Populist rhetoric seemingly dominates the socio-political landscape, as powerful (often extremist) messages are able to land, causing further insecurity among the pubic, in the already volatile political climate. Current perceptions often regard populism as a surface-level, baseless concept, essentially consisting of far right characters who are maliciously looking to gain soundbites in order to attack and even destruct the establishment. Whilst this might be true to an extent, it is an oversimplistic view lacking in the nuance and depth crucial to understanding this political tactic, which works effectively to become impactful. 

The danger of populism arguably lies in its relation to democracy, as it is often regarded as a threat, which again is true to an extent, however lacks detail or regard to how multifaceted this concept really is. Initially, we must question whether populism itself is actually democratic. Arguably, it is inherently democratic, as its originated from democratic nations and exists in democratic institutions that allow populists to be elected in to by popular democratic choice. This has been recently exemplified in the UK general election (July 2024) where Farage’s Reform party (a far right nationalist group formerly branded ‘UKIP’ and the ‘Brexit party’) won 14% of the vote, and were thus awarded 5 seats in the House of Commons, illustrating how populism works within democracies, and is really just another choice for the electorate in the democratic process of an election.  

However, the anti-democratic nature of populism can be taken in to account, as the messages from populists can undermine democracies, an idea that has become somewhat prevalent in current political discourse. The threat here lies internally, as populists are able to use their somewhat established positions within democracies to fire attack to these very same democratic institutions, capitalising on the failure of them in order to establish and promote their messages providing alternatives, thus appealing to those losing trust in or apathetic to the institutions, eroding democracy from within. This aligns with the spread of populist messages, as they don’t often dominate the political landscape constantly, yet often appear louder and more aggressive whilst current governments and institutions are suffering or seemingly failing. At this point, it is possible to take a binary approach to the relationship between populists and liberal democracies, as positive assumptions about populist can this manifest from the failures of democratic institutions. This change in the intensity of populist rhetorics works very effectively in a volatile political climate, and arguably becomes more effectively the more volatile politics becomes. Populism’s internal erosion makes it an effective force in damaging democracies, as democratic governments then face both internal and external threats. Internal from populists, and external from the events they must respond and react to.  

This leaves us questioning whether populism itself is actually democratic or whether it has become synonymous with democracy, whilst seemingly counterintuitively posing a significant threat to democracy as we know and understand it. Furthermore, we can question how significant the threat populists brings really is. It is widely regarded as a near colossal detriment to liberal democracy, or in extreme cases, to world order, but one might question whether the actions of a few individuals really makes this the case? I would be inclined to suggest that this narrative of populism as a threat to world order is not only hugely exacerbated, it is also not entirely true. Once populists are elected into powerful positions (e.g. Trump elected as president), it can become dangerous and a threat to world order once such individuals interfere with foreign policy on a mass scale, however the occurrence of such events is low, but even when in to power, the threat to ‘world’ order is often more of a threat to ‘western world’ order, not the entirety of the globe, indicating how these messages are susceptible to being hyperbolised. 

One could also ask whether populism brings its own sense of or understanding of democracy, as perhaps to them democratic power ought to lie with the people, and only with the people. This sort of approach enables the populists campaigns to gain a recognition among other moderate-extreme anarchists, opening up the impact of politics in another ideological dimension (compared to merely left-right politics). It therefore arguably  overlooks the core modern democratic components such as pluralism and liberalism, which many embrace and appreciate in social and political life. So can we therefore suggest that yes, populism is democratic but it ought to be appreciated on its own terms, in its  own form of populist democracy. 

Socially, the media plays a vital role in populism, as it effectively captures populist rhetoric in headlines, enabling the spread of the messages throughout mainstream media discussion.  

Populist activity can bring appeal to publishers as the alternative and often extreme statements and messages from such  populists provide a captivating stories, which media outlets can dramatise and gain more attention and thus more of a profit, highlighting how populist rhetorics can give them disproportionate air time (in relation to their actual impact on policy and politics), in a ‘celebritisation’ of sorts. The role of the media is thus very impactful and influential in the transcendence of populism from the political sphere to the social sphere, which does have an impact on politics. 

Populism is a highly flexible force, which is dangerous to democratic institutions as it enables populists to shape and reshape in order to suit the context within the political landscape, which ‘democraphiles’ would regard as weaponising. The core components of populism is flexible, as often the definitions take different meanings, highlighted how Trump increasingly shrunk the circle of ‘us,’ thus creating more of ‘them,’ who he commonly painted immigrants in a derogatory, dehumanising manner, or framed them as ‘terrorists,’ which is both intensely socially and politically impactful. Notably, this created a sense of insecure politics, that populists such as Trump appear to provide a cure to, as their policy ideas such as increasingly strict immigration policies promote them as saviours of American borders and thus saviours of American security (security being a concept craved in politics particularly during such tumultuous times). This illustrates how the flexibility underpinning populist concepts in hugely impactful and influential in a multifaceted way. 

Due to the immensely fluid, adaptable nature of populism, it can thus manifest itself into many different forms, and can become psychologically infiltrating. This is done notably in how populism works to appeal to the emotions, and to those emotionally vulnerable in relation to politics (e.g. to those frustrated, upset or angry at current politics), enabling them to land a more influential message that resonates due to its appeal among aspects of the public. 

In conclusion, it can therefore be seen quite how nuanced and multifaceted populism is conceptually, and how simplistic approaches are inadequate when considering the scope and depth of the concept. Furthermore, the intolerant visions and rhetorics can unveil in other aspects such as ethnocentrism and authoritarian personality, which bring their own set of issues and nuance, despite being intertwined within populism to a degree.