**TL;DR – Populist movements fight over the meaning of representation in democracies. And while some people view it as a form of direct democracy and others see it is a symptom of important social problems, we would do well to note that both the positive and the negative aspects of populism play an important role in how democracy functions.** [The academic debate on how to adequately define and categorize populism](https://theconversation.com/what-actually-is-populism-and-why-does-it-have-a-bad-reputation-109874) stems from how it has presented itself in so many different ways during different times. So to help us better understand how populism can serve as both a benefit and a 'threat' to democracy, [the website blogs.lse.ac.uk](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/07/24/is-populism-really-a-threat-to-democracy/) provides use with five very different contexts that the following academics view populism in: First is Zsolt Enyedi, a Professor in the Department of Political Science and Pro-Rector for Hungarian Affairs at the Central European University, who believes that “Populism is indeed a threat to democracy...” A key reason for this being that "...it holds the potential of providing the state with a moral status that it otherwise lacks." What he means by this is that once the freedom of the oppressed people have been achieved, [populism will not just limit itself there – as it has no self-containment mechanism](https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2019/12/27/the-rise-of-populism-a-threat-to-democratic-institutions/). For example, in those situations which are more relevant in advanced democracies, populism undermines the civility of the relationships among citizens. More specifically, it breaks down the respect for the dignity of political opponents, as well as, minority groups and weakens the culture of reasoned debates. [Evidence of this can be seen in the case of India](https://www.e-ir.info/2020/02/09/the-rise-of-populism-a-threat-to-civil-society/), which revealed that populism can significantly affect civil society and civil liberties, such as freedom of religion. What's more, if taken to more radical forms, populism does in fact constitute a threat to liberal democracy. In addition to this, Enyedi also informs us that the while “the rise of populism can have positive (side-)effects,” in the end it is quite weak and unconvincing and does not change the overall negative assessment that populism is the greatest threat to democracy. Second is Chantal Mouffe Chantal Mouffe, a Professor of Political Theory at the University of Westminster, who talks about "progressive populism" and that this is the only way we can save democracy – "by promoting a progressive populism that, through the construction of another ‘people’ would be able to mobilise common affects towards equality and social justice." Further elaborating on this, she says that "It is necessary to conduct a serene analysis of the problems faced by our democracies..." This way, we can get a clearer picture of how to strengthen democratic institutions against the dangers that they are exposed to. So establishing a sort of political boundary e between "us" and "them" without setting one dominant group against another – [which is more common in right-wing populism](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/trumps-perverse-populism/) is vital. What's more, Mouffe also points out to us that [while populism is viewed as a "perversion of democracy,"](https://www.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/views/emergent-populism-a-perverted-form-of-rule-of-the-many-1562251461) she believes that left-wing populism in Europe today makes up the most adequate political force to recover and expand democratic ideals. Third is Yannis Stavrakakis, a Professor of Political Discourse Analysis at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, who informs us that anti-populism may be the real threat to democracy. More specifically, ["an emerging consensus is slowly moving beyond anti-populist stereotypes in order to define populism in a more reflexive manner"](https://democracyinstitute.ceu.edu/articles/politics-antipopulism). As a result, populism is mainly understood "as a specific type of discourse or ideology that claims to express popular interests and demands (the ‘will of the people’) against an ‘establishment’ or elite, which is seen as undermining them and forestalling their satisfaction." Consequently, this has resulted in polarization and marginalization of the various agents involved, further highlighting "the emancipatory potential of certain populist discourses in representing excluded groups and facilitating social incorporation and democratic representation against oppressive and increasingly unaccountable power structures." Fouth is Ruth Wodak, an Emerita Distinguished Professor of Discourse Studies at Lancaster University, who says that [right-wing populist parties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism) pose clear short and long-term dangers to democracy, namely, exclusionary agendas and cases of elite corruption. This can be seen in their behavior which has a tendency towards displaying a deeply authoritarian mindset maintaining "...that they and only they represent the ‘real people’ in a nativist and culturalist sense." Additionally, they tend to construct and reinforce threat and danger scenarios – a politics of fear, where for example, party leaders promise to solve problems and create hope by 'saving the people', if certain changes are not implemented. So in the end, right-wing populist parties present both short-term and long-term threats to democracy. And last is John Fitzgibbon, a Manager at Boston College, who points out that populists are not anti-democratic, they are anti-liberal democracy. An extremely astute point when it comes to understanding the precise nature of the populist ‘threat’ to democracy. Populists (in contemporary populism) see liberal democracy and its core values of the rule of law, representative democracy and protection of minorities, as the main cause "...of their bête noir: perceived national degradation." This can be seen in arguments that pay particular attention to how the centre-left – "mostly in Western Europe, has been co-opted by neoliberal economic ideas that have let the forces of global capitalism loose in the domestic sphere with resultant deindustrialisation and dramatic underfunding of the social welfare safety net." Furthermore, it should also be noted that "populists have carefully exploited the globalisation issue beyond the economy." So populists are taking these actions not only because they perceive them as a roadblock to their power, but also because they are hugely symbolic for their supporters. From here then, it's apparent that [the narrative of populism can be seen as both a threat and a benefit to democracy](https://theconversation.com/how-populism-can-be-turned-into-an-opportunity-not-a-threat-96934), depending on the context that it is viewed within – helping us to explore the various possibilities of how it can influence democracy overall.

Populism represents an easy vehicle of public sentiment. It seeks to directly translate a will of the mass into political results. On the surface, this concept seems very democratic. That characterization is not entirely false. Populism does not necessarily threaten democracy, just the form of democracy we know. However, when one speaks of democracy, they are typically referring to the current practice of it. Therefore, populism does represent a critical threat to democracy when one ignores the superficial wording issues. Our current practice of democracy embraces pluralism. A pluralistic democracy promotes the coexistence of different people, interests, and perspectives. In practice, an elected government often has different voices, elected by different voters. After the election, it becomes the jobs of the political institutions to balance these interests and reach the best compromises. Political pluralism serves as a cornerstone of the inclusive democracy of today by allowing and encouraging different voices. Populism does not embrace this diversity. While the ideology seeks to express the will of the people, it embraces an exclusive definition of “people.” Populists want to maximize the interests of their supporters. They also want to do so at the expense of other members of society. For populists, only their constituents qualify as the legitimate “we the people.” Its political practice seeks no compromises or balance but only brutal enforcement. One can see this ideology played out in reality in different ways. Right-wing populists often identify themselves through race and ethnicity. Examples of these include Donald Trump’s Republican Party in America and Marine Le Pan’s RN party in France. Left-wing populists do so through economic classes, such as the UK Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. What would a populist democracy look like? Not an attractive one. One can look to Viktor Orban’s Hungarian “illiberal democracy” or Xi Jinping’s Communist Chinese Regime. In both cases, populists capture the desire for economic development among the main ethnic groups in the countries and seek to realize it at the expense of others. Therefore, populist democracy strays far from our common definition of democracy and remains one only in an abstract sense. For this reason, populism poses a critical threat to democracy.

**TL;DR: Most Democracies topple into autocracy _via_ Populism, because populism has just enough of the smell of democracy (voting) not to appear revolutionary** Populism is the greatest threat to Democracy because it is its 'Shadow' (as Jan-Werner Müller puts it in his [_What is Populism?_](https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15615.html)).