Authoritarian Populism

Authoritarian populism is understood in political science as a phenomenon in which governments that come to power through democratic processes gradually exhibit authoritarian tendencies while maintaining or even increasing their support within society. This concept refers specifically to the process by which leaders and parties elected through elections centralize political power, weaken institutional checks and balances, and restrict the influence of the opposition. In authoritarian populist practices, the principle of separation of powers gradually becomes dysfunctional as the executive’s influence over the legislature and judiciary increases. This situation leads to both the erosion of the rule of law and the undermining of the independence of democratic institutions.

Moreover, authoritarian populist regimes promote a form of political legitimacy based on individual charisma by emphasizing a cult of the leader. The leader presents himself as the “true representative of the people” and often governs through a polarizing discourse that divides society into “us” and “them.” This discourse strengthens the loyalty of supporters while facilitating the exclusion of opposition groups and deepening political fragmentation.

Political scientists emphasize that authoritarian populism is not confined to specific regions but is rising on a global scale. This trend can be observed in different continents under varying historical and social conditions, yet it exhibits similar core characteristics. Academic literature argues that authoritarian populism constitutes a serious threat to liberal democracies, contributes to the decline of democratic standards, and weakens the culture of social consensus over the long term.

Historical Origins and Conceptualization

The concept of authoritarian populism began to be discussed in political science literature in the 1980s. One of the pioneering scholars in this field, Stuart Hall, introduced the concept while analyzing the policies of Margaret Thatcher’s conservative government in the United Kingdom. Hall examined together Thatcher’s neoliberal economic reforms and her methods of consolidating social support during the early 1980s, highlighting the explanatory power of the authoritarian populism concept.

The Thatcher government implemented neoliberal policies that restricted the economic, cultural, and political rights of the working class, yet succeeded in securing significant social support from precisely those segments. According to Hall’s analysis, this contradictory situation can be explained by the emotional and ideological tools of populism. Thatcher effectively employed popular nationalist discourses such as patriotism, nationalism, and traditional values to incorporate different segments of society into her political project. The 1982 Falklands War, in particular, served as a turning point that strengthened narratives of unity and patriotism; within this atmosphere, the Thatcher administration framed domestic events such as the major miners’ strikes as threats from an “internal enemy.” Thus, despite their economic interests conflicting with government policies, a significant portion of the working class continued to support the government.

In explaining this phenomenon, Hall drew on Louis Althusser’s concept of “interpellation.” According to Althusser, although the capitalist system appears to be built upon individual autonomy under normal conditions, during crises it mobilizes collective and emotional categories such as “nation,” “people,” and “patriotism” to maintain social cohesion. This ideological appeal redirects individuals away from their specific class interests toward the dominant ideology. If no alternative to this dominant ideology is developed, masses cannot resist this call. Hall attributed the success of Thatcherism to the repositioning of the working class through nationalist and conservative values, thereby establishing a hegemonic style of rule.

Thatcher’s presentation of Victorian conservative values as “the unquestionable benchmarks of common sense” found strong resonance particularly among lower-middle classes and certain segments of the working class. Thus, the contradictions between economic interests and political preferences were ideologically balanced, ensuring the continuity of power. Thatcher’s 1985 statement, “Historically, Thatcherism will be viewed as a compliment,” is significant because it suggests that this political style was not merely a transient phenomenon but carried potential extending into the future. Indeed, the rise of various versions of Thatcherism on political stages in different countries during the 2000s is regarded as a development confirming Hall’s analysis.

Authoritarian Populism and Democracy

The tension between authoritarian populism and democracy has become one of the most important conflict axes of 21st-century politics. Authoritarian populists typically view democracy as merely the process of winning elections. After winning elections, they claim to act in the name of the “national will” and believe they have the right to govern the country as they see fit. This understanding disregards the foundational principles of liberal democracy such as separation of powers, rule of law, and fundamental rights and freedoms. Those who oppose this view are accused of betraying the “national will.”

These regimes also use neoliberal policy tools to favor individuals and groups aligned with them while depriving others of access to resources and equal opportunities. This situation leads to further escalation of social tensions and conflicts. Today, authoritarian populist parties and governments do not limit their activities to their own countries; they also form international alliances to exchange ideas, views, and experiences. In some cases, they even intervene in the domestic politics of other countries to support their allies. Therefore, the struggle between populists and defenders of democracy has acquired a global character, and authoritarian populism has become a major threat to global peace and stability.

Core Features and Strategies

Although authoritarian populist regimes emerge in different geographic regions and historical contexts, they exhibit clear common characteristics and recurring political strategies. The most distinctive feature of these regimes is their tendency to centralize power, weaken oversight mechanisms, and employ polarizing discourses to sustain social support after coming to power through democratic means. Political literature emphasizes that these tendencies erode the functioning of democratic institutions and render the rule of law contentious.

Elimination of Separation of Powers

One of the most prominent features of authoritarian populism is the systematic dismantling of the principle of separation of powers. The balance and oversight mechanisms between the legislature, executive, and judiciary are weakened to establish a de facto fusion of powers. In this process, the judiciary is transformed into an extension of the executive; judges are stripped of their status as independent actors and forced to behave like bureaucrats implementing the regime’s political agenda. As a result, the rule of law is undermined, and the decisions of the leader or ruling party become unchallengeable. Pressure on opposition parties and civil society organizations increases, and the public debate space narrows.

Cult of the Leader and Messianic Belief

In authoritarian populist regimes, the leader is placed at the absolute center of politics. The leader becomes not merely a political actor but also a symbolic and ideological figure. Viktor Orbán in Hungary is regarded as a key example of this type of leader. In this model, the leader’s decisions are expected to remain unquestioned; bureaucracy and advisory staff are reduced to secondary actors whose sole function is to implement those decisions. As seen in the case of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, the leader sometimes presents himself as a “Messiah” who will rescue the country from crises. This discourse resonates strongly among religious communities or conservative bases. The leader is portrayed as the guide in the struggle between “good” and “evil,” and this personalized leadership perception becomes one of the primary tools of mass mobilization.

Creating Enemies and Polarization

One of the most frequently employed strategies by authoritarian populist leaders is the continuous production of “enemy” figures to strengthen social support. These enemies may sometimes be opposition parties, journalists, intellectuals, or academics, and at other times ethnic or religious groups. Thatcher’s positioning of miners as “internal enemies” or Bolsonaro’s labeling of political opponents as “criminals” are examples of this strategy. Such antagonism facilitates the leader’s claim to be the “true representative of the people” by polarizing society. At the same time, opposition voices are stigmatized as “traitors,” “foreigners,” or “dangerous” and pushed outside the political arena.

Media Control and Propaganda

Freedom of the press is one of the first institutions targeted by authoritarian populist regimes. Opposition media outlets are silenced through economic pressure, legal sanctions, or political interference; some are transferred to pro-regime capital groups. As a result, a large portion of the media falls under government control. A one-way propaganda mechanism is established to ensure that public opinion is constantly exposed to regime narratives. Restricting access to alternative sources of information reduces citizens’ capacity for critical thinking and enables the regime to maintain an advantageous position in every election.

Social Engineering and Value Politics

Authoritarian populist regimes aim not only to transform state apparatuses but also to reshape social structures. This process is defined in the literature as “social engineering.” Here, “values” become the most important instrument of politics. As social theorist Richard Sennett notes, the concept of “value” carries a highly ambiguous content and is susceptible to political manipulation. Authoritarian populists use discourses such as “national and spiritual values” or “family structure” to legitimize their policies. Groups that do not conform to these values are labeled as “corrupt” or “foreign.” Thus, an ideological homogeneity is attempted to be imposed on social identities, reinforcing the regime’s hegemonic position.

Examples and Strategies from Around the World

Authoritarian populism is not a phenomenon confined to specific regions; it emerges in different parts of the world through similar dynamics. While Margaret Thatcher’s era in 1980s Britain holds a special place in the emergence of this concept in political literature, this style of governance has gained widespread global prominence particularly in the 21st century. Viktor Orbán in Hungary, the Law and Justice Party (PiS) in Poland, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Donald Trump in the United States are counted among the different manifestations of authoritarian populism. Additionally, the observation of similar trends in countries such as Indonesia, South Africa, and Thailand demonstrates that the phenomenon has become a global political trend.

In Hungary, Orbán’s regime presents the concept of “illiberal democracy,” offering a typical example of how democratic institutions may retain their formal existence while evolving into an authoritarian system in substance. In Poland, the Law and Justice Party weakened the separation of powers primarily through judicial reforms and established intense media control mechanisms. In the Philippines, Duterte legitimized harsh security policies by invoking the fight against organized crime and the war on drugs. In India, Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has made Hindu nationalism the central pillar of its political mobilization. In the United States, Donald Trump’s presidency emphasized the rhetoric of being the “true voice of the people,” promoting a sharp polarizing communication style targeting immigrants and the media.

The case of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil is instructive in demonstrating how authoritarian populist strategies operate. Three key strategies are identified in Bolsonaro’s rise: localism, messianic belief, and conspiracy theory. Localism led to the perception of anything “non-local”—global institutions, foreign corporations, or Western values—as a threat to national identity and interests. Messianic belief positioned the leader as the country’s sole savior capable of overcoming crises. Conspiracy theory provided simple, often hostile explanations for complex economic and social problems, reducing uncertainty while deepening social polarization.

These strategies served to create a constant state of crisis in Bolsonaro’s political discourse and to reinforce his social support by asserting that only he could resolve the crisis. Similarly, other authoritarian populist leaders have used crisis rhetoric to strengthen their political legitimacy, coding opposition voices as “threats” or “enemies” to limit democratic competition. Thus, although authoritarian populism takes on different content in various national contexts, it emerges as a political model that operates through similar tools and strategies.

Social Bases and Voter Behavior

Explaining the success of authoritarian populism solely through leaders’ rhetoric and strategies is insufficient; understanding why these governance styles receive broad support requires examining social bases and voter behavior. Literature emphasizes that support for authoritarian populist movements stems from diverse class-based, cultural, and ideological motivations.

First, support from segments negatively affected by economic transformations is highlighted. Processes such as globalization, deindustrialization, or weakening of job security cause certain social groups to suffer economic and social losses. These groups turn toward the protective, nationalist, and anti-elitist discourses offered by populist leaders in an effort to feel secure.

Second, cultural values and identity politics play a decisive role. Factors such as opposition to immigration, religious conservatism, or nationalism strongly influence voters’ political choices. Campaigns led by leaders using concepts such as “national values,” “family,” or “tradition” find wide resonance, particularly in rural and conservative bases.

Third, crisis and security rhetoric used in political communication facilitates voters’ orientation toward authoritarian populist leaders. A political atmosphere constructed around a constant sense of threat fuels voters’ search for a “strong leader.” In this context, foreign policy crises, terrorist threats, or economic uncertainties provide a foundation for leaders to present themselves as the “sole solution.”

Finally, declining trust in democratic institutions also shapes voter behavior. The weakening of confidence in the effectiveness of institutions such as the legislature and judiciary can lead individuals to turn toward direct leader authority rather than democratic checks. This demonstrates that authoritarian populism is not merely the strategy of political elites but also a demand that finds resonance within specific segments of society.

Impacts on Liberal Democracy

The rise of authoritarian populism affects not only the political balances within individual countries but also directly challenges the universal principles of liberal democracy. This impact produces serious consequences both in the functioning of institutional structures and in the internalization of democratic culture at the societal level.

First, institutional erosion is evident. The weakening of balance and oversight mechanisms between the legislature, executive, and judiciary renders the principle of separation of powers, which forms the foundation of liberal democracies, dysfunctional. This situation increases the capacity of governments to make arbitrary decisions while rendering judicial mechanisms that safeguard citizens’ rights and freedoms dependent.

Second, systematic pressures emerge on freedom of expression and press freedom. Transforming the media into a one-way propaganda tool causes alternative viewpoints to be excluded from public debate. This eliminates pluralism in the public sphere and restricts citizens’ right to access accurate and diverse information. In the long term, this leads to the weakening of democratic discourse culture and the reduction of the public sphere to a single voice.

Third, the role of civil society erodes. Pressures applied on civil society organizations, trade unions, or academic institutions weaken the participatory dimension of liberal democracies. Authoritarian populist regimes code these actors as “elites” or “enemies of the people” to question their legitimacy and seek to render independent organizations dysfunctional.

Finally, social polarization becomes a structural problem for liberal democracies. Political communication based on constant demonization generates lasting relationships of distrust between different social segments. This weakens the culture of consensus and leads to the disappearance of minimum norms of democratic competition.

These effects threaten not only the current functioning but also the long-term sustainability of liberal democracies. Therefore, in political science literature, authoritarian populism is analyzed alongside the concept of “democratic backsliding” and is regarded as one of the most significant challenges facing the global liberal democratic order.