Brian Grodsky, University of Maryland Baltimore County – How Populism Impedes Democracies and Galvanizes Authoritarianism

Populism can function differently when it’s not paired with democracies.

Brian Grodsky, chair and professor in the department of political science at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, explains the benefits.

Brian Grodsky is a Professor of Comparative Politics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. His research interests include democratization, human rights, disaster management, and U.S. foreign policy.

His four books include: The Costs of Justice (University of Notre Dame Press 2010); Social Movements and the New State: The Fate of Pro-Democracy Organizations When Democracy is Won (Stanford University Press 2012); The Democratization Disconnect (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016); and The Democracy Disadvantage: How Populism Impedes Democracy and Galvanizes Authoritarianism in the Face of Disaster (Rowman & Littlefield, 2024).

His articles have appeared in journals including European Journal of International Relations, Journal of Peace Research, Journal of Human Rights, International Studies Review, Government and Opposition, Slavic Review, Europe-Asia Studies, Democratization, Human Rights Review, World Affairs

How Populism Impedes Democracies and Galvanizes Authoritarianism

There is a common belief that the rising tide of populism seen around the world threatens to weaken political responsiveness and lead to poor policy choices. This is unsurprising since the majority of work on populism focuses on how it plays out in democratic states and societies. In this democratic context, populists typically have the effect of dividing societies, weakening existing institutions, and selling their own easy solutions to complex problems. None of this lends to great policy.

But populism is just a political strategy. So it would make sense that populists will act somewhat differently based on the sorts of institutions in which they function. These institutions, in turn, are part of a broader regime – for example, a democratic or non-democratic regime. We should expect a state’s regime – democratic or non-democratic – to have a powerful impact on how populism plays out.

In my research into disaster response to the COVID pandemic, I find that populism can actually have a positive role on policy depending on the regime in which it functions. My findings suggest that populism is arguably most dangerous in democracies, where it compels leaders with already short time horizons and limited power to pursue the quickest, most popular policies no matter how sub-optimal they may be.

By contrast, in non-democracies, where leaders have the longer time horizons, centralized power structures, and political strength necessary to act more deliberately and independently, populism can compel leaders to pay more attention to their public.

In other words, while democratic populists are inclined toward shortcuts that will bolster their legitimacy in the short term, authoritarian populists are incentivized to take tough steps to effectively address a problem to bolster their popular legitimacy over the longer term.