerman, T. (2003). Populism and Democracy: Challenge
or Pathology? Acta Politica, 38(2),
147-159.
Arditi, B. (2003). Populism, or, Politics at the Edges
of Democracy. Contemporary Politics,
9(1), 17-31.
Arditi, B. (2004). Populism as a
Spectre of Democracy: A Response to Canovan. Political Studies, 52(1), 135-134.
Bryder, T. (2009). Populism: A threat or a challenge for the Democratic System? University of Copenhagen Faculty of
Social Science Department of Political Science Winter, 10 ECTS. Available
form  http://politicalscience.ku.dk/international_students/present_international_students/taking_exams/past_papers/Populism___a_threat_or_a_challenge_for_the_democratic_system.pdf
[Accessed 22 April 2018].
Canovan, M. (1981). Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace
Javonovich.
Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the People! Populism and the Two
Faces of Democracy. Political Studies, 47, 2-16.
Dahl, R. (1956). A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Deiwiks, C. (2009). Populism. Living Reviews in Democracy. Available from https://lrd.ethz.ch/index.php/lrd/article/viewPDFInterstitial/lrd-2009-3/11 [Accessed 20 April 2018].
Decker, F. (2003). The Populist Challenge to Liberal
Democracy. Cite Seerx. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.560.306&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed 22 April 2018].
Diamond, L. (2017). When Does Populism Become a Threat to
Democracy? FSI Conference on Global
Populisms. Stanford. 3-4 November. Stanford: Stanford University, 1 -10.
Enyedi, Z. (2017). Five views: Is Populism Really a Threat to
Democracy? LSE. Available from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/07/24/is-populism-really-a-threat-to-democracy/ [Accesse 23 April 2018].
Fleurbaey, M. (2016). Why Populism Challenges Democracy from
Within. The American Prospect.
Available from http://prospect.org/article/why-populism-challenges-democracy-within [Accessed 22 April 2018].
Green, J. (2006). The Rebirth of Populism. Global Policy Forum. Available from https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162/27963.html [Accessed 22 April 2018].
Haskell, J. (2001). Direct Democracy or Representative
Government? Dispelling the Populist Myth. Boulder: Westview Press.
Kaltwasser, C. (2012). The
Ambivalence of Populism: threat and Corrective for Democracy. Democratisation, 19(2), 184-208.
Laclau, E. (2005). On
Populist Reason. London: Verso.
Mair, P. (2002). Populist Democracy vs Party Democracy. In: Democracies
and the Populist Challenge. Mény, Y. and Surel, Y. (eds.),  New York: Palgrave.
Meny, Y. and Surel, Y. (2002). The Constitutive Ambiguity of
Populism. In: Democracies and the
Populist Challenge. Meny, Y. and Surel, Y. (eds.), New York: Palgrave, 1 –
21.
Mouffe, C. (2017). Five views: Is Populism Really a Threat to
Democracy? LSE. Available from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/07/24/is-populism-really-a-threat-to-democracy/ [Accesse 23 April 2018].
Mudde, C. (2010). The Populist Radical Right: A Pathological
Normalcy. West European Politics,
33(6), 1167 — 1186.
Mudde, C. and Kaltwasse, R. (2012). Populism and (Liberal)
Democracy: A Framework for Analysis. Research
Gate. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292566457_Populism_and_Liberal_democracy_A_framework_for_analysis [Accesse 22 April 2018].
Mudde, C. and Kaltwasser, R. (2013). Populism in Europe and
the Americas Threat or Corrective for Democracy? Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mudde, C. and Kaltwasser, R. (2015). Vox Populi or Vox
Masculini? Populism and Gender in Northern Europe and South America. Patterns of Prejudice, 49(1-2), 16-36.
Panizza, F. (2005). Populism
and the Mirror of Democracy. London: Verso.
Pankowski, R. (2010). The
Populist Radical Right in Poland: The Patriots. London: Routledge.
Taggart, P. (2000). Populism.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Taggart, P. (2002). Populism and the Pathology of
Representative Politics. In: Democracies and the Populist Challenge.
Meny, Y. and Surel, Y (eds.), New York: Palgrave.
Torre, C. (2004). Populist
Seduction in Latin America. Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Urbinati, N. (2013). Sismonde de Sismondi’s Aristocratic
Republicanism. European Journal of
Political Theory, 12(2), 153-174.
Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy
Disfigured. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
Wodak, R. (2017). Five views: Is Populism Really a Threat to
Democracy? LSE. Available from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/07/24/is-populism-really-a-threat-to-democracy/ [Accesse 23 April 2018].