To discover the correlation between populism and authoritarianism (against liberal democracy), two points need to be discussed: 1) the institutional settings under populist regime, and 2) how populist institutions are correlated with authoritarianism, instead of democracy.
Based on Berlin’s understanding of populism as a political means to sustain positive liberty, Riker further distinguishes the populist and liberal democracy as two forms of democracy, and points out the ineradicable correlations between populist democracy and authoritarianism, while liberal democracy may not survive in populist regime.
In Riker’s context, the profound difference between populist democracy and liberal democracy is the interpretation of voting. Liberal view
…show more content…
For liberal institution, as a threat to rulers, it merely requires regular elections that would lead to possible rejection to rulers. However, for populist institution, to implement the “general will” generated from voting, the institutions should be able to rapidly facilitate decisions to embody popular decisions, and therefore it could execute swift changes in response to the popular sovereignty (Riker, 1982).
This answers the first question, about the differences between populist and liberal institutions. The next step is to the second question, about the correlation between populist institution and authoritarianism.
Riker argues the main threat to democracy in populism is the exceptional ability of ruler to subvert elections (Riker, 1982). Constitutional checks and balances on rulers are effective restraints on democratic despotism. However, because the populist institution requires swift changes to implement popular decisions, constitutional constrains would retard this process, which is therefore not populistically tolerable (Riker, 1982). As a result, populist institution requires the elimination of constitutional checks, which makes democratic elections fragile and vulnerable. Without sufficient restraints, to stay in power, rulers could prohibit elections they might lose, which leads to authoritarianism. Admittedly, such connection is not absolute. However, the empirical regularity of the emergence of authoritarianism within populist regime suggests that this could be the profound theoretical reason for the failure of populist democracy (Riker,
In all the history of America one thing has been made clear, historians can’t agree on much. It is valid seeing as none of them can travel back in time to actually experience the important events and even distinguish what has value and what doesn’t. Therefore all historians must make a leap and interpret the facts as best they can. The populist movement does not escape this paradox. Two views are widely accepted yet vastly different, the views of Richard Hofstadter and Lawrence Goodwyn. They disagree on whether populists were “isolated and paranoid bigots” or “sophisticated, empathetic egalitarians”; whether their leaders were “opportunists who victimized them” or “visionary economic theorists who liberated them”; whether their beliefs were rooted in the free silver campaign of the 1890s or the cooperative movement of the 1880s; and finally whether their ideal society was in the “agrarian past” or “the promise of a cooperative future”. They could not agree on anything, over all Richard Hofstadter seems to have a better idea of the truth of populism.
The People's Party, also known as the "Populists", was a short-lived political party in the United States established in 1891 during the Populist movement. It was most important in 1892-96, and then rapidly faded away. Based among poor, white cotton farmers in the South and hard-pressed wheat farmers in the plain states, it represented a radical crusading form of agrarianism and hostility to banks, railroads, and elites generally. It sometimes formed coalitions with labor unions, and in 1896, the Democrats endorsed their presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan. The terms "populist" and "populism" are commonly used for anti-elitist appeals in opposition to established interests and mainstream parties. Though the party did not win much of anything it did however shape the United States we know today.
After the civil war, especially during the late 1800s, the US industrial economy has been thriving and booming which reflected on the numerous improvements that occurred in transportation through new railroad, in new markets for new invented goods and in the increased farm yield. However, most of this wealth has been captured by the capitalists, they looked down on the working poor class and expected them to submit to them. Also, they had control over the government seeking to maintain a system of monopoly to allow them to grow richer from others. Thus, they were controlling both political and economic conditions of the country.
The Populist Party, a third political party that originated in America in the latter part of the nineteenth century, derived as a result of farmer discontent and economic distress. This was caused by the country's shift from an agricultural American life to one in which industrialists dominated the nation's development. The public felt as if they were being cheated by these "robber barons," a term given to those who took advantage of the middle and lower classes by "boldly stealing the fruits of their toils" (Morgan, 30). These corporate tycoons' conduct was legal, however ethically dubious it was. Cornelius Vanderbilt, a well-known railroad baron, reportedly once said, "Law! What do I care about the law? Hain't I got the power?" (Morgan, 30) The change from agrarian to industrial had a profound effect on everyone's life. Ignatius Donnelly, a leader in the Populist Party wrote, "We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench . . . A vast conspiracy against mankind has been organized" (Tindall, 957). As a result of this significant transformation, along with several different perspectives of peoples' mores, several reform movements were commenced, such as prohibition, socialism, and the Greenback Labor Party. Each of these movements was launched by different coalitions in hopes of making a difference either for themselves or for the good of the country. The farmers, specifically, were unhappy for four particular reasons: physical problems, social and intellectual concerns, economic difficulties, and political frustrations. The physical concerns the climate of the time period. Following 1885, there was a large drought on the American prairie, thus causing this land to become known as the "Dust Bowl." Furthermore, there were extreme blizzards resulting in innumerable deaths of cattle and livestock. Also, farms were very isolated causing the women and children to lead a life of solitude and boredom. They demanded change. In fact, the women were the ones to start libraries and other meeting places for themselves and their children. This isolation made schooling for children quite difficult. Most kids who lived on the farm did not receive a proper education, or one of any kind for that matter. Farmers' economic problems are more intricate. Events baffled the farmer. They believed that deflation was the cause of their problem.
By 1900, the Populist Party was in decline. (n.d.). The Populist Movement - Boundless Open Textbook Retrieved from
Fareed Zakaria’s The Rise of Illiberal Democracy expresses the views he has on the differences between liberal democracy and illiberal democracy, and which one causes civil war. He also explains how both types of democracy go hand in hand with other in the formation of the United State government and it constitution. Zakaria also talks about how majority of the countries in the world are democratic, but majority of which are an illiberal democracies. His ideals could also be reflected during the civil rights movement.
Populism had a positive and negative impact on life in the United States. Some of their ideas helped to create some of the laws that we have today. Some people saw that populism could hurt the country and create more problems. When in reality, their goals were to improve theirs and others lives as well by restoring their financial and industrial independence. (Document B)
Throughout the Populists’ many reform movements, liberal aspects to be skeptical towards power and individualistic suitably fit with them. Their goal was to bring about change that would meet standards that would bring about a sense of fairness and equality to all in the nation during the period of rapid industrialization. Fairness and equality would hinder the assault of corruption against the common man. Through their liberal movements as a political party, the Populists did bring about certain changes such as the 16th and 17th Amendments as well as the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce that majority of Americans have come to accept today. As their name states, the Populists renewed the sense that in democracy, the majority rules.
The harsh conditions experienced in the United States prompted the Americans to seek ways of improving the society. The populist movement is among the attempts made by a section of the American people to make desirable sociopolitical changes. City workers and farmers united under the Populist Party with the aim of mitigating the excesses of huge business firms (Piott, 2011). The Populist Party aimed at attaining the objective by electing a populist president. During the 1896 elections, the Populist Party candidate William Jennings Bryan lost the election, which caused a huge blow to the party. This development led to the collapse of the populist movement, but the ideas fostered by the movement remained. Even with the collapse of the progressive movement, the American populat...
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
Americans were not aware of the division among populists and progressivists during the late 19th and early 20th centuries yet they were aware of the division between Democrats and Republicans. Populism referred to a particular political style, which expressed alienation and aggression and tend to hate Wall Street and bank interests. Progressivism was a movement of the college-educated urban middle class, which valued expertise and efficiency and favored government regulation and foreign affairs.
In an authoritarian regime there are two kinds of people having their feet stick to the power, the soft-liner and the hardliners both groups present different chemistry in an authoritarian regime. More specifically the authors of the book identify these two groups as “duros” hardliners and blandos as soft-liners. The duros or hardliners are the ones who still believe that continuation of the authoritarian regimes in some cases are possible by ignoring and rejecting democratic reforms. In an authoritative regime these hardliners are composed of various fictions and layers and cling to the idea of position of authoritarian for various purpose and reasons. Some adopt this position to maintain and keep their positions
In his book International Politics on the World Stage John T. Rourke (2008) states that governments range from the strict authoritarian at one end of the spectrum to a completely unfettered democracy at the other end (p. 78). His definition of an authoritarian style government is a “political system that allows little or no participation in decision making by individuals and groups outside the upper reaches of the government” (p. G-1). Those of us who live in a country that has a democratic government may find it difficult to understand why people who live in countries with authoritarian governments do not revolt and change their system of government, but in fact a truly democratic system of government is a relatively new concept in the age of man.
Democracy is robust, widely accepted and highly anticipated around the world. It is the triumphant form of government; dominantly used in Europe, North and South and America and becoming reformed and taking new roots in Africa and Asia. Although the term democracy is based on its Greek origin, demos kratos, meaning people rule, the term cannot be simply understood as such. Due to vast coverage, the adaptation of democracy has varied greatly, whether regionally, nationally, by state or through different branches of government. Perhaps this can be advantageous when the different categorizations listed above can use democracy to rule and suit themselves best, but other factors, such as globalization and neoliberalism, has caused the need for
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.