Populism and Its Relationship with Democracy
Populism has an ambivalent relationship with democracy. On the one hand, it affirms the core democratic principle of power to the people. However, its pursuit of this principle can be rigorous to the point of zealousness, leading to the rejection of mediated representation. This has led some to view populism as a threat to democracy or even a “democratic pathology”.
Yet, others have posited that populism can also be seen as a symptom – a sign of something going on deeper under the surface. When the democratic practice falls short of the democratic ideal, and political elites are revealed to be corrupt, populists are likely to express dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of responsiveness to “the will of the people”. In this view, populism emerges when everyday realities of representative democracy leave too little room for the “voice of the people”.
Populist Citizens as Democratic Idealists
Research shows that populist citizens are especially likely to pick up on the gap between democratic practice and democratic ideal. This is because they are democratic idealists – they strongly support democracy as an ideal and even support most liberal democratic values. However, the flipside of this is that populist citizens are more likely than other citizens to express dissatisfaction with a perceived lack of responsiveness to “the will of the people”.
This suggests that populist attitudes could serve as a useful “thermometer” for assessing the quality of democracy. When populist citizens perceive that popular sovereignty is lacking in representative democracies, they may be responding to real deficiencies in how democracy is being practiced.
Participatory Budgeting as a Test Case
One tool that seeks to deepen or extend the role of citizens in democratic decision-making is participatory budgeting (PB). By giving citizens authority to decide on the allocation of part of the local budget, PB enhances the level of popular sovereignty in a democracy.
The question then becomes: how would populist citizens perceive a tool that seeks to address the shortcoming of lacking popular sovereignty? Previous research has shown that populist citizens are highly supportive of decision-making processes that take power away from the elite and give it back to the people. This support extends to direct democratic decision-making (referendums) and, contrary to what one might expect, even deliberative forms of democratic decision-making (citizens’ assemblies).
Populist Citizens’ Experiences with Participatory Budgeting
To better understand how populist citizens experience democratic innovations like PB, a recent study attended local PB meetings and measured populist attitudes among all participants before and after the events.
The findings were striking: among populist participants, participation in a PB led to a significant decrease in populist attitudes. Non-populist participants’ populist attitudes did not significantly change.
Interviews with populist participants whose populist attitudes dropped provided two key insights:
- They perceived that the process engaged them in political decision-making.
- They felt that the politicians and authorities present afforded them respect and recognition, listening and appreciating citizen input.
In other words, populist participants experienced the PB process as truly and respectfully giving some power back to the citizens. As one populist citizen noted, “politicians go to the residents and listen to what they have to say, but also the other way around. Look, now residents have a little influence on politics, and vice versa. It should be a two-way street and not a one-way street.”
Implications for Understanding Populism and Democratic Quality
These findings suggest that populism in citizens is closely related to whether they feel they have influence and authority in democracy. Populist citizens are “dissatisfied democrats” who feel there is not enough popular sovereignty in modern democracies. Democratic innovations like PBs, which give authority and influence to citizens, can decrease the level of populism among these “dissatisfied democrats” by diminishing the gap between democratic ideal and democratic practice.
In this light, populism may function more as a symptom of a perceived concentration of power in the hands of elites, rather than a pathology. Moreover, populist citizens do not necessarily prefer non-democratic forms of decision-making, but are rather opposed to mediated representation. When democratic practice approaches more participatory forms of democracy, populist citizens’ satisfaction increases.
This suggests that populist attitudes could serve as a useful “thermometer” for assessing the quality of democracy. By monitoring changes in populist attitudes in response to democratic reforms, policymakers and researchers may gain valuable insights into where representative democracies are falling short and how to better align practice with the ideals of popular sovereignty.
To learn more about the role of participatory budgeting in reducing populist attitudes, visit IT Fix. Our experts provide practical tips and in-depth insights on a range of technology and IT solutions.
Participatory Budgeting as a Tool for Improving Democratic Quality
Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic innovation that gives citizens a direct role in deciding how public funds are allocated. By empowering citizens in this way, PB has the potential to address the perceived lack of popular sovereignty that fuels populist discontent.
The research discussed in this article suggests that when populist citizens participate in PB, they experience a tangible increase in their sense of influence and authority within the democratic process. This, in turn, leads to a measurable decrease in their populist attitudes.
For policymakers and researchers interested in strengthening democratic quality, these findings offer important insights. By monitoring changes in populist attitudes in response to the implementation of PB and other democratic reforms, it may be possible to gain valuable feedback on where representative democracies are falling short and how to better align practice with the ideals of popular sovereignty.
Moreover, the success of PB in reducing populist attitudes among participants points to the broader potential of participatory democracy to address the root causes of populism. By creating more opportunities for citizens to directly shape the decisions that affect their lives, democracies may be able to channel populist energies into constructive civic engagement rather than antagonistic opposition.
Of course, the road to strengthening democratic quality is a complex one, with no single solution. But the insights gleaned from studying the relationship between populist attitudes and democratic innovations like PB can inform a more holistic approach to revitalizing representative democracy. By treating populist attitudes as a “thermometer” for assessing democratic health, policymakers and researchers can work to identify and address the specific deficiencies that fuel populist discontent.
At IT Fix, our team of experienced IT professionals is dedicated to providing practical, solutions-oriented content that helps readers navigate the ever-evolving technological landscape. We invite you to explore our resources on a wide range of topics, from computer repair to emerging trends in the IT industry.
Conclusion: Populism as a Symptom, Not a Pathology
The research discussed in this article suggests that populism may be better understood as a symptom of perceived deficiencies in democratic practice, rather than a pathology in itself. By empowering citizens through democratic innovations like participatory budgeting, it may be possible to channel populist energies into constructive civic engagement and strengthen the quality of representative democracy.
Importantly, this research also challenges the notion that populist citizens inherently prefer non-democratic forms of decision-making. Instead, the findings indicate that when the democratic process becomes more responsive to the “will of the people,” populist citizens become more satisfied and less inclined toward populist attitudes.
For policymakers and researchers, these insights offer a valuable framework for assessing the health of representative democracies. By treating populist attitudes as a “thermometer” for democratic quality, they can identify specific areas where practice falls short of the democratic ideal and work to implement reforms that better align with the principles of popular sovereignty.
At IT Fix, we believe that this type of holistic, solutions-oriented approach is crucial for addressing the complex challenges facing modern democracies. Through our in-depth articles and practical advice, we strive to empower readers with the knowledge and tools they need to navigate the rapidly changing technological landscape and contribute to the ongoing work of strengthening democratic institutions.
We encourage you to explore our resources and engage with our community of IT experts and enthusiasts. Together, we can work towards a future where representative democracies are responsive, inclusive, and resilient in the face of the challenges that lie ahead.
