Professor Oona A. Hathaway is Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School; Professor of Political Science in Yale’s Department of Political Science; Faculty at the Jackson School of Global Affairs; Director of the Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges; and president-elect of the American Society of International Law.

Prof. Hathaway: A Moment of Peril—and Possibility—to Reimagine the International Legal Order

by Editor’s ChoiceForeign PolicyHomeInterviews

Giving an interview to the ECPS, Professor Oona A. Hathaway reflects on the resilience and fragility of the post-1945 international legal order at what she describes as a moment of both peril and possibility. She identifies the prohibition on the use of force as the “bedrock of the modern legal order,” yet warns that today’s geopolitical climate is marked by “extraordinary instability” and mounting challenges from major powers. International law, she argues, ultimately depends on shared belief: “what makes international law work is that states believe it works.” If repeated unilateral uses of force erode that belief, a “reverse norm cascade” could follow. Yet Professor Hathaway also stresses that crisis can generate renewal—an opportunity to reimagine and reconstruct a more equitable and effective international legal order rather than surrender to fatalism.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Giving an interview to the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Oona A. Hathaway—Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School; Professor of Political Science in Yale’s Department of Political Science; Faculty at the Jackson School of Global Affairs; Director of the Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges; and president-elect of the American Society of International Law—reflects on the resilience and fragility of the post-1945 international legal order at a moment she describes as both perilous and generative. The organizing theme of the interview is captured in the headline, “A Moment of Peril—and Possibility—to Reimagine the International Legal Order.” For Professor Hathaway, the contemporary crisis is not simply episodic noncompliance but a potentially systemic turning point—one that tests whether the prohibition on the use of force, which she calls the “bedrock of the modern legal order,” can endure under conditions of populism, geopolitical rivalry, and eroding rule-of-law commitments.

Professor Hathaway situates today’s tensions within a longer arc of normative transformation. The post-1945 order, she argues, was both a “genuine normative revolution that restrained power” and a system sustained by the strategic interests of dominant states. Yet the present moment raises acute questions about its durability. In her view, “what makes international law work is that states believe it works,” and the danger is that repeated unilateral uses of force could tip the system toward a “reverse norm cascade,” in which states “no longer believe that these rules matter and therefore no longer act as if they matter.” The concern is not only erosion, but the possibility of a broader unraveling in which the rules cease to structure expectations.

Several sections of the interview underscore why “today’s instability is unprecedented in the postwar international legal order.” Professor Hathaway emphasizes that in the post–World War II era “we’ve ever been at a moment of such instability and uncertainty” as when the most powerful state appears “clearly willing to use military force in violation of the UN Charter that it once championed.” This connects directly to another theme: “when rule-makers break the rules, the damage is far greater.” As Professor Hathaway notes, US violations are “particularly destructive,” not least because of the “failure of the international community to respond or push back forcefully,” shaped by entrenched assumptions about US stewardship and deep economic interdependence.

Yet Professor Hathaway also insists that breakdown need not foreclose renewal. “It is a moment of extreme challenge,”she concludes, “but it is also a moment of opportunity and creativity.” The task, she suggests, is to resist fatalism and instead “think together about what a more equitable and effective international legal order might look like”—because “it is up to us to decide which it will be.”

Here is the edited version of our interview with Professor Oona A. Hathaway, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

A Normative Revolution—and a Strategic Settlement

Photo: Zoia Fedorova| Dreamstime.

Professor Oona Hathaway, thank you so much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: Your scholarship traces the historic shift from a world in which war was lawful to one structured by the prohibition on the use of force. How should we understand the post-1945 legal order—as a genuine normative revolution restraining power, or as a contingent equilibrium sustained by the strategic interests of dominant states?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: I think both, actually. I don’t think they are inconsistent with one another. It was a genuine normative revolution that restrained power. There was the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, which initially outlawed war. It obviously didn’t succeed—we had World War II—but it began a process of both deconstructing the previous legal order and constructing something new that set in motion the creation of a new legal system. That was then reaffirmed in the United Nations Charter, in the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4). It was really restating the prohibition on war from the Kellogg-Briand Pact. But it was created by dominant states because they believed in these ideas. They believed in the prohibition on the use of force and that might doesn’t make right, and they had just fought a war with the Nazis over this principle of non-domination and the rejection of using military force to seize territory from other states.

But it was also in their interests, because they had gone through massive territorial expansion. The United States, of course, had acquired what is now the entire continental United States, plus Alaska and Hawaii, and has a number of other islands that are part of it as well, including Puerto Rico. It was therefore in the interest of these states—and, of course, at the time this was created, Britain still had a major empire, and France still had a major empire. China, of course, dominated a vast territory. It was a good time to say you can’t conquer territory through the use of force. It was a good time for these states to say, “let’s stop moving those borders around, let’s firm up these borders, and let’s say no one can take territory from anyone else.” Once you’ve already completed your accumulation of territory, it’s in your best interest to call a halt to the game.

So, it was in their interests, but it was also in their values; it was consistent with the values they fought the war for. They then sustained it both because they believed in the values of the system and because the system served their interests. It made for a much more peaceful and prosperous world. So, I don’t necessarily see the two as inconsistent with one another.

When the Bedrock Norm Is Strained, the Entire System Is at Risk

You describe the prohibition on force as the “bedrock” of the modern international order. To what extent did its success depend less on legal internalization than on the alignment between US hegemony and rule-based constraints, and what happens when that alignment dissolves?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: You’re right. I do believe that the prohibition on force is the bedrock of the modern legal order. It’s right at the beginning of the United Nations Charter, and in the book The Internationalists, which I wrote with my co-author Scott Shapiro, we talk about how that is the core norm of the system on which everything else rests.

So it depended on internalization, and that process that I described from 1928 to 1945 was a process of thinking through what it means to shift an order on its axis—to change it from a world order where force is permitted, where might makes right, where states can use military force to resolve disputes with one another, as used to be the case before 1928, before war was outlawed, to a world in which that’s no longer allowed, and then everything else has to flip on its head. Conquest was legal; now conquest has to be illegal. Gunboat diplomacy was legal; now gunboat diplomacy has to be illegal. And that requires a massive shift that I think they didn’t fully appreciate in 1928, but that unfolded from 1928 to 1945 and was internalized through the Charter and all the subsequent rules that were adopted.

But it is also the case, again, that this was in the interest of the United States. The United States both believed in these principles, but these principles also served a hegemonic state. It is a good thing if states are not trying to use military force to take territory from one another if what you want is not to have to be running around as a global power intervening to try to put out wars between states. So it is both the case that these were rules that were internalized and that they served US interests.

Now, what happens when that alignment dissolves? I mean, the US has made clear it doesn’t necessarily adhere to those legal principles any longer and has taken actions that are in violation of the UN Charter, most recently the intervention in Venezuela. We might see a military operation in Iran before long that would also be illegal. I think it puts major stress on the system, to the point that I’m not sure the legal order, as it is, can survive it. You know, it’s not just the US; it’s also Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s seizing of islands, rocks, and reefs in the South China Sea. There are a lot of assaults, but in a way the US, because it has been such a critical supporter of the international legal order, turning on that order in the way that it seems to be is a blow that may be hard to recover from.

A Normative Revolution Forged by Power, Values, and Interest

Donald J. Trump, the 47th President of the United States, at his inauguration celebration in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2025. Photo: Muhammad Abdullah.

Does the contemporary erosion of the prohibition on the use of force—as exemplified by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the United States’ unilateral military operation against Venezuela under the second Trump administration—reflect primarily a failure of international enforcement institutions, a crisis of belief in the legitimacy of international law among major powers, or a deeper transformation in how states conceptualize sovereignty, security, and permissible violence in an era of populism and geopolitical rivalry?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: I think it’s just too early to say exactly how deep the transformation we’re seeing really is. I’ve written a bit about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Trump administration’s unilateral military operation against Venezuela, as I mentioned before, as truly fundamental challenges to the modern international legal order.

It is the case that international law relies on collective enforcement. And it’s very difficult for that collective enforcement to work when members of the Security Council are themselves violating the rules, because the institutional structures that are in place to enforce them can’t be used. Russia, the US, and China all have veto power and can block any action by the United Nations to enforce the legal rules. At the same time, the states that have traditionally led the charge in enforcing the rules through other means—through what Scott Shapiro and I have called outcasting—have relied on economic and other measures to respond to unlawful action and to encourage collective action, sanctions, and economic pressure. Russia was kicked out of the G8, which became the G7; Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe; and there are many ways in which Russia has been excluded from international institutions it had benefited from as a response to its unlawful actions, in addition to the economic sanctions that have been imposed and the funding and support provided by Ukraine’s allies to help it stand up to Russia. But it is very difficult to do that against a hegemon and a major economic power.

I think you are beginning to see some response by states that may represent the beginnings of an answer to that question, though it is still a little early to tell.

Power Shifts and Populism Are Eroding Restraints on Unilateral Force

How do shifts in global power distribution interact with ideological transformations—particularly nationalism and populism—to weaken constraints on unilateral force?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: Yes, there are major shifts in global power distribution. There are changes in economic power and changes in military power. You have the rise of China, both as an economic power and as a military power. It’s building a major navy and has become a more significant geopolitical force in a variety of ways. It’s also investing more in international institutions, which is important to note. So it’s not just building up its military; it has also become more active at the UN and other international institutions. 

Soi it’s hard to say at this moment where that’s going. Is that going to weaken constraints on unilateral force or not? I think what’s weakening constraints on unilateral force is the use of unilateral force by states like the US and Russia. And it’s not just the use of force, but also the response that you receive. Russia has had a pretty forceful response from the international community. So far, the US has not. There was a relatively modest response to the unilateral intervention in Venezuela.

States are frankly scared of Trump. They’re worried that he’s going to slap tariffs on them if they criticize him. I think the only answer is going to be to act collectively—for states to band together to try to shore up the international system and the prohibition on the use of force in particular. It’s going to be hard for any of them to criticize Trump individually, but acting more collectively and building alternative sources of economic power may be possible. So, for example, what Canada is doing in forming alternative economic partnerships and responding to US tariffs suggests one possible path forward. That is an answer to this problem—maybe the only answer to this problem.

Between the Old World Order and a World With No Rules

The headquarters of the United Nations in New York City. Photo: Dreamstime.

Do contemporary developments signal not merely norm erosion but a structural reversion toward an “Old World Order” in which material power once again functions as a source of legal entitlement?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: In the book The Internationalists, we talk about the Old World Order as the order in which war was lawful and states could use military force to resolve disputes, and what they took, they could keep—so might made right. 

One of the questions is whether we are in a moment of reverting back to that. The book describes both this old legal order and how we rejected it and created a new legal order built on the prohibition on force. And the question that certainly emerges at this moment, where we’re seeing states like the United States unilaterally using force, is: are we going to go back? Are we going to return to a world where military force was lawful and where material power functions as a source of legal entitlement?

It’s possible that we will. It’s also possible that there is something even worse. Scott and I wrote a recent piece in Foreign Affairs that argues there is only one thing worse than going back to something like the Old World Order—a legal order built on the idea that might makes right, where states can resolve disputes and enforce claims through military force—and that is a world with no rules at all, where there is no coherent legal system. The old order, for all its faults, was at least coherent and clear.

One of the problems we see with Venezuela, with the Trump intervention there, is that it was really just about one man’s whim. And that is very disruptive and chaotic, because if it becomes permissible for states to decide to go to war for no clear reason, it becomes very hard for other states to avoid war, because they don’t know what they would need to do to avoid falling afoul of a state that might want to use military force.

I recommend that to your readers if they want to take a look at it. They can find all my work, by the way, on oonahathaway.com. All my work is posted there, so if they want to track down any of these pieces, that’s a good place to go.

Populist Sovereignty Claims Are Challenging International Constraints

How do populist leaders’ claims to embody the “true people” reshape state attitudes toward international law, especially regarding multilateral constraints perceived as external impositions on sovereignty?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: I think I can speak most authoritatively, perhaps, to the Trump administration’s claims to embody “real Americans” as part of the argument that the United States should resist international law and that these multilateral constraints don’t serve America.

And what people are saying, if you look at his approval ratings, which are in free fall, is that he doesn’t actually represent real Americans. People care about the price of groceries, clothes, and other consumer goods. Those have been going up, and people’s real incomes have not been keeping pace with inflation. He came into office on a promise that he would make things more affordable for people, and he has done the opposite.

People were told at the State of the Union Address that things are better than ever, but most people’s experience is inconsistent with that—they actually feel that things are not better than ever. So, what you’re seeing is a contrast between a claim to speak for a set of people and people’s own experience of the effects of those policies.

I like to believe that, as a result, people are going to see that these policies are not in their best interest—that tariffs are not serving the United States and that wars of choice are not in the best interests of the American people—and reject them. So far, it does seem that people are not approving of what’s happening. I think that strategy is not going to be a winning one for the Trump administration for much longer.

The Impact of Populism Depends on the Resilience of Institutions

Frontal view of the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., on February 10, 2024. Photo: Gualberto Becerra P.

Is populism inherently destabilizing for rule-based international order, or can populist governments operate within legal frameworks when institutional checks remain robust?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: Gosh, that’s kind of an impossible question to answer. I don’t know if it’s inherently destabilizing; it depends a little on what one means by populism. Can populist governments operate within legal frameworks when institutional checks remain robust? Absolutely—of course they can.

I think they will respond to the incentives they face. And if there is a major cost to acting in ways that are inconsistent with legal frameworks, it is difficult for populist leaders to sustain violations of international law for long in the face of that. But that’s not uniformly true. This is just a hard question to answer. It is more a case-by-case matter, rather than something that lends itself to a general conclusion about the impact of populism on legal frameworks. It all depends on how strong and how robust those institutional checks remain, and on the nature of those checks. That is highly contingent.

When Law Ceases to Constrain Power, the System Cannot Function

To what extent does democratic backsliding within powerful democracies—through executive aggrandizement and weakened oversight—pose a greater systemic threat to international law than the rise of authoritarian states that never fully internalized those norms?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: I think that democratic backsliding is a real challenge to international law, in part because what we’re seeing is not just democratic backsliding, but threats to the very idea of the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. When law is no longer a constraint on governmental power—again, whether domestic or international—that obviously makes it impossible for the international system to function.

I don’t know that I would fully accept the idea that authoritarian states never internalized those norms—maybe that’s fair—but they internalized them more than is sometimes appreciated, because the international legal order operates in large part by changing expectations about how others will react to what you do. Authoritarian states see that if they invade their neighbors, there are going to be consequences. Saddam Hussein learned that when he invaded Kuwait and attempted to take it over. The international community responded by rejecting his effort to conquer Kuwait and pushing him back. That was an instance in which an authoritarian ruler learned a hard lesson—that this was a norm the international community was willing to defend.

That was a useful lesson for other authoritarians to observe, and it made a difference in reaffirming the prohibition on the use of force and the idea that states can’t conquer territory, even when they have a dispute with a neighbor—that the way to resolve it isn’t to use military force. So, that authoritarian regimes, too, can be constrained by international law.

The important thing to remember about international law is that you don’t have to think you’re obeying it to obey it. International law works by changing the background norms and expectations that states have. You don’t have to be fully cognizant of the ways in which it is shaping your behavior for it to do so. Even authoritarian states are often abiding by international law in ways they may not fully appreciate or understand, and nonetheless international law remains very powerful in shaping their behavior.

When Rule-Makers Break the Rules, the Damage Is Especially Severe

Stop Trump Coalition march, Central London, United Kingdom, September 17, 2025. Protesters dressed as Musk, Farage, Vance, Putin, Trump, and Netanyahu. Photo: Ben Gingell.

When a historically law-creating state violates the rules it helped design, how does that differ from violations by revisionist powers in terms of precedent, legitimacy, and global imitation effects?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: This is obviously the question of whether US violations are more destructive than those of other states, given that the US has historically been a significant law-creating power. It wrote the first draft of the UN Charter, championed the United Nations system after the Second World War, and has been a key player—though it has not perfectly observed those rules. It’s important to point out that this is not the first time the United States has failed to play by the rules it helped put in place. But yes, I do think it is particularly destructive, especially when coupled with the broader set of assaults on the legal order from Russia.

What really matters, and what has been especially destructive so far, is the failure of the international community to respond or push back forcefully against the United States. That’s partly because people are used to thinking of the United States as a good actor, as a steward of the system. They also have deep economic ties that make any kind of criticism or economic sanctions against the United States almost impossible for them to contemplate. But, we are starting to see states recognize that what might once have seemed unimaginable is now imaginable, and that they have to begin thinking about how to reinforce the legal order in a situation where the United States can no longer be counted on to be a positive partner or actor.

So, we might begin to see some pushback, but we haven’t yet, and that is part of why this has been such a destructive moment.

Repeated Unilateral Force Could Trigger a Reverse Norm Cascade

Could repeated unilateral uses of force by leading powers generate a “reverse norm cascade,” transforming restraint from expectation into exception and thereby reshaping customary international law?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: That’s the fear. The fear is that these unilateral uses of force will eventually overwhelm the system. You can sustain a certain number of blows, but at a certain point the system becomes so weakened that it begins to fall apart. And the question is: when do you cross that line? When do we reach a point where we have a kind of reverse norm cascade, as you put it, in which states no longer believe that these rules matter and therefore no longer act as if they matter? What makes international law work is that states believe it works.

If they no longer believe in it, then it ceases to function. So, enough unilateral uses of force could, at a certain point, lead states to conclude that the system is not working very well and to ask why they should abide by the rules if others are not. That’s when you begin to see the whole structure start to fall apart. Are we there yet? I think not. Three more years of this? Maybe.

Expansive Self-Defense Claims Are Eroding the Prohibition on Force

How might expansive interpretations of self-defense—particularly against nonstate actors—gradually alter the legal architecture governing the use of force?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: I have written about this as well, and I think we don’t talk about it enough as a challenge to the international legal order—this expansive interpretation of the Article 51 right of self-defense in the Charter. It allows states to respond unilaterally; you don’t have to go to the Security Council to defend yourself. But the language of the Charter refers to situations in which a state has been subject to an armed attack.

There have been increasingly expansive interpretations of the Article 51 right of self-defense, including, as you mentioned, extending it to attacks by nonstate actors, which was not understood as falling within the scope of Article 51 at its inception. This interpretation has been adopted particularly in the post-9/11 era, and you see more and more states embracing it after 2014 and the rise of ISIS in the Middle East. I do think this is extremely corrosive to the international system. It has really eroded the prohibition on the use of force, because at a certain point everything becomes self-defense.

The Charter defined this right of self-defense very narrowly, as a response to armed attack, and it did so for a reason. The drafters were very aware that defensive wars and offensive wars were sometimes very hard to distinguish. They wanted to establish a fairly narrow right for states to respond. They had to include the right of self-defense because many states insisted on it—you shouldn’t have to wait for the Security Council to act if you are literally under attack. But they intentionally meant for it to be a fairly narrow right, because once you start talking about wars of defense based on the idea that another state might pose a threat down the road, the distinction between offensive and defensive wars begins to collapse.

So yes, I do think this has been a real problem. And again, if your readers are interested, if you search my website for “self-defense,” you will find an article I’ve written on exactly this issue. It’s a real problem, and it predates the Trump administration; it is a bipartisan problem. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have presided over that erosion, so this is not an entirely new phenomenon.

When Dual-Use Becomes a Justification, Civilians Bear the Cost

Your research on the targeting of dual-use objects highlights the blurring of civilian and military categories. Does this evolution risk transforming international humanitarian law from a protective regime into a justificatory framework for expanded violence?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: I’d point your readers to a piece that I wrote in the Yale Law Journal on dual-use objects, called “The Rise of Dual-Use Objects,” with Azmat Khan and a third co-author, Mara Revkin, my former student and an amazing legal academic. This piece shows that the US has increasingly been targeting objects that it recognizes as dual-use, meaning both military and civilian use.

We argue in that piece that the rise of targeting dual-use objects has significantly eroded protections for civilians in wartime. We discuss this generally, but we also use evidence drawn from post-strike analyses of US counterterrorism strikes. We analyzed the targets of those strikes, which were gathered by Azmat Khan, a reporter from The New York Times, through Freedom of Information Act requests to the Department of Defense—requests she had to sue to obtain. So we have very specific data in the piece about what kinds of dual-use objects are being targeted, and we can show that civilians are really at risk in the targeting of these objects.

The argument we make is that this practice is blurring the distinction between civilian and military targets that is so critical to protecting civilians in wartime, and that we need to take significant steps to better protect civilians and to clarify this distinction between military and civilian objects, taking into account the impact on civilians of targeting such sites—not just the civilians who happen to be present at that moment, but also the long-term reverberating effects. You blow up a water treatment plant, and it’s not just the civilian workers there who are harmed; it’s everyone who now lacks access to clean water. You blow up an apartment building, and it’s not only the residents who are killed or injured, but also those who are deprived of housing. You blow up a bridge, and there may be civilians present on it, but afterward people cannot get to work, school, or their families because there is no access from one place to another. So, this is a really critical part of our thinking about how to protect civilians in wartime.

The Unraveling Order Also Opens Space to Imagine a More Equitable One

And lastly, Prof. Hathaway, are we witnessing the collapse of the post-1945 legal order or its transformation into a plural system of competing legal regimes—and what institutional or normative developments would be necessary to prevent the “gradual and then sudden” unraveling you warn about from becoming irreversible?

Professor Oona A. Hathaway: This is a reference to my piece in The New York Times titled “The Great Unraveling,”which looks at what’s happening to the modern legal order and argues that we might be witnessing its collapse. The question is whether we are in the midst of a collapse, on the precipice of one, or whether it has already occurred—and what is coming next. I don’t know that anybody really knows the answer to those questions. I think we’re in uncharted waters. In the post–World War II era, I don’t think we’ve ever been at a moment of such instability and uncertainty in the international legal order as we are today, where you have the most powerful nation in the world clearly willing to use military force in violation of the UN Charter that it once championed, and the prohibition on the use of force that is core to the normative legal order.

But we don’t know how aggressive President Trump is going to be. We don’t know yet if other states are going to follow in the United States’ footsteps and use force against their neighbors in ways that would previously have been clearly forbidden. And we don’t know whether something is going to emerge in its place if this system is collapsing.

We see some signs. We see Canada, for instance, trying to rally middle powers to work together to create an alternative economic system, because a lot of states are deeply concerned about the threat of tariffs from the Trump administration, and that has led them not to speak up or respond when the US acts in ways they view as inconsistent with the international legal order. This is going to be an important part of the response, but it hasn’t taken shape yet. So, the short answer is that we don’t know where this is headed. We are in a moment of extraordinary instability.

Let me end on a somewhat more hopeful note. Although this moment of instability is scary and concerning—for someone like me who believes that the core norm of the international legal order is the prohibition on the use of military force, and who sees that norm as uniquely at risk—it is also a moment when we can start to think about how to construct a new legal order. What might a new legal order look like? What new possibilities might emerge? What can we hope for, dream about, or imagine? How can we make the legal order more equitable?

So, it is a moment of extreme challenge, but it is also a moment of opportunity and creativity. We should be careful not to give up or assume that everything is lost, but instead try to think together about what a more equitable and effective international legal order might look like, and whether this is a moment in which the opportunity is opening to do something new and different. That new and different future could be bad, but it could also be a profound improvement. It is up to us to decide which it will be.

SummerSchool

ECPS Academy Summer School — Europe Between Oceans: The Future of the EU Trade Between the Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific (July 6-10, 2026)

by EconomicsECPS YouthEditor’s ChoiceForeign PolicyHomeUpcoming Events

Are you interested in global trade politics and the future of Europe in a shifting world order? Do you want to understand how populism, great-power rivalry, and geopolitical tensions are reshaping EU trade between the Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific? The ECPS Academy Summer School 2026 offers a unique five-day program where leading scholars and policymakers explore the EU’s role in an era of economic uncertainty and strategic competition. Participants will engage in interactive lectures, small-group discussions, and a dynamic simulation game on EU trade strategy, gaining hands-on experience in policy analysis and recommendation drafting. Join an international, multidisciplinary environment, exchange ideas with peers worldwide, earn ECTS credits, and become part of a global network studying populism, political economy, and international relations.

Overview

In today’s rapidly shifting global order, the European Union can no longer afford to think in one direction. For decades, the transatlantic relationship has been the backbone of global trade, built on shared institutions, economic interdependence, and liberal values. Yet this foundation is no longer stable. As highlighted in the ECPS report Populism and the Future of Transatlantic Relations, domestic political polarization and the rise of populism on both sides of the Atlantic are reshaping trade policy, weakening trust, and challenging the very principles of open markets and multilateralism. The EU now faces a critical question: how to remain a global trade power when its closest partner is becoming less predictable.

At the same time, the center of gravity of global trade is shifting toward the Indo-Pacific. This region has become the epicenter of economic dynamism and geopolitical competition, where the future of global trade rules is increasingly being contested. The growing rivalry between the United States and China is not only a security issue but also a trade and technological struggle shaping supply chains, investment flows, and regulatory standards. As the US adopts more unilateral and strategic approaches to trade, moving away from traditional multilateralism, the EU must navigate a complex environment where cooperation, competition, and coercion coexist. Ignoring the transpacific dimension would mean missing where the future of global trade is being written.

For the European Union, the challenge and opportunity lie in managing both arenas simultaneously. The transatlantic relationship remains indispensable for economic scale, regulatory cooperation, and political alignment, while the transpacific region is crucial for diversification, resilience, and strategic autonomy. As scholars increasingly argue, the EU is no longer just a “junior partner” but an actor that must define its own role within a triangular system shaped by US–China competition. To lead in international trade today means mastering this dual engagement: stabilizing relations with the United States while actively shaping the Indo-Pacific order. This requires not only policy innovation but also a new generation of thinkers who understand trade through a geopolitical lens.

Against this backdrop, ECPS Academy Summer School-2026 brings together leading scholars and policymakers to examine how populism and great-power competition are reshaping EU trade policy across both transatlantic and transpacific arenas. 

It offers a unique opportunity to explore:

  • The future of EU–US trade relations in an era of populism
  • The strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific and the US–China trade rivalry for the EU
  • How global trade is being reshaped by geopolitics, security, and ideology
  • The populist discourse around trade, policy, and power, and its implications for the EU’s trade relations
  • It also allows participating in an enjoyable and dynamic simulation game on the EU’s trade relations, trying to bring policy suggestions.

You will learn and actively engage in discussions, develop your own policy ideas, take part in simulation games, have the opportunity to publish on ECPS venues, and become part of an international network working at the intersection of political economy, international relations, and populism studies.

Tentative Program

Day 1 – Monday, July 6, 2026

Theme: The EU in the Global Trade Order: From Liberalism to Geoeconomics

This opening day sets the conceptual stage. It introduces how EU trade policy evolved from embedded liberalism to strategic autonomy, and how trade is now intertwined with security and geopolitics. It also establishes the role of populism and domestic politics in reshaping trade preferences and legitimacy crises in Europe and beyond.

Lecture 1: Evolution of EU trade policy and global trade order

Lecture 2: Populism, legitimacy, and the politicization of trade

Day 2 – Tuesday, July 7, 2026

Theme: EU–US Trade Relations under Pressure: Cooperation, Conflict, and Populism

Focuses on the transatlantic pillar, still central but increasingly unstable. It examines tariff disputes, regulatory divergence, and how populist and protectionist politics in the US and Europe challenge long-standing cooperation and WTO-based norms.

Lecture 1: Political economy of EU–US trade relations

Lecture 2: Populism and the erosion/reconfiguration of transatlantic trade cooperation

Day 3 – Wednesday, July 8, 2026 

Theme: The EU Between the US and China: Trade, Power, and Strategic Autonomy

This session introduces the triangular dynamic (EU–US–China) and how the EU navigates between partnership and rivalry. It highlights de-risking, economic security, supply chains, and competing models of globalization.

Lecture 1: EU–US–China trade relations and global power competition

Lecture 2: Strategic autonomy, de-risking, and EU economic security tools

Day 4 – Thursday, July 9, 2026

Theme: The Indo-Pacific Turn: EU Trade Strategy in a Shifting Global Centre

This session shifts focus to the transpacific dimension, emphasizing that the future of trade is increasingly shaped in the Indo-Pacific. It explores how US strategies toward China and the region reshape global trade, and how the EU responds through diversification and partnerships.

Lecture 1: US Indo-Pacific strategy and its trade implications

Lecture 2: EU engagement in the Indo-Pacific (FTAs, partnerships, strategic positioning)

Day 5 – Friday, July 10, 2026

Theme: The Future of EU Trade Power: Between Fragmentation and Leadership

This session will ask whether the EU can become a global trade power amid fragmentation, populism, and great-power rivalry. It also allows for normative and policy-oriented discussions.

Lecture 1: Scenarios for the future of global trade governance (fragmentation vs reform)

Lecture 2: Can the EU lead? Policy tools, regulatory power, and global influence

Methodology

The program will take place on Zoom, consisting of two sessions each day and will last five days. The lectures are complemented by small group discussions and Q&A sessions moderated by experts in the field. Participants will have the opportunity to engage with leading scholars in the field as well as with activists and policymakers working at the forefront of these issues.

The final program with the list of speakers will be announced soon.

Furthermore, this summer school aims to equip attendees with the skills necessary to craft policy suggestions. To this end, a simulation game will be organized on a pressing theme within the broader topic to identify solutions to issues related to the future of the EU trade relations.

Who should apply?

This course is open to master’s and PhD level students and graduates, early career researchers and post-docs from any discipline. The deadline for submitting applications is June 16, 2026. As we can only accept a limited number of applicants, it is advisable to submit applications as early as possible rather than waiting for the deadline.

The applicants should send their CVs to the email address ecps@populismstudies.org with the subject line: ECPS Summer School Application.

We value the high level of diversity in our courses, welcoming applications from people of all backgrounds. 

Evaluation Criteria and Certificate of Attendance

Meeting the assessment criteria is required from all participants aiming to complete the program and receive a certificate of attendance. The evaluation criteria include full attendance and active participation in lectures.

Certificates of attendance will be awarded to participants who attend at least 80% of the sessions. Certificates are sent to students only by email.

Credit

This course is worth 5 ECTS in the European system. If you intend to transfer credit to your home institution, please check the requirements with them before you apply. We will be happy to assist you; however, please be aware that the decision to transfer credit rests with your home institution.

Elin Bjarnegård

Prof. Bjarnegård: Gender Will Become a Central Fault Line Between Liberal Democracy and Authoritarian Populism

by MultimediaVideos

In this ECPS interview, Professor Elin Bjarnegård (Uppsala University) argues that gender is no longer a side issue but “a useful, malleable concept for authoritarian leaders”—and will become “an increasingly central fault line” separating liberal democracy from authoritarian populism. Moving beyond a simple backlash thesis, she shows how regimes alternate between ‘genderbashing’ and ‘genderwashing’, weaponizing equality talk for legitimacy at home and abroad. Professor Bjarnegård also links democratic backsliding to gendered intimidation, online harassment, and what she calls “sexual corruption.” Noting that the Epstein files revealed abuses “in the corridors of power” in democratic settings too, she warns that personalistic rule heightens risk—especially the “impunity surrounding them.” She urges resisting polarization, scrutinizing symbols, and asking where gender concretely matters in policy.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In an era marked by democratic erosion and the global rise of authoritarian populism, gender politics has emerged not merely as a cultural battleground but as a strategic axis of regime competition. In this interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Elin Bjarnegård of Uppsala University argues that gender will increasingly function as a defining fault line separating liberal democratic governance from authoritarian populist rule. Moving beyond conventional explanations that frame anti-gender politics primarily as ideological backlash, Professor Bjarnegård emphasizes the instrumentalization of gender as a tool of political survival, legitimacy, and international signaling. As she explains, “gender becomes a useful, malleable concept for authoritarian leaders—a powerful symbol that can be mobilized for regime purposes,” underscoring how strategic deployment rather than doctrinal conviction often drives contemporary gender politics.

This strategic perspective helps explain why gender rights are likely to intensify as a central arena of geopolitical and normative contestation. Professor Bjarnegård anticipates that “gender rights, or perhaps the strategic use of gender, will become an increasingly central fault line,” not only because of ideological polarization but also because gender provides an “easy, simplistic narrative to deploy strategically” in polarized societies. Such narratives enable regimes to oscillate between exclusionary rhetoric and symbolic inclusion, reinforcing domestic authority while communicating selectively with international audiences.

The interview also highlights the darker governance implications of weakened accountability in populist and authoritarian systems, particularly regarding gendered abuses of power. Drawing on her concept of “sexual corruption,” Professor Bjarnegård reframes such abuses as systemic governance failures rather than isolated misconduct. Referencing the recent release of the Epstein files, she cautions against simplistic regime-type explanations, noting that “these gendered abuses of authority have also proliferated in the corridors of power in predominantly democratic contexts in Europe and the United States.” Yet she stresses that personalistic rule and eroded oversight create heightened risks in authoritarian settings, where such systems are “more at risk both of experiencing these gendered abuses and, perhaps especially, of the impunity surrounding them—of people not reporting them, of them remaining unseen, and of not being addressed.” This dynamic speaks directly to the broader vulnerability of populist authoritarian governance to gendered exploitation and unaccountable power.

More broadly, Professor Bjarnegård situates these patterns within a continuum of gendered violence that includes psychological intimidation, reputational attacks, and digitally mediated harassment—forms of coercion that undermine democratic participation without overt repression. Taken together, her analysis suggests that gender politics is becoming a diagnostic lens through which scholars can assess democratic resilience, institutional integrity, and the trajectory of global political competition. The interview thus positions gender not as a peripheral social issue but as a central structural dimension of contemporary struggles between liberal democracy and authoritarian populism.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Professor Elin Bjarnegård, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Professor Elin Bjarnegård.

Prof. Bjarnegård: Gender Will Become a Central Fault Line Between Liberal Democracy and Authoritarian Populism

by AuthoritarianismEditor’s ChoiceGenderHomeInterviews

In this ECPS interview, Professor Elin Bjarnegård (Uppsala University) argues that gender is no longer a side issue but “a useful, malleable concept for authoritarian leaders”—and will become “an increasingly central fault line” separating liberal democracy from authoritarian populism. Moving beyond a simple backlash thesis, she shows how regimes alternate between ‘genderbashing’ and ‘genderwashing’, weaponizing equality talk for legitimacy at home and abroad. Professor Bjarnegård also links democratic backsliding to gendered intimidation, online harassment, and what she calls “sexual corruption.” Noting that the Epstein files revealed abuses “in the corridors of power” in democratic settings too, she warns that personalistic rule heightens risk—especially the “impunity surrounding them.” She urges resisting polarization, scrutinizing symbols, and asking where gender concretely matters in policy.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In an era marked by democratic erosion and the global rise of authoritarian populism, gender politics has emerged not merely as a cultural battleground but as a strategic axis of regime competition. In this interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Elin Bjarnegård of Uppsala University argues that gender will increasingly function as a defining fault line separating liberal democratic governance from authoritarian populist rule. Moving beyond conventional explanations that frame anti-gender politics primarily as ideological backlash, Professor Bjarnegård emphasizes the instrumentalization of gender as a tool of political survival, legitimacy, and international signaling. As she explains, “gender becomes a useful, malleable concept for authoritarian leaders—a powerful symbol that can be mobilized for regime purposes,” underscoring how strategic deployment rather than doctrinal conviction often drives contemporary gender politics.

This strategic perspective helps explain why gender rights are likely to intensify as a central arena of geopolitical and normative contestation. Professor Bjarnegård anticipates that “gender rights, or perhaps the strategic use of gender, will become an increasingly central fault line,” not only because of ideological polarization but also because gender provides an “easy, simplistic narrative to deploy strategically” in polarized societies. Such narratives enable regimes to oscillate between exclusionary rhetoric and symbolic inclusion, reinforcing domestic authority while communicating selectively with international audiences.

The interview also highlights the darker governance implications of weakened accountability in populist and authoritarian systems, particularly regarding gendered abuses of power. Drawing on her concept of “sexual corruption,” Professor Bjarnegård reframes such abuses as systemic governance failures rather than isolated misconduct. Referencing the recent release of the Epstein files, she cautions against simplistic regime-type explanations, noting that “these gendered abuses of authority have also proliferated in the corridors of power in predominantly democratic contexts in Europe and the United States.” Yet she stresses that personalistic rule and eroded oversight create heightened risks in authoritarian settings, where such systems are “more at risk both of experiencing these gendered abuses and, perhaps especially, of the impunity surrounding them—of people not reporting them, of them remaining unseen, and of not being addressed.” This dynamic speaks directly to the broader vulnerability of populist authoritarian governance to gendered exploitation and unaccountable power.

More broadly, Professor Bjarnegård situates these patterns within a continuum of gendered violence that includes psychological intimidation, reputational attacks, and digitally mediated harassment—forms of coercion that undermine democratic participation without overt repression. Taken together, her analysis suggests that gender politics is becoming a diagnostic lens through which scholars can assess democratic resilience, institutional integrity, and the trajectory of global political competition. The interview thus positions gender not as a peripheral social issue but as a central structural dimension of contemporary struggles between liberal democracy and authoritarian populism.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Professor Elin Bjarnegård, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Gender Is a Strategic Resource for Authoritarian Survival

Gender equality.
Illustration: Dreamstime.

Professor Elin Bjarnegård, thank you so much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In your scholarship, you argue that authoritarian leaders treat gender not primarily as ideology but as a strategic resource for regime survival. How does this perspective revise dominant interpretations of populism’s relationship to gender politics beyond the conventional “backlash against feminism” thesis?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: Thank you for that question. I would say that what this perspective really adds is a strategic dimension. It is not that we want to suggest there is no ideology involved—of course ideology plays a role. The relationship between populism and gender politics, and the backlash narrative in particular, still has analytical value. However, what is often overlooked is the presence of a very important strategic component. That is what we seek to foreground by adding this strategic dimension to the equation.

So we are not arguing that ideology is irrelevant, but rather that strategy deserves more attention. In this sense, gender becomes a useful, malleable concept for authoritarian leaders—a powerful symbol that can be mobilized for regime purposes.

From an ideological perspective, one must focus on policy positions and attempts to persuade opponents. A strategic perspective, by contrast, emphasizes negotiation and maneuvering. This is why I believe it is an important lens to introduce. It opens possibilities for collaboration in a polarized world and encourages us to see political opponents as actors with whom dialogue remains possible, particularly when we recognize the strategic component of their actions.

Gender Equality as Both Shield and Weapon in Global Politics

Your work distinguishes between “genderbashing” and “genderwashing” as complementary authoritarian strategies. Under what structural and international conditions do regimes oscillate between these tactics, and how does the global bundling of democracy and gender equality norms enable such strategic manipulation?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: We see this oscillation, as you say, more clearly now and in recent years because we have had a fairly strong global norm of gender equality for the past three decades or so. That norm is now evaporating, or at least stagnating, and we also see alternative norms emerging. As the global order itself is increasingly questioned, the norm of gender equality is likewise being challenged. In a multipolar world, actors may view gender mainstreaming—as promoted by the UN or the EU—as no longer the only legitimate path. This creates space, particularly for authoritarian actors, to use gender equality as an instrument to portray themselves as modern, progressive, or even democratic, especially since gender equality and democracy have long been bundled together in major democracy-promotion efforts.

At the same time, however, this shift opens the door to a different interpretation, in which gender is used to distance regimes from global institutions such as the UN and the EU by rejecting what they frame as the foreign imposition of values in favor of traditional family norms. What was once a relatively stable landscape—where countries knew their allies, audiences, and signaling targets—has become more fluid. States now communicate simultaneously with multiple audiences. As a result, the same country may present itself as supportive of gender equality and committed to combating violence against women on the one hand, while simultaneously promoting homophobic narratives to justify, for example, military engagement with other countries.

Feminationalism Turns Inclusion Into a Weapon

Feminism.
Photo: Dreamstime.

 

Many populist actors claim to defend women’s rights selectively — for instance, against migrants or minorities — while undermining broader gender equality. How does this selective emancipation differ from classical authoritarian gender politics, and what dilemmas does it pose for liberal and intersectional feminism?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: This type of politics—sometimes called feminationalism, or homonationalism, depending on the target group—is also part of the broader package I mentioned earlier about bringing strategy into gender politics and into authoritarian politics. It is a clear illustration of how highly strategic these dynamics can be, because in these narratives, inclusion is deployed, as you say, only selectively or strategically—and ultimately for the purpose of excluding certain groups.

If the intersectional perspective, as originally conceived, aimed to ensure that we identify the most vulnerable groups and recognize multiple systems of oppression so that people do not fall between the cracks but instead benefit from policies designed to protect them, this type of feminationalism—or the selective defense of women’s rights deployed against minorities, for instance—does the opposite: it pits these systems of oppression against each other.

In a way, it draws on our knowledge about intersectional layers of oppression but turns them against one another, claiming, for example, that gender equality and women’s rights are under threat from migration. The dilemma it poses is quite similar to that of genderbashing and genderwashing. Insofar as there is a solution, it requires caution. We need to scrutinize these narratives carefully and be specific—not simply respond to symbolism or easy answers, but examine what is actually being claimed and who is being favored—in order to look beyond the strategy.

Militarized Masculinity Fuels Authoritarian Appeal

Your research on militarized masculinity suggests that patriarchal norms can coexist with formal democratic institutions and fuel political violence. How does the persistence of such masculinist political cultures help explain the gendered appeal of authoritarian populism across diverse contexts?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: I think masculinist cultures are both persistent, as you say, and increasingly revealing themselves and being strengthened in many places. We can begin with the fact that they coexist with, and also exist within, democratic settings. Democratic institutions were originally built by men, for men, and are imbued with male norms; studies of feminist institutionalism, for instance, have made this argument for a long time. Patriarchal norms have therefore always coexisted, to some extent, with formal democratic institutions. However, they have been challenged in recent decades, and they certainly vary and take different forms across contexts.

Many of us associate the political with masculinity to such an extent that it becomes difficult to pinpoint. While there has been significant focus on women in politics, there has been far less attention to men and masculinity in politics. Several research projects in Europe are now examining political science questions from a masculinity perspective, reflecting the rise of new forms of hegemonic and militarized masculinities that make clear the need for deeper understanding. “Men4Them” is one such project, examining radicalized young men as well as leadership and the spillover effects between the two. As part of this project, we seek both to understand the masculine ideals that politicians and leaders attempt to embody and, importantly, how these ideals can be transformed. We know change is possible: not long ago, in my country, Sweden, party leaders competed to present themselves as feminists, which is no longer the case.

This shift is likely related to the broader global order. We see geopolitical tensions and increasing militarization, alongside a reversal of the movement from soft power toward hard power. Narratives emphasizing traditionally masculine traits—such as strength over cooperation—are returning. Research shows these cultures have always existed, but what is striking today is that they are once again becoming, if not hegemonic, at least highly prominent.

Protection Narratives and the Return of Strongman Politics

Women rally in Istanbul.
Women rally in Istanbul to protest proposed anti-abortion legislation by then–Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, June 18, 2012. Photo: Sadık Güleç.

Relatedly, how do hypermasculine narratives and honor ideologies shape the emotional and symbolic appeal of strongman leadership, particularly among male constituencies experiencing status anxiety in periods of social transformation?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: This goes back again to the question we have just discussed, because, of course, it is about leadership and about what an ideal leader is supposed to be in a specific context at a particular point in time. But as I mentioned, it is really important to consider the spillover and interaction between leaders and their constituents. There is a constant interplay between the two.

In this context of status anxiety and social transformation, there is a great deal of fear and uncertainty, which tends to favor the presentation of easy solutions to complex problems. I think one of the easiest sentiments to mobilize is a sense of lost entitlement, and looking back at traditional gender roles can provide a feeling of security.

These honor ideologies often build on an idea of protection, which speaks to a basic need for security. At the same time, we need to scrutinize this and critically examine strongman ideology. Protection may be necessary, but the key question becomes who is positioned to protect whom. It also relies on a separation between genders and assigns different values to them. This reflects a return to hard-power narratives that signal traditional strongman characteristics—protection achieved not through collaboration, but through the display of force, coercion, and strength.

Online Gendered Abuse Threatens Electoral Integrity

You have shown that violence against women in politics often operates along a continuum that includes psychological intimidation and reputational attacks. How does this less visible violence function as an informal mechanism of democratic backsliding even in electoral regimes?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: Violence against women, as well as violence against political actors in general, operates along this continuum. But we do see that violence against political actors has gendered components.

Specifically, if we look at those gendered components and include the continuum you mentioned, it becomes important to recognize violations that occur not only physically but also psychologically and online, because the types of reputation-damaging slander that women and men encounter are fundamentally different in character. It is not that men are protected online—that is not the case—but if we examine the types of slander campaigns deployed against men and women politicians, we see that, to a much larger extent, women politicians face narratives targeting them as persons, often highly sexualized and directed at their family members, whereas men are more often, sometimes harshly and unfairly, criticized for their policy stances or political positions.

I, therefore, think it is important to demonstrate this continuum and to include psychological intimidation and reputational attacks, because they can be equally damaging to democratic procedures. They reflect a similar readiness to violate democratic integrity as physical forms of violence. Although such actions may not violate bodily integrity to the same extent as physical violence, they certainly violate personal integrity just as much. If we are concerned with threats to democracy and with disrespect for democratic procedures and institutions, I believe that violations occurring online must also be included in that continuum.

Homosocial Recruitment Sustains Male Dominance in Populist Parties

Your feminist institutionalist research highlights how informal party networks and homosocial recruitment reproduce male dominance. To what extent do populist radical right parties intensify these exclusionary mechanisms compared to mainstream parties?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: It is a difference in degree rather than in kind. In general, what we see in parties and organizations alike is that if you only or primarily network with like-minded people who tend to think, act, and behave like you, and if you mainly recognize competence in those you perceive as similar to yourself, you may be able to shape a very strong and coherent message. Collaboration may be smooth in that group, and you will be surrounded by people who agree with you.

But you will not have broad representation, you will not hear other perspectives, and you will not be challenged by—or learn from—others. Insofar as populist radical right parties tend to build more on loyalties than on representational claims, and more on personal relationships than on bureaucratic recruitment procedures, we can certainly see this type of homosocial recruitment producing male dominance there as well. It becomes a kind of celebration of like-mindedness rather than a reflection of a diversity of ideas. This plays a significant role in the masculine dominance we observe both among constituents and within these parties themselves.

Gender Equality as a Tool of Authoritarian Legitimacy

Giorgia Meloni.
Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy and leader of the Fratelli d’Italia party, speaks at an electoral rally ahead of the national elections in Turin, Italy, September 13, 2022. Photo: Antonello Marangi / Dreamstime.

Authoritarian regimes sometimes increase women’s descriptive representation through quotas while simultaneously restricting civil liberties. Does such symbolic inclusion risk legitimizing illiberal rule by projecting an image of progress without substantive empowerment?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: That is exactly the risk of what my colleague Per Setterberg and I have come to call autocratic genderwashing, especially when this descriptive representation does not lead to substantive representation, or when it is limited and includes only women affiliated with the government, for instance.

In many places, with Rwanda perhaps as one of the clearest examples, we do see that the introduction of gender quotas really boosts the representation of women. But if we take a closer look, we see that it mainly boosts the representation of government-affiliated women. This then leads to an even stronger electoral dominance of an already dominant authoritarian party, at the same time as it generates goodwill and international prestige, because the country is seen as favoring and promoting gender equality and women’s representation. It can present itself as modern and progressive and, interestingly enough, because of this bundling of democracy and gender, even as a democratic country.

All the while, if we look more closely at what happens behind the scenes, we also know that this is a country that keeps jailing opponents, restricting civil liberties, and remains authoritarian. So it is about taking a closer look and considering what kinds of signals they are able to send and who this reform actually favors. It can be that it favors both. We can end up in tricky situations where a gender equality reform improves conditions for women—perhaps for a select group of women, but nevertheless for women—while at the same time strengthening the hold on power of an autocratic regime.

That is, in a way, an impossible conundrum we are faced with, but we nevertheless have to recognize it. That is really what we hope to spur discussion on: not to see it as one thing or the other, or simply accept the image these regimes want to portray, but to recognize these value clashes, these conundrums, and discuss what we should do in such cases.

Democratization Does Not Automatically Deliver Gender Equality

Your work suggests democratization does not automatically produce gender equality and may even coexist with patriarchal power structures. How should scholars rethink linear assumptions linking democratic transitions to women’s rights advancements?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: In principle, if you ask most scholars, my guess would be that this linear assumption has been rethought. At the same time, it remains a very relevant question, because versions of it still persist in people’s minds. Even when asked explicitly, people may not believe in a strictly linear progression where one development automatically produces the other. As I have often noted, in democracy promotion and in discussions about how to advance democracy, the inclusion of women has become a core component.

While many would define democracy as something that cannot exist without the proper inclusion of all groups—and the inclusion of women is, of course, necessary and important for a genuine democracy—it does not follow that inclusion can compensate for a lack of competition. This is where we have often gone wrong, allowing inclusion to substitute for the absence of political competition in the eyes of the international community, for instance.

Looking back historically, if we examine the issue more closely, some cosmetic gender-equality reforms—for example, in many communist countries where equality was a prominent ideological principle and women were relatively well represented in parliament—did not make those systems democratic. We have also seen in many contexts that women played crucial roles in democratic transition movements, only to be marginalized once parties and institutions were established. The relationship is therefore far more complex than the linear assumption suggests. At the same time, the connection is not entirely absent, because inclusion remains an important principle of democracy; it is simply not the only one.

Sexual Corruption Is a Systemic, Not Isolated, Problem

Jeffrey Epstein
Float featuring a caricature of Jeffrey Epstein and the slogan “Everyone protected the criminals and ignored the victims” at the Rosenmontag carnival parade in Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia. Photo: Elena Frolova / Dreamstime.

Your concept of “sexual corruption” reframes gendered abuses of authority as governance failures rather than isolated misconduct. Do such practices proliferate under populist or authoritarian rule where institutional accountability mechanisms are weakened?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: Yes, such practices proliferate anywhere institutional accountability mechanisms are weak. But then again, as the recent release of the Epstein files, for instance, has clearly demonstrated, these gendered abuses of authority have also proliferated in the corridors of power in predominantly democratic contexts in Europe and the United States. So it is not as simple as a matter of them and us when it comes to sexual corruption and this kind of gendered abuse of power. The problem exists everywhere.

Interestingly, it has perhaps received the most attention in areas like Sub-Saharan Africa, where there have been significant campaigns against practices such as teachers handing out grades in exchange for sex. But we have to look at different contexts and recognize that they carry different types of risks in different areas.

Insofar as your question concerns populist and authoritarian rule, these systems generally have a greater propensity to overlook institutional accountability mechanisms in favor of, as we discussed earlier, more personalistic loyalties. They are therefore certainly more at risk both of experiencing these gendered abuses and, perhaps especially, of the impunity surrounding them—of people not reporting them, of them remaining unseen, and of not being addressed.

Digital Harassment as a Tool to Exclude Women from Politics

How are online harassment, disinformation, and gendered hate speech transforming the authoritarian toolkit, particularly as methods for discouraging women’s political participation without overt repression?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: Yes, we talked a bit about this earlier when we discussed the continuum of violence, which of course includes psychological forms of violence, intimidation, and hate speech that increasingly take place online. The use of technology in this type of harassment, disinformation, and hate speech is making an already effective and efficient authoritarian toolkit even more efficient, because it gives it wider reach, causes more harm than before, and can project images and ideas that are simply not true.

The fact that these violations have increasingly moved online, or are also spread online, means that technology is now used both to spread fear and to disseminate propaganda in new ways. It also represents a move away from ideological discussion, because it often disregards ideological stances entirely, relying instead on targeted messaging and algorithms to influence different groups in a particular direction, making it more like marketing than politics in a sense. It is not about convincing people; it is about moving them in a specific direction, even if it means misinforming them. This is an area where the authoritarian toolkit is clearly expanding. For women’s political participation, as well as participation in general, we see a number of new methods emerging here.

Trumpism Normalized Anti-Gender Rhetoric Globally

MAGA
Woman wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat prays at a “Stop the Steal” rally in Helena, Montana, on November 7, 2020, in support of Donald Trump and claims that the election was stolen by Joe Biden. Photo: Dreamstime.

From a comparative perspective, how do you evaluate the global impact of Donald Trump’s presidency on gender politics? Did Trumpism normalize gender-based rhetoric and policy rollbacks that other populist leaders subsequently emulated?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: It is almost hard to overestimate the impact, but nevertheless I think that what we see happening in the US did not come from nowhere. There was already a platform for this kind of discussion. Political leaders like Putin, Orbán, and Erdoğan had already drawn media attention for both sexist remarks and derogatory statements about what they called “gender ideology,” a broad concept often deployed to describe perceived threats to gender equality against traditional family values. So I think that during Donald Trump’s second term in office, he could simply follow these already existing international narratives, and he did so even in his inaugural address. He vowed to dismantle gender mainstreaming and announced an executive order for government agencies to remove statements, policies, and regulations that promote or otherwise incorporate gender ideology.

This is certainly rhetoric he could build on, and we could say that sometimes it functions mainly as a strategy to align himself with certain parts of the population while distancing himself from others. But the potential danger with these narratives, and with genderbashing in general, is that to be a credible leader, one sometimes also has to follow through. We see that in the US: it has not just stopped at rhetoric. We have also seen the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across various sectors.

This shows that he had a platform to build on and could follow suit, but when both this rhetoric and these policy rollbacks occur in the US, they also normalize these types of discussions and narratives, portraying gender not necessarily as something positive but as something potentially dangerous and harmful.

The Rise and Fall of Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy

Sweden’s feminist foreign policy was widely seen as a pioneering normative project yet was later discontinued. What does this reversal reveal about the resilience — or fragility — of gender-progressive policies amid shifting political coalitions and populist radical right pressures?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: Sweden’s feminist foreign policy is an interesting case in point because it vividly illustrates how much the world has changed in just a few years. When the feminist foreign policy was first adopted and launched in Sweden in 2014, it was the first of its kind. It was, as you said, seen as pioneering. We were in a world where being feminist was seen as a good thing and where this was something people competed over in Sweden and elsewhere, and we could also see that a lot of countries followed suit. It is a bit difficult to know exactly what constitutes a feminist foreign policy, but at least 15 or 16 other countries declared, in one way or another, that they also wanted to pursue a feminist foreign policy.

But then, just a few years later, in 2022, when we had a new government, the very first thing they did was to withdraw the feminist foreign policy, claiming that they were not against gender equality but against these labels, which were more about showcasing and using the word feminist than about actually doing things. It is interesting that the first country in the world to adopt a feminist foreign policy was also the first country in the world to withdraw it, and it is very symptomatic of the development we are seeing.

I think it goes back to many of the issues we discussed, particularly the potential danger that gender as a word, and gender equality as a norm, has been so all-encompassing. In gender mainstreaming, for instance, it has been something said to apply to all sectors, all policies, and all genders. In the success story of gender equality over the past few decades, we may have run the risk of not being specific enough, of not saying what matters and why it matters. That leaves the door open for interpretations, misinterpretations, and adaptations of what gender as this big concept actually is and could be.

That is what we are seeing now, and it explains why leaders can juxtapose using gender equality as a good thing with using gender ideology as a bad thing, oscillating between the two, because it is not necessarily clear what it is supposed to mean. That is also why it has been difficult, to some extent, to evaluate policies like the feminist foreign policy. But what we did see is that it was, at least, more than a label. It did change the way things were carried out in Swedish foreign policy, even though it was in place for only a few years.

Gender Rights as the Next Global Fault Line

And lastly, Professor Bjarnegård, looking ahead, do you anticipate that gender rights will become an increasingly central fault line in the global contest between liberal democracy and authoritarian populism — and what forms might meaningful resistance and democratic renewal take?

Professor Elin Bjarnegård: That is the million-dollar question. I do, unfortunately, anticipate that gender rights, or perhaps the strategic use of gender, will become an increasingly central fault line. But I also think that this is why the strategic component we are trying to remind people of is important, because it means that we can find areas where it may not be all about sexism, misogyny, and ideological differences, but also about how gender has become a useful, easy, and simplistic narrative to deploy strategically.

If we try to resist not by increasing polarization but rather by finding spaces for negotiation and discussion, it helps—at least it does for me—to think that part of this is strategy, not only ideological conviction. I really think the first step is to be a bit more cautious whenever we see people speaking about gender, either in the form of potential genderbashing—building this large phantasm of so-called gender ideology—or genderwashing, emphasizing all the good things a country or regime has done for gender equality. We should be careful not to fall into the trap of letting gender become a single, overarching symbol, but instead try to be specific: where and how does it matter in a particular policy area?

Sometimes we also have to be clear about the trade-offs and value clashes that are part of politics. We cannot always have everything that is good, and not everything that is good is compatible. At least for me, looking back at the past decades, it has been an unprecedentedly positive era for women’s rights, and it is in many ways remarkable that gender equality achieved such status as a global norm. But that also means we now need to take a second look in this different era and ask where we need to be more careful and more specific about why it matters, focusing on concrete issues rather than treating gender merely as a symbol, because it is important for many other reasons as well.

ECPS Virtual Workshops-Session 12

Virtual Workshop Series / Session 12 — Decolonizing Democracy: Governance, Identity, and Resistance in the Global South

by MultimediaVideos

Session 12 of the ECPS Virtual Workshop Series explored how “decolonizing democracy” requires attention to the material and symbolic structures shaping participation, legitimacy, and representation. The presentations framed democracy not as a settled institutional model but as a contested field shaped by colonial legacies, extractive political economies, and identity-based struggles over inclusion and authority. Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja’s comparative study of Nigeria and the United Kingdom showed how environmental governance can produce “participation without power,” where formal inclusion coexists with persistent injustice. Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme’s analysis of Cameroon highlighted how pluralism has intensified communal claims to state ownership, complicating political alternation. Supported by Dr. Gabriel Cyril Nguijoi’s feedback, the session underscored the value of concepts such as biocultural sovereignty and communocratic populism and emphasized the need for context-sensitive, interdisciplinary approaches to democratic renewal in the Global South.

Reported by ECPS Staff

On Thursday, February 19, 2026, the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) convened Session 12 of its Virtual Workshop Series, “We, the People” and the Future of Democracy: Interdisciplinary Approaches, under the theme “Decolonizing Democracy: Governance, Identity, and Resistance in the Global South.” The session foregrounded a core problem in contemporary democratic theory and practice: how democratic institutions—often inherited, transplanted, or externally modeled—are reshaped, contested, and resisted in postcolonial contexts marked by extractive political economies, unequal state–society relations, and enduring struggles over recognition and voice.

Moderated by Neo Sithole (University of Szeged), the workshop approached “the people” not as a stable category but as a contested political project—produced through governance arrangements, mobilized through identity, and asserted through resistance. Across the session, democracy emerged less as an institutional endpoint than as a field of struggle in which colonial legacies, state power, and community agency intersect. Rather than treating decolonization as a symbolic discourse, contributors examined its concrete implications for how participation is structured, how resources are governed, and how legitimacy is claimed in environments where the state’s democratic form may coexist with exclusionary or coercive practices.

The session brought together two presentations that, while distinct in focus, converged on a shared concern with democratic deficit: the gap between formal mechanisms of participation and the effective capacity of communities to shape political and material outcomes. First, Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja (Olabisi Onabanjo University) examined environmental governance as a critical site of democratic contestation in a paper jointly authored with Busayo Olakitan Badmos (Olabisi Onabanjo University), titled “Decolonial Environmentalism and Democracy: A Comparative Study of Resource Governance in Nigeria and the United Kingdom.” Positioning environmental politics within the broader architecture of power, he explored how colonial histories and technocratic governance models marginalize local knowledge and produce “participation without power,” while proposing biocultural sovereignty as a pathway toward more inclusive ecological governance.

Second, Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme (University of Ngaoundéré) analyzed electoral politics and identity mobilization in Cameroon in “Africa at the Test of Populism: Identity Mobilisations, Crises of Political Alternation, and the Trial of Democracy,” jointly authored with Dr. Yves Valéry Obame (University of Bertoua / Global Studies Institute & Geneva Africa Lab). His contribution interrogated how multiparty competition can intensify communal claims to representation, framing elections not as programmatic contests but as struggles over inclusion, alternation, and the symbolic ownership of the state.

The discussion was anchored by Dr. Gabriel Cyril Nguijoi (National Institute of Cartography; ICEDIS), whose role as discussant helped connect the papers’ empirical insights to broader debates on coloniality, accountability, and democratic substance. His interventions highlighted how both contributions disrupt common analytical shortcuts—whether the assumption that environmental injustice is confined to the Global South, or the notion that repeated elections necessarily constitute democratic consolidation. 

Taken together, Session 12 offered a layered and comparative exploration of how democracy is challenged—and potentially renewed—through the politics of governance, identity, and resistance in postcolonial settings.

Read the Full Report

Symposium

The 5th Annual International Symposium — Reforming & Safeguarding Liberal Democracy: Systemic Crises, Populism, and Democratic Resilience

by Editor’s ChoiceEventsHomeUpcoming Events

Date: April 21–22, 2026 

Online Event | All Sessions in Brussels Time (CEST, UTC+2)

 

Click here to register!

 

Day One

(April 21, 2026 / 13:00-18:35)

 

Opening Remarks

(13:00–13:10)

Irina von Wiese (ECPS Honorary President)

 

Keynote Speech

(13:10–13:55)

“The Chicken-and-Egg Dilemma: Systemic Crises and the Rise of Populism,” by Staffan I. Lindberg (Professor of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Founding Director (2012–2025) of V-Dem Institute).

 

Coffee Break

(13:55–14:10)

 

Panel 1

From Promise to Peril: How Populists Deepen Structural and Economic Crises

(14:10–15:25)

Moderator

Emilia Zankina (Professor, Dean of Temple University Rome, Vice Provost for Global Engagement, Temple University). TBC

Speakers

“‘Driving On the Right’: Analyzing Far-Right Rhetoric,” by Ruth Wodak (Distinguished Professor and Chair in Discourse Studies, Lancaster University; University of Vienna). 

“The Theocratic Blueprint of Christian Nationalism, Reconstructionism, the New Apostolic Reformation, and Catholic Integralism Behind Trump’s Agenda,” by Julie Ingersoll (Professor of Philosophy & Religious Studies and Religious Studies Program Coordinator at the University of North Florida).

“International Organizations in Times of Populism,” by Stephan Klingebiel (Head of the Department of Inter- and Transnational Cooperation at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)). 

“Humiliation, Elite Impunity, and the Anti-System Gamble: Weimar-Type Mechanisms in Contemporary Grievance Politics,” by Benjamin Carter Hett (Professor of History, Hunter College & The Graduate Center, CUNY). 

 

Coffee Break

(15:25–15:40)

 

Panel 2

Institutional Vulnerabilities, Rule of Law, and Bureaucratic Resistance

(15:40–16:55)

Moderator

 Malgorzata Bonikowska (Professor of European Studies, University of Warsaw).

Speakers

“Democratic Resilience Under Pressure: Institutions, Accountability, and the Return to Robust Democracy,” by Susan C. Stokes (Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor and Director of the Chicago Center on Democracy at the University of Chicago).

“To Resist a Coordinated Attack, We Need a Coordinated Defense,” by Robert Benson (Associate Director for National Security & International Policy, Center for American Progress (CAP)).

“The Law and Politics of Fear: Executive Power in 2026,” by Barry Sullivan (The Raymond and Mary Simon Chair in Constitutional Law and the George Anastaplo Professor of Constitutional Law and History at Loyola University).

“Democracy, the Rule of Law, and Regime Change: An Evolutionary Perspective,” by Stephen E. Hanson (Lettie Pate Evans Professor of Government, William & Mary (USA)).

 

Coffee Break

(16:55–17:10)

 

Panel 3

The Institutional Pathways of Authoritarian Populism: Normalization, Radicalization, and Democratic Resilience

(17:10–18:25)

Moderator

Albena Azmanova (Professor of Political Science, City, St George’s University of London). TBC 

Speakers

“The Arc of Authoritarian Populism in the US under Donald Trump, How Far It Has Progressed, and the Prospects of Reversing It,” by Larry Diamond (William L. Clayton Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy, Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI); Bass University Fellow). 

“The Institutional Enablement of American Populism,” by Bruce Cain (Professor of Political Science, Stanford University; Director, Bill Lane Center). 

“When Authoritarianism Becomes the New Normal: Civic Resistance and Institutional Renewal in Comparative Perspective,” by Ibrahim Al-Marashi (Assoc. Prof. at The American College of the Mediterranean, and the Department of International Relations at Central European University).

“From Populism to Fascism in Contemporary Europe,” by Douglas Holmes (Professor of Anthropology, University of Binghampton). 

 

Wrap-up

(18:25–18:35)

 

 

Day Two

(April 22, 2026 / 13:00-16:50)

 

Opening 

(13:00–13:05)

 

Keynote Speech

(13:05–13:50)

“Democratic Resilience in Europe: Can It Be Effective?” by Richard Youngs (Professor, Senior Fellow at Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at Carnegie Europe).

 

Panel 4

Comparative Regional Perspectives on Democratic Backsliding

(13:50–15:05)

Moderator

Reinhard Heinisch (Professor of Comparative Austrian Politics, University of Salzburg).

Speakers

“Building an Authoritarian Edifice Step-By-Step,” by Henri J. Barkey (Cohen Professor of International Relations (Emeritus), Department of International Relations, Lehigh University).

“Populism and Transnational Ties of the Far Right in East Asia: Recent Developments in South Korea,” by Hannes B. Mosler (Professor, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Institut für Politikwissenschaft (IfP), Institute of East Asian Studies (IN-EAST)).

“Trumpism, Culture Wars, and the Reinvention of Europe’s Far Right,” by Paweł Zerka (Senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations).

4th Speaker TBC 

 

Coffee Break

(15:05–15:20)

 

Panel 5 

Resistance, Civic Capacity, and Judicial Renewal

(15:20–16:35)

Moderator

 Marianne Riddervold (Professor of International Relations, University of Oslo). TBC

Speakers

“Changing Democracy’s Address,” by Steven Friedman (Research Professor of Politics, University of Johannesburg; former Director, Centre for the Study of Democracy).

“Penal Populism as a Regional Driver of Democratic Backsliding: Comparative Lessons from Anglophone Democracies and Beyond,” John Pratt (Emeritus Professor of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington).

“Weaponized Trade Policy: Tariffs, Industrial Policy, and the Future of Global Economic Governance,” by Kent Jones (Professor Emeritus of International Economics, Babson College.)

4th Speaker TBC

 

Closing Remarks

(16:35-16:50)

Click here to register!

 

Abstracts and Brief Bios

The Chicken-and-Egg Dilemma: Systemic Crises and the Rise of Populism

Abstract: In this keynote Professor Staffan I. Lindberg discuss the most recent trends in democracy, autocracy, and regime transformation based on Democracy Report 2026. He will show how by some measure the level of democracy is back to 1985; that the global wave of autocratization is intensifying, with 44 countries autocratizing and only 18 democratizing. The outlook is worse than in the last 25 years, includes weakening of democracy in established democracies. These trends are closely tied to increasing disinformation and polarization and driven primarily by far-right, nationalist parties and leaders around the world. Finally, Lindberg will touch on the ongoing process of autocratization in the United States of America (USA) under President Trump, and show that his administration is doing away with American democracy.

Staffan I. Lindberg is Professor and Founding Director of the V-Dem Institute (2012-2025); PI of Varieties of Democracy; Founding Director of the national research infrastructure DEMSCORE (2019-present); Wallenberg Academy Fellow alumni; co-author of Varieties of Democracy (CUP 2020), Why Democracies Develop and Decline (CUP 2022) as well as other books and over 70 scientific articles as well as numerous reports, policy briefs, and think-pieces; extensive experience as consultant on development and democracy, and as advisor to international organizations, ministries, and state authorities. Lindberg is the principal author of the annual Democracy Report,  the Case for Democracy and numerous policy briefs out of the V-Dem Institute. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0386-7390

“Driving On the Right”: Analyzing Far-Right Rhetoric

Abstract: Much research in EU member-states, the US, and beyond, illustrates that formerly taboo subjects and expressions in mainstream discourse are being accepted more and more (‘normalization’) and have become part and parcel of mainstream politics. Such normalization goes hand in hand with a certain ‘shamelessness‘: the limits of the sayable are shifting regarding both the frequency of lies and the violating of discourse and politeness conventions – as well as regarding repeated attacks on salient democratic institutions.

Discursive strategies of provocation, blame avoidance, denial, Manichean division, victim-perpetrator reversal as well as eristic argumentation and conspiracy theories dominate official communication, accompanied by ever more nativist nationalism and the racialization of space. For example, normalizing the assessment of migrants and refugees (all labelled as “illegal migrants”) as a threat to inner security, a burden on the welfare state and education system must be perceived as an international development – generally instrumentalizing a “politics of fear” and reinforcing a “coarse civility” [rohe Bürgerlichkeit] (@Heitmeyer).

Ruth Wodak is Emerita Distinguished Professor of Discourse Studies, Lancaster Univ. and retired Professor of Applied Linguistics, Univ. Vienna. She is the recipient of many awards such as the Wittgenstein-Prize for Outstanding Research 1996. She has honorary doctorates from Univ. Örebro 2010, Warwick Univ. 2020; since 2020 honorary member of the Senate, Univ. Vienna. She is member of the British Academy of Social Sciences and the Academia Europeae.

 She is co-editor of Discourse & Society and Critical Discourse Studies.

Research interests
Discourse studies, identity politics and politics of the past, populism, media- and political communication, racism and antisemitism. 

Recent book publications

“Babyelefant und Hausverstand”. Wie Krisen produziert werden (Picus; with Markus Rheindorf)

Das kann noch immer in Wien passieren. (Czernin Verlag 2024).

Identity Politics Past and Present. Political Discourses from Post-war Austria to the Covid Crisis (Exeter Press 2022: with Markus Rheindorf). 

The Politics of Fear. The Shameless Normalisation of Far-right Discourses. (Sage 2021).

Österreichische Identitäten im Wandel (with Rudolf de Cillia, Markus Rheindorf & Sabine Lehner; Springer 2020).  

Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Migration Control (edited with Markus Rheindorf; Multilingual Matters 2020).

 

The Theocratic Blueprint of Christian Nationalism, Reconstructionism, the New Apostolic Reformation, and Catholic Integralism Behind Trump’s Agenda

Abstract: The groups making up the MAGA coalition in the U.S. are varied and contradictory. This talk will focus on three of those groups that solidify the support of Christian Nationalists and provide an underlying shared opposition to social equality and government by consent. Sidestepping discussions of whether or Christian Nationalists are “really Christian,” I’ll suggest rethinking how we understand religion as theology; a step that helps makes sense of why these three divergent groups have a shared ant-democratic vision.

Julie Ingersoll is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Florida. She teaches and writes about religion and politics, violence and the Christian right. She is an occasional contributor to Religion Dispatches, The Huff Post, and The Conversation and her work has been widely cited including in the New Yorker, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Her books include “Evangelical Christian Women: War Stories in the Gender Battles” (New York University Press, 2003) and “Building God’s Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction” (Oxford University Press, 2015).

International Organizations in Times of Populism

Abstract: International organizations are under growing pressure from populist governments in multiple ways. The ongoing transformation of global politics has created a situation in which, particularly during the second term of Donald Trump, power and coercion are employed more explicitly and strategically.
Governments may address domestic and/or international audiences by announcing their intention to withdraw or by terminating membership, reducing or delaying financial contributions, promoting a populist agenda, or obstructing decision-making processes. One additional strategy is to exert pressure to refocus mandates on a narrowly defined “core mission.”
The first year of Trump’s second term provides several illustrations of how international organizations are treated in this context — from the United Nations to the multilateral development banks, the OECD, and others. Another approach consists of creating alternative forums in order to undermine existing global governance structures.
 
Stephan Klingebiel is a  Professor of Political Science at University of Turin and Head of the Research Department “Inter- and Transnational Cooperation” at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). His research focuses on the political economy of development cooperation, aid effectiveness, global public goods, and the nexus between security and development. Professor Klingebiel’s work also examines governance and regional cooperation in Africa, with additional regional expertise in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and East Asia. He has held his current leadership position at IDOS since July 2021, following the institute’s transition from the German Development Institute (DIE).

Humiliation, Elite Impunity, and the Anti-System Gamble: Weimar-Type Mechanisms in Contemporary Grievance Politics

Abstract: The historical example of the Nazi rise to power in Germany can provide some useful insights into the question of what can fuel authoritarian politics in a liberal democracy. In the Weimar Republic the most significant element fueling the Nazi rise was the pervasive sense of humiliation which millions of Germans experiences in the aftermath of the First World War, combined with the adjacent concept of status anxiety. These feelings operated at both elite and relatively modest levels, and the Nazis were skillful at exploiting them. When this phenomenon is understood it can also provide key insights for understanding authoritarian politics in modern democracies in the 21st century, in North America, Europe, and elsewhere.

Benjamin Carter Hett earned a B.A. at the University of Alberta and a J.D. at the University of Toronto and practiced litigation in Toronto before going back to obtain an MA in history from U of T and finally a Ph.D. in history at Harvard. He has taught at Harvard College and the Harvard Law School and, since 2003, at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY). He is the author of 6 books, including The Death of Democracy: Hitler’s Rise to Power and the Downfall of the Weimar Republic (Henry Holt, 2018), winner of the 2019 Vine Award for History, named one of the year’s best books by The Times of London and the Daily Telegraph, and was a Jeopardy clue in 2025; and The Nazi Menace: Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and the Road to War (Henry Holt, 2020) named an editors’ choice by the New York Times Book Review. He is presently finishing a book on criminal policing in Nazi Germany and moving on to a project on Nazi feature films.

Democratic Resilience Under Pressure: Institutions, Accountability, and the Return to Robust Democracy

Abstract: The world has experienced a spate of democratic erosion in the past quarter century. In two dozen democracies, presidents and prime ministers have come to power through free and fair elections, only to undermine their own democratic institutions. What have we learned about the causes of democratic backsliding. And, though we are still in the midst of this drama, what have we learned about forces and factors that put the brake on backsliding?

Susan Stokes is Blake Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and Faculty Chair of the Chicago Center on Democracy. She is the author of books and articles about democracy, development, political behavior, and Latin American politics. Among her single- and co-authored books are Mandates and Democracy (Cambridge University Press 2001), Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism (CUP 2013), and Why Bother? Rethinking Participation in Elections and Protests (CUP 2019). Her most recent book, The Backsliders: Why Leaders Undermine Their Own Democracies, was published by Princeton University Press in September, 2025. Stokes is the current president of the American Political Science Association. She is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a co-founder of Bright Line Watch.

Democracy, the Rule of Law, and Regime Change: An Evolutionary Perspective

Stephen E. Hanson is Lettie Pate Evans Professor in the Department of Government at William & Mary. He served as Vice Provost for International Affairs at W&M from 2011-2021, and as Vice Provost for International & Academic Affairs in 2021-2022. From 2009-2011, he served as Vice Provost for Global Affairs at the University of Washington, Seattle. Hanson received his B.A. in Social Studies from Harvard University (1985) and his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley (1991). A specialist in Russian, post-communist, and comparative politics, Hanson is the author of numerous books and scholarly articles, including Post-Imperial Democracies: Ideology and Party Formation in Third Republic France, Weimar Germany, and Post-Soviet Russia (Cambridge University Press, 2010) and Time and Revolution: Marxism and the Design of Soviet Institutions (University of North Carolina Press, 1997). His forthcoming books include The Assault on the State: How the Attack on Modern Governance Threatens Our Futures(Polity, 2024) and The Evolution of Regimes (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). In 2014, Hanson served as President of the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES).

The Law and Politics of Fear: Executive Power in the US in 2026

Abstract: President Trump was recently interviewed by a group of journalists from the New York Times. During the interview, the President expressed the belief that he is not bound by international law, and that he is indeed limited by only “one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” That sentiment may well account for the President’s impulse to upend the post-War international legal order, bully friends and foes alike, both at home and abroad, and deploy American military power on a scale and for purposes that seem unprecedented in modern times. But it does not explain why the President has been so successful in seeing those impulses take root and change the world.

In his presentation, Professor Sullivan will explore some of the reasons why President Trump has been so successful (and so much more successful than in his first term) in altering political discourse and political reality both domestically and internationally in the relatively brief time since he returned to power. Professor Sullivan will explore some of the factors that may account for that success, such as: the four year period when he was out of office, which gave him ample time to plot revenge against his “enemies” and to reflect on what he considered the shortcomings of his first term, such as choosing advisors who would restrain his impulses and plotting against his enemies;  the lessons he learned in his first term about “flooding the zone,” which was a proven technique for keeping his opponents off balance by creating so many issues of major and minor importance to which they felt compelled to respond;  the work done by the Heritage Foundation to provide him with an agenda as well as recommendations as to the personnel necessary to carry it out that a majority of the Supreme Court effectively gave him a blank check by immunizing him from criminal liability for virtually anything he might do as President; congressional disfunction and the fact that the separation of powers does not function as the founders intended, at least when there is substantial political polarization, internal party cohesion, and the presidency and at least one House of Congress is in the hands of one political party.

It is also the case that the President admires and respects leaders who are strong in the sense that he understands strength. He belittles and ridicules others. And he seeks to instill fear in those he does not respect, whether they are leaders of allied governments or members of his  own party in the legislative branch.

Barry Sullivan is the Raymond and Mary Simon Chair in Constitutional Law and the George Anastaplo Professor of Constitutional Law and History at Loyola University Chicago (USA). He previously served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, Vice President and Dean of the Law School at Washington and Lee University, and a partner in the law firm of Jenner & Block, where he was co-chair of the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice. Professor Sullivan has taught at various law schools in the United States, Canada, and Europe, including Alberta, Bayreuth, Bologna, Dublin, and Warsaw.

The Arc of Authoritarian Populism in the US under Donald Trump, How Far It Has Progressed, and the Prospects of Reversing It

Abstract: Donald Trump’s second term as President of the United States poses a much more serious challenge to democracy than his first term because he lacks the internal restraints on his conduct within his Administration; his authoritarian agents and acolytes had four years out of office to strategize on how to eliminate constraints and achieve authoritarian power the second time; there is significantly greater concentration of wealth and media power now compared to eight years ago; the digital technology entrepreneurs and companies are more favorable to him or at least more subservient; and the Supreme Court has significantly expanded the scope of presidential power along with legal immunity for its abuse.

Fifteen months into the second Trump presidency, there are significant manifestations of authoritarianism, including widespread fear and intimidation; brazen politicization of the Justice Department and other federal agencies; rampant corruption at high levels with impunity for those responsible; the conscious development for the first time in American history of a cult of personality around the President; the dramatic expansion of a poorly trained and rights-abusing federal force (ICE) to detain undocumented immigrants; extensive violation of court orders regarding the Administration’s treatment of immigrants; efforts to construct a vast archipelago of federal detention centers for undocumented immigrants, which could someday be deployed to detain and repress other targeted groups as well; acquiescence if not active cooperation and support from peak sectors of the business community; and abuse of federal power to obtain the compliance or restraint of important nongovernmental institutional actors like universities and law firms—to name only a few examples. 

However, the federal courts have been pushing back against many of these abuses, and recently the Supreme Court as well in its decision on tariffs; civil society has mobilized extensively, including the largest single-day turnouts for protests in American history; and the President, his party, and his policy agenda have become extremely unpopular.

I argue that the most effective way of halting the incremental slide of a democratic system toward autocracy is through the defeat of the incipient authoritarian project at the ballot box. This talk will then assess the prospects and conditions for this, noting the multitude of ways in which the authoritarian populist project in the US seems intent on trying to frustrate a free and fair election in November 2026, and more consequentially, in the presidential election two years later.

Finally, I note that even a decisive set of defeats of the authoritarian project in November 2026 and 2028 will not represent a final victory for democracy because 1) the underlying causal drivers of illiberal populism remain; and 2) as in Poland and Hungary, the democratic alternative, if it comes to power in 2029, will face significant challenges in trying to purge the system of authoritarian mentalities, personalities, precedents, and traps.

Larry Diamond is the William L. Clayton Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a Bass University Fellow in Undergraduate Education at Stanford University. He is also professor by courtesy of Political Science and Sociology at Stanford. He co-chairs the Hoover Institution’s project on Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region and a new Israel Studies Program at FSI. 

Diamond’s principal research focus is on democratic trends and conditions around the world and on policies and reforms to defend and advance democracy. His book, Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency, analyzes the challenges confronting liberal democracy in the United States and around the world at this potential “hinge in history.”

Diamond served for 32 years as the founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy and co-chaired the International Forum for Democratic Studies of the National Endowment for Democracy.

The Institutional Enablement of American Populism

Abstract: Many US political reforms are enacted in the immediate aftermath of representative government failure. Scandals and bad policies open opportunity windows for institutional change as reformers seek to prevent the same problems from occurring in the future. One appealing solution is to open government up to more transparency, public participation and letting the people decide matters directly. The US has proliferated direct party primaries for candidates, enacted strong public participation rules for legislative and agency hearings and transformed its political parties into a loose party network of factions and interests. Populist reforms breed more populist candidates. There are of course more angles to the populist story, but the institutional pathway is one important enabler.  

Bruce E. Cain is the Charles Louis Ducommun Professor in Humanities and Sciences at Stanford University. He holds appointments in the Political Science Department, the Public Policy Program, and the Stanford Doerr School for Sustainability. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and the Precourt Institute for Energy. Before accepting his current position at Stanford, he taught at the California Institute of Technology (1976-1988) and the University of California, Berkeley (1989-2012).  Professor Cain was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2000, and has won various awards for teaching, research, and public service over the course of his career. His book, Democracy More or Less: America’s Political Reform Quandry, examines the unintended consequences of attempts to make government more democratic, including opening the door to more populism.

Algorithmic Populism in the Age of the Deep-Fake  

Abstract: Media theorist Marshall McLuhan’s oft-quoted phrase, “The Medium is the Message,” argues that, irrespective of the messages sent by various forms of media, be it newspaper, radio, or TV, the medium, in and of itself, also contains a message. The message of the AI-deepfake, on the other hand, is that generative AI produces content that enables populism, allowing populist leaders and movements to transcend national borders while bypassing legacy media that served as gatekeepers and watchdogs. Populism is enabled by algorithms and a decentralized, viral digital public diplomacy, both dependent on shares and likes. Analyzing the disruptive potential of deepfakes requires futurist speculation along the lines of dystopian science fiction novels like Orwell’s 1984. More relevant, however, is the year 1983, when science fiction author William Gibson coined the term “cyberspace” in his novel Neuromancer, and described it as a “consensual hallucination.” Deepfakes are the fodder for perpetuating political hallucinations, enabling the populist to generate viral memetic narratives.  

Ibrahim al-Marashi is an Associate Professor of History at California State University, visiting faculty at The American College of the Mediterranean, and the Department of International Relations at Central European University. His publications include Iraq’s Armed Forces: An Analytical History (2008), The Modern History of Iraq (2017), and A Concise History of the Middle East (2024).
 

From Populism to Fascism in Contemporary Europe

Abstract: Populists want to be heard; fascist want to transform the world. The transition from ‘populism’ to ‘fascism’ is imprecise and elusive, largely because the latter political formation continues to define itself in relation to ideas and sensibilities which animate the former (Marcon, 2025). Populism, as first investigated by J-G Herder, is thus integral to the dynamics of contemporary fascism, but not reducible to them. My research has focused on how virtually all the populist movements in Europe have been experimenting with decisive features of a contemporary fascism, configurations of ideas which are continually generated, circulated, and contested, capable of colonizing feelings, thoughts, intimacies, devotions, moods, and actions. These sensibilities shape perceptions of what is just or unjust, what is real or unreal, and, ultimately, what it means to be human. My aim is not to categorize individuals or groups as fascist or non-fascist. Rather, I seek to explore how fascism emerges as an intricate communicative field spanning Europe, and how all of us live inevitably within the webs of meaning and deception that constitute this dissonant realm (Holmes, 2022). Racism, bigotry, xenophobia, islamophobia, antisemitism, and various articulations of sexism are openly expressed across this communicative space and even talk of ethnic-cleansing and genocide can be overheard.  The challenge for us is to understand why and how fascist distinctions and sensibilities—ideas responsible for the indelible horrors of the twentieth century—have once again become enthralling, drawing in young activists and others who are determined to reshape the future of Europe (Ford, 1992; Orbán, 2024; Pasieka, 2024). 

Douglas R. Holmes is a Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the State University of New York, Binghamton.  He is the author of an ethnographic trilogy: Cultural Disenchantments: Worker Peasantries in Northeast Italy (Princeton 1989); Integral Europe: Fast-Capitalism, Multiculturalism, Neofascism (Princeton 2000); and Economy of Words: Communicative Imperatives in Central Banks (Chicago 2014). 

Democratic Resilience in Europe: Can It Be Effective?

Richard Youngs is a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, based at Carnegie Europe. He is also a professor of international relations at the University of Warwick and previously held positions in the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and as director of the FRIDE think-tank in Madrid. He is co-founder and director of the European Democracy Hub.

Youngs has authored seventeen books, the most recent of which are Democratic Crossroads: Transformations in Twenty First-Century Politics (Oxford University Press, 2024), Geoliberal Europe and the Test of War (Agenda Publishing, 2024), Rebuilding European Democracy: Resistance and Renewal in an Illiberal Age (Bloomsbury/Tauris, 2021) and The European Union and Global Politics (Macmillan, 2021).

Building an Authoritarian Edifice Step-by-Step

Abstract: Populist authoritarianism has the great advantage of being able to construct and institutionalize a dominating structure at a pace that often escapes attention or is overlooked by the population as a whole. Focusing on the use of the judicial system, this paper will compare the recent U.S. experience with Turkey’s travails under Erdogan.

Henri J. Barkey is Cohen Professor of International Relations Emeritus at Lehigh University and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Populism and Transnational Ties of the Far Right in East Asia: Recent Developments in South Korea

Abstract: This presentation explores the evolving political landscape of East Asian liberal democracies by evaluating the comparative utility of “populism” and “far-right” frameworks in the contemporary South Korean context, assessing which conceptual approach better captures the current trajectory of the South Korean landscape. The analysis focuses on three core dimensions: the radicalization of political actors through anti-constitutional activities, a profound resurgence of historical revisionism regarding authoritarian legacies, and the strategic mobilization of gendered grievances —specifically the role of anti-feminism.

Hannes B. Mosler serves as Chair of East Asian Social Sciences, specializing in Korean politics and society, at the University of Duisburg–Essen (UDE), where he is affiliated with the Institute of East Asian Studies (IN-EAST) and the Institute of Political Science (IfP). His research interests include political systems, civic education, memory politics, foreign policy, and social and political institutional change in East Asia, especially the Korean peninsula. Recent publications include “Causes and sources of South Korea’s fragile democracy” (2025), “Rewriting history, undermining democracy. The role of the New Right in South Korean memory politics” (2025), and “The Incurious Approach to East Asian Populism: Why Studies on Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are Often Overlooked in Political Science” (2025, co-author).

Changing Democracy’s Address

Abstract: During the late Twentieth century democratic wave, democracy was implicitly associated with the West. Western Europe and North America were assumed, in the global South as well as the North, to be the epicentre of democracy and its global champions. This was inaccurate, but it enhanced support for democracy, which was associated with Western prosperity and stability. The crisis of Western democracy has made this assumption untenable. Not only are parties whose commitment to democracy is debatable gaining ground. In many Western countries, democratic freedoms are eroding and support for democracy, at least in its current guise, is declining. If formal democracy does survive in the West, it may do so only in a diluted form.  These realities make it imperative to promote an understanding of democracy which is no longer linked to Western-ness, which seeks to persuade Western decision-makers and publics that democracy is not specific to any culture or region and that there are reasons to adopt and preserve it on its own merits.

Steven Friedman is a Research Professor in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Johannesburg. He has published several studies of South Africa’s transition to democracy and his current work focuses on the theory and practice of democracy. He is the author of several books, numerous book chapters, and journal articles. His study of South Africa’s democratic trajectory, Prisoners of the Past: South African Democracy and the Legacy of Minority Rule, was published in 2021. His most recent book, Good Jew, Bad Jew, Racism, Anti-Semitism, and the Assault on Meaning, discusses the use of ostensibly anti-racist language to justify racism. He is also a media commentator on the development of South African democracy and the author of a weekly column for subscribers, Against the Tide.

Return of the Strong Men: Populism, Punishment and the Threat to Democratic Order

Abstract: Western liberal democracy seems in retreat, assailed by the emergence of an autocratic ‘strong man’ politics, mistakenly thought to have been consigned to the dustbin of history after the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. This strong man politics is now seen most clearly in the second US presidency of Donald Trump where a different political order altogether is being constructed: one where cardinal principles of liberal democracy such as the rule of law and due process can be discarded as suits, scientific knowledge is discredited, any criticisms of the strong man leader will not be tolerated, and where democratic allies can be tossed aside in favour of the company of other strong men around the globe.  This paper examines the rise of this new authoritarianism and its implications for democratic order. 

John Pratt is Professor of Criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. His fields of research are comparative penology and the history and sociology of punishment. He has published in eleven languages and has been invited to lecture at universities in South America, North America, Europe, Asia and Australia. His books include Punishment and Civilization (2002), Penal Populism (2007) and Contrasts in Punishment (2013). In 2009 he was awarded the Sir Leon Radzinowicz Prize by the Editorial Board of the British Journal of Criminology. In 2012 he was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Society of New Zealand and was awarded the Society’s Mason Durie Medal, given ‘to the nation’s pre-emiment social scientist.’

Africans

Virtual Workshop Series / Session 12 — Decolonizing Democracy: Governance, Identity, and Resistance in the Global South

by ArticlesEditor’s ChoiceEnvironment & ClimateHomeReports

Please cite as:
ECPS Staff (2026). “Virtual Workshop Series / Session 12 — Decolonizing Democracy: Governance, Identity, and Resistance in the Global South.” European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS). February 23, 2026. https://doi.org/10.55271/rp00143



Session 12 of the ECPS Virtual Workshop Series explored how “decolonizing democracy” requires attention to the material and symbolic structures shaping participation, legitimacy, and representation. The presentations framed democracy not as a settled institutional model but as a contested field shaped by colonial legacies, extractive political economies, and identity-based struggles over inclusion and authority. Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja’s comparative study of Nigeria and the United Kingdom showed how environmental governance can produce “participation without power,” where formal inclusion coexists with persistent injustice. Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme’s analysis of Cameroon highlighted how pluralism has intensified communal claims to state ownership, complicating political alternation. Supported by Dr. Gabriel Cyril Nguijoi’s feedback, the session underscored the value of concepts such as biocultural sovereignty and communocratic populism and emphasized the need for context-sensitive, interdisciplinary approaches to democratic renewal in the Global South.

Reported by ECPS Staff

On Thursday, February 19, 2026, the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) convened Session 12 of its Virtual Workshop Series, “We, the People” and the Future of Democracy: Interdisciplinary Approaches, under the theme “Decolonizing Democracy: Governance, Identity, and Resistance in the Global South.” The session foregrounded a core problem in contemporary democratic theory and practice: how democratic institutions—often inherited, transplanted, or externally modeled—are reshaped, contested, and resisted in postcolonial contexts marked by extractive political economies, unequal state–society relations, and enduring struggles over recognition and voice.

Moderated by Neo Sithole (University of Szeged), the workshop approached “the people” not as a stable category but as a contested political project—produced through governance arrangements, mobilized through identity, and asserted through resistance. Across the session, democracy emerged less as an institutional endpoint than as a field of struggle in which colonial legacies, state power, and community agency intersect. Rather than treating decolonization as a symbolic discourse, contributors examined its concrete implications for how participation is structured, how resources are governed, and how legitimacy is claimed in environments where the state’s democratic form may coexist with exclusionary or coercive practices.

The session brought together two presentations that, while distinct in focus, converged on a shared concern with democratic deficit: the gap between formal mechanisms of participation and the effective capacity of communities to shape political and material outcomes. First, Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja (Olabisi Onabanjo University) examined environmental governance as a critical site of democratic contestation in a paper jointly authored with Busayo Olakitan Badmos (Olabisi Onabanjo University), titled “Decolonial Environmentalism and Democracy: A Comparative Study of Resource Governance in Nigeria and the United Kingdom.” Positioning environmental politics within the broader architecture of power, he explored how colonial histories and technocratic governance models marginalize local knowledge and produce “participation without power,” while proposing biocultural sovereignty as a pathway toward more inclusive ecological governance.

Second, Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme (University of Ngaoundéré) analyzed electoral politics and identity mobilization in Cameroon in “Africa at the Test of Populism: Identity Mobilisations, Crises of Political Alternation, and the Trial of Democracy,” jointly authored with Dr. Yves Valéry Obame (University of Bertoua / Global Studies Institute & Geneva Africa Lab). His contribution interrogated how multiparty competition can intensify communal claims to representation, framing elections not as programmatic contests but as struggles over inclusion, alternation, and the symbolic ownership of the state.

The discussion was anchored by Dr. Gabriel Cyril Nguijoi (National Institute of Cartography; ICEDIS), whose role as discussant helped connect the papers’ empirical insights to broader debates on coloniality, accountability, and democratic substance. His interventions highlighted how both contributions disrupt common analytical shortcuts—whether the assumption that environmental injustice is confined to the Global South, or the notion that repeated elections necessarily constitute democratic consolidation. 

Taken together, Session 12 offered a layered and comparative exploration of how democracy is challenged—and potentially renewed—through the politics of governance, identity, and resistance in postcolonial settings.

Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja: “Decolonial Environmentalism and Democracy: A Comparative Study of Resource Governance in Nigeria and the United Kingdom”

Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja is a faculty member in the Department of Sociology at Olabisi Onabanjo University.

Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja of Olabisi Onabanjo University delivered a thought-provoking presentation examining the entanglement of environmental governance, colonial legacies, and democratic practice. Speaking from a comparative Nigeria–United Kingdom framework, he advanced the central claim that environmental governance should be understood not merely as a technical or administrative domain but as a site of democratic struggle shaped by historical power asymmetries and contemporary political economies.

Positioning his research within ongoing debates on participation and sustainability, Dr. Solaja noted that mainstream environmental governance literature often assumes that stakeholder inclusion naturally enhances democratic legitimacy and ecological outcomes. However, he argued that such frameworks frequently overlook how colonial histories and extractive economic structures continue to shape decision-making processes. In many contexts, governance systems privilege capital accumulation over community well-being, thereby reproducing ecological inequality across regions. From this perspective, environmental governance cannot be treated as politically neutral; rather, it reflects contested struggles over resources, voice, and knowledge.

The study was guided by three principal research questions: i) how colonial legacies continue to shape environmental governance in both Nigeria and the United Kingdom; ii) how distributive, procedural, and recognitional injustices manifest across the two cases; and iii) how Indigenous and decolonial approaches might offer alternative pathways toward sustainable governance. 

By placing a Global South extractive economy alongside a Global North post-industrial democracy, the project sought to challenge the assumption that environmental injustice is primarily a Southern phenomenon and instead reveal its structural character across diverse political systems.

Dr. Solaja explained that the comparison was deliberately constructed. Nigeria’s Niger Delta represents a post-colonial, resource-dependent region marked by centralized control, oil extraction, and militarized environmental conflict. In contrast, the United Kingdom’s post-industrial regions—particularly South Wales and Northern England—illustrate an advanced industrial democracy navigating decarbonization and energy transition. Despite these differences in institutional capacity and policy development, both contexts exhibit what he termed a “democratic deficit” embedded within environmental governance arrangements.

The presentation’s theoretical foundation drew on decolonial environmentalism, particularly the work of Walter Mignoloand related scholars. Dr. Solaja argued that dominant environmental governance models are shaped by Eurocentric and technocratic assumptions that privilege market-oriented and state-centric solutions while marginalizing relational, place-based, and Indigenous ecological knowledge systems. Decoloniality, in this sense, involves challenging the presumed universality of Western sustainability paradigms and embracing what he described as “epistemic disobedience”—the refusal to accept a single authoritative model of environmental knowledge. Environmental conflicts, therefore, emerge not only from competition over resources but also from struggles over recognition and authority.

Methodologically, the study employed a cooperative qualitative case-study design grounded in critical interpretivism. The research team analyzed legislative archives, reports from NGOs and international organizations, media coverage, environmental indices, and data from the Environmental Justice Atlas. Through thematic coding, they identified patterns related to governance models, justice dimensions, and underlying power relations shaped by colonial continuities.

Turning to the findings, Dr. Solaja highlighted stark contrasts and parallels. In the Niger Delta, thousands of oil spill incidents in recent years have produced severe ecological damage, including heavy-metal contamination and concentrated environmental risk zones near pipeline infrastructure. While official narratives often attribute spills to sabotage, the research emphasized the role of weak regulation and aging infrastructure. The result is pronounced distributive injustice, with local communities bearing disproportionate environmental burdens.

The United Kingdom, by contrast, has achieved measurable progress in decarbonization, including the phase-out of coal and expansion of renewable energy. Yet structural tensions remain: fossil fuels continue to dominate overall energy consumption, new oil projects are still approved, and community influence over environmental decision-making is often limited. Thus, although distributive injustice may appear less severe in absolute terms, procedural and recognitional deficits persist.

Across both cases, environmental injustice manifested along three dimensions. Distributive injustice concerned the unequal allocation of environmental harms and benefits. Procedural injustice involved exclusion from meaningful decision-making processes, whether through repression in Nigeria or limited consultation mechanisms in the United Kingdom. Recognitional injustice referred to the marginalization of local knowledge, identities, and historical experiences. Dr. Solaja summarized this dynamic as “participation without power”: communities may be consulted, yet they rarely possess the authority to shape outcomes.

The presentation also underscored the role of resistance movements. In the Niger Delta, environmental activism is intertwined with ethnic identity, territorial sovereignty, and cultural survival, exemplified by movements such as the Ogoni struggle. In the United Kingdom, climate justice activism often reflects class, regional, and generational concerns. Despite contextual differences, movements in both regions increasingly share strategies, including civil disobedience, digital mobilization, and transnational solidarity networks—suggesting the emergence of a broader planetary justice framework.

In concluding, Dr. Solaja proposed alternative pathways centered on “biocultural sovereignty” and plural ecological governance. In Nigeria, this could involve ethical extractivism grounded in free, prior, and informed consent, equitable benefit sharing, and stronger accountability mechanisms. In the United Kingdom, community-owned renewable energy initiatives and locally driven transitions could advance energy democracy. Ultimately, he argued that democracy must extend beyond electoral institutions to encompass ecological sovereignty, epistemic plurality, and intergenerational justice. Only through such transformations, he concluded, can environmental governance become genuinely democratic.

Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme: “Cameroon at the Trial of Democracy: Presidential Elections, Communaucratic Populism, and the Crisis of Political Transition”

Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme
Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme is from the University of Ngaoundéré, Laboratoire camerounais d’études et de recherches sur les sociétés contemporaines (Ceresc).

In his presentation, Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme offered a sociologically grounded analysis of electoral politics in Cameroon, advancing the concept of “communocratic populism” to explain the enduring tensions between democratic pluralism and community-based political mobilization. The presentation situated Cameroon’s contemporary political trajectory within the broader challenges of democratic transition in postcolonial African states, where formal multiparty systems coexist with deeply rooted communal identities.

Dr. Essaga Eteme began by framing the study within Cameroon’s transition to political pluralism in 1990, a watershed moment that introduced multiparty competition after decades of single-party dominance. While this transition generated widespread optimism about democratic reform, he argued that it also revealed structural constraints. Cameroon is composed of more than 250 ethnic communities, each with distinct historical and political aspirations. In such a context, electoral competition has increasingly become a mechanism for negotiating communal representation rather than contesting ideological programs. Presidential, legislative, and municipal elections alike are thus shaped by the imperative to secure community backing, transforming democratic participation into what Dr. Essaga Eteme conceptualized as communocratic populism—political mobilization grounded in communal identity claims rather than policy platforms.

The presentation traced the historical roots of this phenomenon to Cameroon’s post-independence political consolidation. From 1972 until the early 1990s, the country operated under a highly centralized system characterized by limited political freedoms and restricted avenues for dissent. The transition to multiparty democracy raised hopes for political alternation and broader participation. However, Dr. Essaga Eteme noted that the persistence of long-term incumbency—particularly the extended tenure of President Paul Biya—has generated both expectations and frustrations. While some citizens initially viewed democratic reforms as an opportunity for renewal, others increasingly perceived them as insufficient to produce meaningful change, thereby fueling community-based demands for political inclusion.

Central to the analysis was the observation that presidential elections have become focal points for communal competition. The announcement of President Biya’s candidacy in the 2025 election, after decades in power, intensified perceptions among various groups that political authority had been monopolized by a particular regional or ethnic constituency. This perception, Dr. Essaga Eteme argued, reinvigorated communocratic narratives asserting that leadership should rotate among communities. Such narratives do not necessarily reject democracy but reinterpret it as a mechanism for redistributing access to state power among identity groups.

The research was guided by three principal questions: i) identifying the forms and manifestations of communocratic populism during presidential elections; ii) examining how community affiliation shapes voter alignment; and iii) analyzing how political actors exploit communal sentiments either to legitimize incumbency or to challenge it. To address these questions, Dr. Essaga Eteme employed a mixed-methods approach combining field observations, social media analysis, and electoral data from recent presidential contests, particularly those of 2025. This methodology enabled a multi-layered understanding of both elite strategies and grassroots perceptions.

Empirical findings highlighted patterns of continuity across successive elections. Electoral outcomes revealed the sustained dominance of the incumbent leadership, accompanied by accusations of fraud and declining trust in electoral institutions. At the same time, opposition candidates frequently mobilized support by appealing to communal solidarity. For example, challengers from northern, western, or Anglophone regions framed their campaigns around the notion that their respective communities deserved access to national leadership after prolonged exclusion. Such appeals resonated strongly with voters who interpreted political power as a collective resource to be shared among groups.

Dr. Essaga Eteme illustrated how these dynamics have evolved over time. Earlier opposition figures, including prominent Anglophone leaders in the 1990s and 2000s, mobilized regional grievances against perceived Francophone dominance, contributing to tensions that later fed into the Anglophone crisis. More recent challengers have similarly invoked regional identity, arguing that the concentration of power within one community undermines national cohesion. Even post-electoral disputes often reflect communal narratives, with defeated candidates attributing outcomes to structural favoritism toward the incumbent’s group rather than to programmatic differences.

The presentation emphasized that communocratic populism shifts the focus of democratic competition from ideological debate to identity-based claims. Elections become symbolic contests over which community will control the state apparatus rather than deliberations over policy direction. This dynamic, Dr. Essaga Eteme suggested, contributes to a broader crisis of political transition, as democratic institutions struggle to mediate between national integration and communal representation. Instead of fostering a shared civic identity, electoral politics may reinforce divisions by encouraging leaders to frame political demands in communal terms.

At the same time, the analysis acknowledged the ambivalent character of communocratic mobilization. On one hand, it can serve as a vehicle for marginalized groups to articulate grievances and demand inclusion. On the other hand, it risks entrenching zero-sum perceptions of power, where one group’s gain is viewed as another’s loss. This tension complicates efforts to build stable democratic institutions capable of transcending identity politics.

Dr. Essaga Eteme concluded that Cameroon’s experience demonstrates the limits of procedural democratization in deeply plural societies. The introduction of multiparty elections does not automatically produce programmatic competition or institutional trust; instead, it may activate preexisting communal cleavages. Addressing the crisis of political transition therefore requires reimagining democracy beyond electoral mechanics, fostering inclusive governance structures that balance communal recognition with national cohesion. Without such reforms, communocratic populism is likely to remain a defining feature of Cameroon’s political landscape, continuing to shape both the aspirations and anxieties of its democratic experiment.

Discussant Dr. Gabriel Cyrille Nguijoi’s Feedback

Dr. Gabriel Cyrille Nguijoi is a researcher at the National Institute of Cartography (NIC), and lecturer at the Cameroonian Institute of Diplomatic and Strategic Studies (ICEDIS).

 

Dr. Gabriel Cyrille Nguijoi offered substantive and analytically rich feedback on the presentations delivered by Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja and Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme, highlighting their contributions to contemporary debates on populism, governance, and democratic transformation from African perspectives. His remarks underscored both the conceptual significance and the empirical originality of the two studies while posing clarifying questions aimed at strengthening their theoretical implications.

Regarding Dr. Solaja’s presentation on decolonial environmentalism and democratic deficit, Dr. Nguijoi characterized the paper as a stimulating and timely contribution to populism and governance studies. He was particularly struck by the comparative framework linking environmental governance in Nigeria and the United Kingdom, which juxtaposed a Global South extractive context with a developed post-industrial democracy. This transnational comparison, he emphasized, offered a compelling analytical lens that challenged conventional assumptions that environmental injustice is primarily a problem of the Global South. Instead, the paper demonstrated that tensions between resource governance and democratic accountability transcend regional boundaries and manifest across different political systems.

Dr. Nguijoi highlighted the presentation’s central argument that environmental governance is not politically neutral but historically embedded in colonial legacies and extractive political economies. He noted that this insight implicitly raised a profound normative question: whether democracy can genuinely flourish within development models that reproduce forms of colonial extractivism. In his view, this question extended beyond environmental politics to the broader relationship between governance structures and historical power asymmetries.

He further praised the paper for introducing environmental issues into populism discourse, an area often dominated by identity, economic, or institutional analyses. By situating environmental governance within debates on decolonization, identity, and resistance in the Global South, the presentation expanded the conceptual terrain of populism studies. At the same time, Dr. Nguijoi invited further clarification on the concept of decolonial environmentalism. Specifically, he asked whether the approach implied epistemic recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems alone, or whether it also entailed deeper institutional transformation involving ownership, participation, accountability, and governance restructuring. He also questioned whether environmental resistance movements, while democratizing public discourse, were capable of transforming governance architectures in practice. Overall, he expressed strong appreciation for the paper’s innovative integration of environmental governance into analyses of populism and democratic transformation.

Turning to Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme’s presentation on communocratic populism and the crisis of political alternation in Cameroon, Dr. Nguijoi described the case as particularly significant given the country’s long-standing presidential incumbency and its implications for democratic renewal. He framed the study as addressing a structurally sensitive question: whether identity-based mobilization in electoral politics represents democratic participation or contributes to democratic erosion.

Dr. Nguijoi identified two principal analytical strengths in the presentation. The first concerned the centrality of identity mobilization in Cameroonian politics. He observed that political competition in this context appears structured less around ideological programs than around communal belonging, regional solidarity, historical grievances, and narratives of stability and protection advanced by political elites. In his interpretation, this dynamic captured the essence of communocratic populism, whereby electoral alignment becomes embedded in community affiliation, particularly during presidential elections. He noted empirical examples illustrating how opposition candidates mobilized regional and communal support bases in recent electoral contests, reinforcing the salience of identity in political mobilization.

The second strength he highlighted was the analysis of political alternation as a test of democratic substance. Although elections have been regularly held since the country’s transition to pluralism, executive turnover has not occurred, raising questions about whether democracy can be reduced to procedural repetition or must include a credible possibility of leadership change. Dr. Nguijoi suggested that Cameroon exhibits a pattern of electoral persistence without alternation, where communal rhetoric frames political competition as a struggle for survival, regional balance, or national stability. This dynamic, he argued, renders alternation structurally improbable and complicates assessments of democratic consolidation.

In concluding his feedback, Dr. Nguijoi emphasized that both presentations addressed crucial themes linking populism, identity, governance, and democratic transformation. He commended their focus on historically embedded structures — colonial legacies in the Nigerian case and identity-based mobilization in Cameroon — while encouraging further theoretical clarification. His remarks framed the two studies as important contributions to understanding how democratic processes are shaped, constrained, and contested in diverse political contexts.

Responses to Discussant’s Feedback

Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja

In his response to Dr. Nguijoi’s feedback, Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja expressed appreciation for the questions and comments, clarifying key aspects of his comparative framework on environmental governance in Nigeria and the United Kingdom. Speaking from a reflective standpoint, he emphasized that the contrast between the two cases was deliberate and methodological rather than evaluative. The study, he explained, did not seek to measure or compare the degree of environmental injustice across the two countries. Instead, its primary objective was to identify and illuminate democratic deficits present in both contexts despite their differing levels of development.

Solaja underscored that the United Kingdom, as a developed country with robust institutional structures, regulatory frameworks, and environmental governance mechanisms, nonetheless exhibits forms of democratic deficit. He noted that certain communities and groups remain marginalized in decision-making processes, particularly regarding environmental policy formulation and implementation. Even within a system characterized by strong democratic representation, unequal participation and limited voice for affected communities persist, revealing that institutional strength alone does not eliminate governance shortcomings.

Turning to the Nigerian case, Dr. Solaja highlighted the enduring influence of colonial legacies on environmental management. He argued that Nigeria inherited centralized, state-centric governance structures from colonial administrations, which continue to shape contemporary environmental policies. In this framework, the state retains dominant control over natural resources and extraction activities, often without meaningful consultation with indigenous populations or local communities. As a result, those who bear the ecological consequences of extraction are frequently excluded from decision-making processes, creating a pronounced democratic deficit.

He reiterated that the comparative analysis aimed to demonstrate that environmental governance challenges are not exclusive to the Global South. By juxtaposing Nigeria with the United Kingdom, the study sought to challenge the assumption that democratic deficits in environmental management are primarily a Southern phenomenon. Instead, Dr. Solaja argued, such deficits manifest in different forms across both the Global South and Global North, shaped by distinct historical and institutional trajectories.

Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme

In his response to Dr. Nguijoi’s feedback, Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme expressed gratitude for the discussant’s observations and used the opportunity to clarify key dynamics underlying his concept of communocratic populism in Cameroon. He focused particularly on the role of alliance formation among opposition forces and communities during presidential elections, presenting it as empirical evidence reinforcing his analytical framework.

Dr. Essaga Eteme explained that the persistent contestation of electoral procedures since the country’s transition to pluralism in 1990 has created a political environment marked by distrust and accusations of fraud. While acknowledging that post-electoral disputes are not uncommon in many democracies, he emphasized that in Cameroon such contestation often takes on a communal dimension. Opposition parties and communities excluded from power tend to interpret electoral outcomes as illegitimate, prompting efforts to build cross-community alliances against the incumbent’s support base.

He highlighted the 2025 presidential election as a revealing example. According to his account, when a prominent opposition figure was deemed ineligible to run by electoral authorities, segments of his regional support base redirected their backing to another candidate from a different community. This strategic convergence of voters across communal lines, he argued, illustrates how alliance-building operates within a communocratic logic: electoral behavior becomes driven less by ideological affinity than by the shared objective of displacing the community perceived to monopolize power.

Dr. Essaga Eteme concluded that these alliance dynamics demonstrate the adaptive nature of communocratic populism. Faced with a dominant ruling party and entrenched incumbency, opposition actors mobilize communal solidarities and forge temporary coalitions to challenge the status quo. In his view, such practices further substantiate his argument that identity-based mobilization remains central to understanding Cameroon’s electoral politics.

Q&A Session 

The Q&A session developed into a wide-ranging and intellectually engaged dialogue that deepened the themes raised in the presentations, particularly the intersections between populism, environmental governance, democratic legitimacy, and identity-based political mobilization. Moderated by Neo Sithole, the discussion brought together conceptual reflections, empirical clarifications, and comparative insights, revealing the broader implications of the research beyond the specific case studies of Nigeria and Cameroon.

Opening the session, Sithole offered strong praise for Dr. Oludele Mayowa Solaja’s paper, emphasizing its methodological rigor and its successful integration of theory with empirical evidence. He noted that the study provided not only a clear conceptual framework but also concrete proof, particularly through environmental data from the Niger Delta demonstrating the presence of harmful chemicals and minerals in topsoil affecting local populations. Sithole framed the discussion within a broader critique of minimalist understandings of democracy, arguing that governance should not be confined to electoral processes but must extend to everyday conditions of life, including environmental quality and access to clean resources. In his view, the paper effectively illustrated how democratic governance—or its absence—directly shapes environmental outcomes.

Sithole also situated the Niger Delta within a wider global political economy, highlighting how multinational corporations often relocate environmentally harmful extraction activities to regions in Africa, Latin America, and Asia where regulatory frameworks are weaker. He characterized the Niger Delta as both one of the longest-running cases of environmental degradation and one of the most sustained examples of environmental resistance, noting that such resistance has become embedded in local identity. Extending the argument, he suggested that dissatisfaction with democratic governance across Africa stems from unmet expectations following the democratic transitions of the 1990s and 2000s, when many citizens assumed political liberalization would lead to improved living conditions. Instead, he observed, many postcolonial states continue to operate within institutional frameworks inherited from colonial administrations that were not designed to address local needs.

Drawing on examples from Kenya and South Africa, Sithole highlighted ongoing disputes over land rights and resource ownership, illustrating how colonial-era patterns of dispossession persist in contemporary governance. He posed a forward-looking question about whether environmental resistance movements across the continent could serve as catalysts for democratic renewal at a broader scale.

In response, Dr. Solaja clarified the intent of his research. He stressed that the study did not advocate dismantling existing environmental governance frameworks but rather reforming them through the integration of indigenous ecological knowledge systems. According to Dr. Solaja, contemporary democratic institutions in many postcolonial societies were externally derived and insufficiently adapted to local realities. The proposed solution, which he described as a biocultural approach, involves incorporating indigenous practices and knowledge into formal governance structures to create more inclusive and effective systems. This approach, he argued, would address democratic deficits while strengthening environmental stewardship by recognizing the long-standing expertise of local communities.

The discussion then shifted toward the question of accountability and reporting mechanisms. Sithole raised concerns about the effectiveness of multinational institutions and international organizations in contexts where domestic environmental reporting systems are weak or unreliable. He asked whether reliance on external actors was sufficient to ensure environmental justice or whether strengthening state capacity should be prioritized. 

Dr. Solaja responded by emphasizing the importance of community participation in monitoring environmental conditions. He proposed bottom-up reporting mechanisms that would enable local populations to communicate environmental challenges directly to authorities, potentially using technological tools such as mobile applications. While acknowledging the necessity of formal institutional frameworks, he argued that they must be complemented by indigenous knowledge and grassroots engagement to achieve meaningful environmental democracy.

Dr. Bülent Kenes expanded the discussion by introducing a geopolitical perspective that connected environmental governance in Africa to the rise of contemporary populist movements in Western countries. He framed his question around the potential global implications of political ideologies associated with figures such as Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, which he characterized as challenging postcolonial frameworks and signaling a form of renewed imperial assertiveness. Dr. Kenes invited the speakers to reflect on whether African states and societies should be concerned about the broader consequences of these developments, particularly in relation to historical patterns of external domination. He specifically asked whether such political trends could generate new forms of re-colonization or intensified exploitation of African resources, labor, and environmental assets. His intervention underscored the possibility that shifting power dynamics in the Global North might place renewed pressure on Africa’s ecological systems and resource governance, thereby linking domestic environmental issues to wider geopolitical transformations.

In his response, Dr. Solaja addressed the geopolitical concerns surrounding potential renewed exploitation of African resources by situating them within a longer historical continuum of extractivism. He emphasized that African communities have endured the adverse consequences of intensive resource extraction both during colonial rule and in the post-independence period, often with limited benefits for local populations. According to Dr. Solaja, the well-being of affected communities has frequently been compromised, while state interventions have tended to be delayed, insufficient, or absent altogether. In many cases, assistance has been mediated through international donors or multinational corporations rather than delivered directly by national governments, creating complex arrangements that do not always serve the interests of local beneficiaries.

Dr. Solaja noted that although most African countries have been politically independent for decades, the persistence of asymmetrical global economic relationships continues to shape environmental governance and resource management. He argued that while no country can operate in isolation, interactions between the Global North and Global South should evolve toward more equitable and mutually beneficial partnerships rather than exploitative ones.

Returning to the conceptual framework of his paper, Dr. Solaja reiterated the importance of biocultural sovereignty, which advocates integrating indigenous knowledge systems into formal environmental governance structures. He suggested that empowering local communities to participate in decision-making over resource control, distribution, and management could reduce conflict and resistance movements. By drawing on longstanding indigenous ecological practices, he concluded, marginalized communities could gain greater democratic voice and contribute to more sustainable and inclusive resource governance.

The session also addressed conceptual issues arising from Dr. Salomon Essaga Eteme’s presentation on communocratic populism. Dr. Kenes noted the novelty of the concept and requested clarification of its meaning and applicability beyond the Cameroonian context. Dr. Eteme explained that communocratic populism refers to a form of political mobilization grounded in community identity rather than ideological programs. In this framework, electoral competition becomes a contest among communal groups seeking access to state power, often leading to alliances between communities aiming to displace incumbents.

He elaborated that political discourse frequently attributes governmental actions to entire communities rather than to individual leaders, reinforcing identity-based interpretations of power. As a result, electoral campaigns focus less on policy proposals and more on demonstrating communal strength, intelligence, or entitlement to rule. Dr. Eteme further explained that communocratic alliances emerge when communities perceive the existing power structure as monopolized by a particular group. These alliances are pragmatic and strategic, formed not around shared ideological visions but around the collective objective of redistributing political power.

Throughout the discussion, participants acknowledged that such dynamics complicate conventional democratic theory, which assumes competition based on policy alternatives and public interest. Instead, identity-based mobilization can transform elections into zero-sum contests among communities, challenging the ideal of governance oriented toward the common good.

The Q&A session concluded with a recognition of the originality and relevance of the concepts introduced by the presenters, particularly the integration of environmental governance into populism studies and the articulation of communocratic populism as a framework for understanding identity-driven electoral politics. The exchange underscored the importance of interdisciplinary approaches that consider historical legacies, institutional structures, and socio-cultural dynamics in analyzing contemporary democracy.

Overall, the session demonstrated how localized case studies—whether environmental conflicts in the Niger Delta or identity politics in Cameroon—can illuminate broader structural challenges facing democratic governance in the Global South and beyond. By fostering dialogue between empirical research and theoretical reflection, the discussion highlighted the value of comparative and context-sensitive analyses for advancing the study of populism, governance, and democratic transformation.

Concluding Remarks

ECPS Early Career Research Network (ECRN) member Neo Sithole. Photo: Umit Vurel.

In his concluding remarks, moderator Neo Sithole reflected on the thematic contributions of the presentations and highlighted their broader significance for understanding populism and democracy in African contexts. He began by acknowledging his limited familiarity with the politics of Central Francophone Africa but noted that the presentations resonated with patterns he had observed elsewhere, particularly the role of geographical and historical divides in shaping populist mobilization. Drawing on comparative examples, he emphasized how north–south disparities rooted in colonial infrastructure development have produced enduring political imbalances in several postcolonial states. He commended the presenters for illuminating these structural divides and their implications for democratic governance. Sithole also encouraged further scholarly development of the concept of communocratic populism. 

Offering brief feedback on the presentations, Sithole observed that both papers revealed understudied dimensions of populist expression in Africa. He noted that Dr. Solaja’s research demonstrated how environmental resistance can become central to local identity while exposing the persistence of colonial-era governance practices that continue to marginalize affected communities. In contrast, Dr. Essaga Eteme’s work shed light on identity-based mobilization and the enduring dominance of strong leadership patterns in certain Francophone states, where communal affiliation shapes political competition.

Conclusion

Session 12 of the ECPS Virtual Workshop Series underscored the urgency of rethinking democracy through the lenses of decolonization, governance, and identity in the Global South. By juxtaposing environmental struggles in Nigeria and the United Kingdom with identity-driven electoral politics in Cameroon, the session demonstrated that democratic deficit is neither geographically confined nor institutionally uniform. Rather, it manifests in diverse forms shaped by colonial legacies, political economies of extraction, and enduring contestations over representation and authority. The discussions revealed that formal democratic procedures—whether participatory environmental frameworks or multiparty elections—do not automatically translate into substantive inclusion or equitable outcomes. Instead, communities often confront structures that allow consultation without empowerment and participation without transformative capacity.

A key takeaway was the necessity of expanding democratic theory beyond procedural benchmarks toward a more substantive understanding that incorporates ecological justice, epistemic plurality, and communal recognition. The concept of biocultural sovereignty advanced in the environmental context, alongside the notion of communocratic populism in electoral politics, illustrated how locally grounded analytical frameworks can illuminate dynamics that conventional models overlook. Both contributions highlighted the ambivalence of resistance movements and identity mobilization, which may simultaneously articulate legitimate grievances and risk reinforcing new forms of exclusion.

Ultimately, the session emphasized that decolonizing democracy requires confronting the historical and structural conditions that shape contemporary governance, rather than merely adapting existing institutional templates. By bringing empirical case studies into dialogue with broader theoretical debates, Session 12 contributed to a more nuanced understanding of how democracy is negotiated, contested, and reimagined in postcolonial settings. It thus reinforced the importance of interdisciplinary and context-sensitive approaches for advancing scholarship on populism, governance, and democratic transformation in an increasingly interconnected world.

Associate Professor Andrés Mejía Acosta.

Assoc. Prof. Mejía Acosta: State Erosion Is Faster Than State Building and Harder to Reverse

by MultimediaVideos

In this interview with the ECPS, Associate Professor Andrés Mejía Acosta (University of Notre Dame, Keough School of Global Affairs) explains why populist leaders often weaken state capacity strategically rather than accidentally. For populists, he argues, “state institutions and agencies get in the way of a more unilateral, discretionary, non-democratic type of governance,” prompting efforts to “ignore, dismantle, bypass, or merge” oversight bodies that constrain executive power. Assoc. Prof. Acosta underscores the asymmetry between construction and destruction: “state building… takes decades and even centuries,” yet “state dismantling… can be done very quickly,” with lasting effects on democratic recovery. He links institutional erosion to patronage politics, discretionary spending, and the weakening of accountability networks—dynamics that make reversals of democratic backsliding harder when “state mechanisms are no longer functioning.”

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In this wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Andrés Mejía Acosta, Associate Professor at the University of Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs, offers a sobering analytical framework for understanding how contemporary populist governance erodes state capacity and, in turn, weakens democratic resilience. Anchored in his influential research on “state hollowing,” Assoc. Prof. Mejía Acosta argues that the weakening of bureaucratic institutions is not an accidental byproduct of populist rule but a deliberate governing strategy. For populist leaders, he explains, “state institutions and agencies get in the way of a more unilateral, discretionary, non-democratic type of governance,” making their dismantling instrumental to consolidating power.

Highlighting the core theme captured in the interview’s title, Assoc. Prof. Mejía Acosta stresses the asymmetry between the slow construction and rapid destruction of state institutions. While comparative politics has long recognized the difficulty of building capable states, he warns that their erosion can occur with alarming speed and lasting consequences: “In the case of state building, we have long understood that it takes decades and even centuries to build and strengthen states, but we are now learning that state dismantling apparently does not take long; it can be done very quickly.” This accelerated dismantling, he argues, produces durable institutional damage that outlives the populist incumbents themselves, making democratic recovery far more difficult. Once oversight agencies, regulatory bodies, and accountability mechanisms are weakened or eliminated, the very infrastructure required for democratic renewal may no longer function.

Throughout the conversation, Assoc. Prof. Mejía Acosta situates state erosion within the broader literature on democratic backsliding while distinguishing it from classical authoritarian consolidation. Whereas backsliding targets elections, mediafreedom, and political competition, state hollowing undermines the administrative and fiscal capacities that sustain governance itself. The result is a mutually reinforcing cycle: weakening representative institutions enables further bureaucratic dismantling, while eroding state capacity deactivates democratic safeguards. As he notes, this dynamic creates long-term structural damage: “This phenomenon of state erosion will have long-term consequences that make reversals of democratic backsliding more difficult. It will be harder to recover democratic practices when state mechanisms are no longer functioning.”

Drawing on empirical examples from Latin America and beyond, Assoc. Prof. Mejía Acosta also emphasizes how populist regimes selectively weaken oversight institutions while expanding discretionary spending, coercive apparatuses, and patronage networks. Agencies responsible for environmental regulation, poverty evaluation, or fiscal monitoring become targets precisely because they constrain executive discretion. In their place emerges a governance model characterized by informality, opacity, and clientelistic redistribution—conditions that entrench incumbents while undermining public accountability.

Yet the interview is not solely diagnostic. Assoc. Prof. Mejía Acosta concludes with cautious optimism about democratic resilience, underscoring the need for cross-sectoral coalitions, institutional reforms, and sustained civic mobilization. As authoritarian tendencies penetrate deeper into governance structures—“as if the authoritarian illness is spreading through the body”—he calls for a global effort to rebuild the institutional foundations of democracy.

Taken together, this interview provides a theoretically rich and empirically grounded account of how populist leaders hollow out states from within—and why the consequences for democracy may endure long after the political moment has passed.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Associate Professor Andrés Mejía Acosta, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow:

Toru Tsuda

Dr. Tsuda: Takaichi’s Ascent to Power Represents Continuity Rather Than a Populist Rupture

by MultimediaVideos

In an interview with the ECPS, Dr. Taro Tsuda of Meiji University argues that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s landslide victory and supermajority mandate signify continuity within Japan’s dominant-party system rather than a populist break. Despite her historic status as Japan’s first female prime minister and her “diligent and tough-speaking” leadership style, Dr. Tsuda stresses that her agenda and career remain rooted in the Liberal Democratic Party’s mainstream. He interprets her electoral success as part of the LDP’s strategy to reclaim drifting conservative voters and preempt challenger movements, with Takaichi herself becoming the party’s central electoral asset. Her rise, he concludes, demonstrates how leadership personalization and institutional resilience can reinforce—rather than disrupt—established structures of governance.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In a wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Taro Tsuda—Assistant Professor at the School of Political Science and Economics at Meiji University, Tokyo, and a scholar of Japanese political institutions, party dynamics, and leadership—offers a nuanced interpretation of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s dramatic rise and governing trajectory. His analysis comes at a pivotal moment: PM Takaichi’s landslide electoral victory delivered a two-thirds supermajority for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its coalition partner, dramatically consolidating executive authority and granting her administration an exceptional legislative cushion. As Japan’s first female prime minister, combining a programmatic conservative agenda with a leadership style widely perceived as both “diligent and tough-speaking,” Takaichi has reshaped the political landscape—strengthening conservative forces while advancing an ambitious policy program that includes fiscal stimulus, proposed consumption-tax cuts, technological and AI-driven industrial strategy, and a more assertive regional security posture. Yet, as Dr. Tsuda emphasizes, these developments should not be misread as evidence of a populist rupture.

Contrary to narratives portraying her ascent as a transformative break, Dr. Tsuda argues that Takaichi’s premiership represents continuity within Japan’s historically institutionalized dominant-party system. “It is definitely the former rather than the latter,” he explains when asked whether the so-called “Takaichi boom” constitutes personalized leadership rather than populism, noting that she emerges from the LDP, “which has been the dominant party in Japan since 1955.”Because populism typically involves an anti-establishment appeal “pitting the population against a harmful elite,” her leadership—rooted firmly within the ruling party’s mainstream—does not fit that model. Indeed, he stresses that her ideas and career path have remained “very much within the mainstream of the LDP,” making it “very hard…to say that her becoming Prime Minister would constitute a populist rupture.” In this reading, even her decisive electoral mandate and willingness to adopt politically risky positions on issues such as Taiwan and China reflect programmatic assertiveness rather than anti-system mobilization.

Dr. Tsuda further contends that Takaichi’s electoral success should be understood as part of the LDP’s adaptive strategy to reabsorb drifting conservative voters and preempt challenger movements. Faced with defections to newer right-leaning parties, the party leadership sought to reconstruct its electoral “big tent,” successfully drawing many of those voters back. This, he argues, forms “a sort of short-term and perhaps longer-term strategy…to prevent that kind of populist challenge to its incumbency.” Her personal popularity proved central to this effort: Takaichi “became the face of the LDP for this election,” attracting independents and younger voters who had previously been skeptical of the party.

By situating Takaichi’s premiership within longer trajectories of LDP dominance, Shinzo Abe’s legacy, and Japan’s evolving security and economic priorities, Dr. Tsuda’s interview highlights how leadership personalization, ideological clarity, and institutional continuity can coexist. The result, he suggests, is not a populist upheaval but a powerful example of how dominant parties renew authority through strategic adaptation—demonstrating that even historic milestones, such as Japan’s first female premiership and a sweeping supermajority victory, may ultimately reinforce rather than disrupt established structures of governance.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Dr. Taro Tsuda, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Dr. Taro Tsuda.

Dr. Tsuda: Takaichi’s Ascent to Power Represents Continuity Rather Than a Populist Rupture

by Editor’s ChoiceHomeInterviews

In an interview with the ECPS, Dr. Taro Tsuda of Meiji University argues that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s landslide victory and supermajority mandate signify continuity within Japan’s dominant-party system rather than a populist break. Despite her historic status as Japan’s first female prime minister and her “diligent and tough-speaking” leadership style, Dr. Tsuda stresses that her agenda and career remain rooted in the Liberal Democratic Party’s mainstream. He interprets her electoral success as part of the LDP’s strategy to reclaim drifting conservative voters and preempt challenger movements, with Takaichi herself becoming the party’s central electoral asset. Her rise, he concludes, demonstrates how leadership personalization and institutional resilience can reinforce—rather than disrupt—established structures of governance.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In a wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Taro Tsuda—Assistant Professor at the School of Political Science and Economics at Meiji University, Tokyo, and a scholar of Japanese political institutions, party dynamics, and leadership—offers a nuanced interpretation of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s dramatic rise and governing trajectory. His analysis comes at a pivotal moment: PM Takaichi’s landslide electoral victory delivered a two-thirds supermajority for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its coalition partner, dramatically consolidating executive authority and granting her administration an exceptional legislative cushion. As Japan’s first female prime minister, combining a programmatic conservative agenda with a leadership style widely perceived as both “diligent and tough-speaking,” Takaichi has reshaped the political landscape—strengthening conservative forces while advancing an ambitious policy program that includes fiscal stimulus, proposed consumption-tax cuts, technological and AI-driven industrial strategy, and a more assertive regional security posture. Yet, as Dr. Tsuda emphasizes, these developments should not be misread as evidence of a populist rupture.

Contrary to narratives portraying her ascent as a transformative break, Dr. Tsuda argues that Takaichi’s premiership represents continuity within Japan’s historically institutionalized dominant-party system. “It is definitely the former rather than the latter,” he explains when asked whether the so-called “Takaichi boom” constitutes personalized leadership rather than populism, noting that she emerges from the LDP, “which has been the dominant party in Japan since 1955.”Because populism typically involves an anti-establishment appeal “pitting the population against a harmful elite,” her leadership—rooted firmly within the ruling party’s mainstream—does not fit that model. Indeed, he stresses that her ideas and career path have remained “very much within the mainstream of the LDP,” making it “very hard…to say that her becoming Prime Minister would constitute a populist rupture.” In this reading, even her decisive electoral mandate and willingness to adopt politically risky positions on issues such as Taiwan and China reflect programmatic assertiveness rather than anti-system mobilization.

Dr. Tsuda further contends that Takaichi’s electoral success should be understood as part of the LDP’s adaptive strategy to reabsorb drifting conservative voters and preempt challenger movements. Faced with defections to newer right-leaning parties, the party leadership sought to reconstruct its electoral “big tent,” successfully drawing many of those voters back. This, he argues, forms “a sort of short-term and perhaps longer-term strategy…to prevent that kind of populist challenge to its incumbency.” Her personal popularity proved central to this effort: Takaichi “became the face of the LDP for this election,” attracting independents and younger voters who had previously been skeptical of the party.

By situating Takaichi’s premiership within longer trajectories of LDP dominance, Shinzo Abe’s legacy, and Japan’s evolving security and economic priorities, Dr. Tsuda’s interview highlights how leadership personalization, ideological clarity, and institutional continuity can coexist. The result, he suggests, is not a populist upheaval but a powerful example of how dominant parties renew authority through strategic adaptation—demonstrating that even historic milestones, such as Japan’s first female premiership and a sweeping supermajority victory, may ultimately reinforce rather than disrupt established structures of governance.

Here is the edited version of our interview with Dr. Taro Tsuda, revised slightly to improve clarity and flow.

Rebuilding the LDP’s Big Tent to Preempt Populist Challengers

Election candidate campaigning with local residents at Yanaka Ginza, Taito City, Tokyo, on March 13, 2019.
Election candidate campaigning with local residents at Yanaka Ginza, Taito City, Tokyo, on March 13, 2019. Photo: Dreamstime.

Dr. Taro Tsuda, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: You characterize the current moment as potentially a “Takaichi boom.” To what extent might this be conceptualized as a form of personalized plebiscitary leadership within a historically institutionalized dominant-party system, rather than a classic populist rupture?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: I would say it is definitely the former rather than the latter. Prime Minister Takaichi is from the LDP, the Liberal Democratic Party, which has been the dominant party in Japan since 1955. There have been several moments when it has lost power, but throughout this whole period—about 70 years—it has remained the dominant or most powerful party. And she comes from that party, so it is difficult , in my definition of populism, that it implies a sort of anti-establishment or anti-elite stance, pitting the population against a harmful elite or establishment, and that is definitely not what Takaichi is doing. So it is very hard for me to say that her becoming Prime Minister would constitute a populist rupture. All her ideas, policy proposals, and her career path have been very much within the mainstream of the LDP, even if one might say they are on the more right-wing or conservative side of the party. So, I would not characterize it as a populist rupture.

In light of your argument that the LDP must reconstruct its “big tent,” can we interpret PM Sanea Takaichi’s strategy as a mode of preventive populism—absorbing and neutralizing anti-system demands before they crystallize into durable challenger movements such as Sanseito?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: I would say, to some extent, that is part of her strategy, or what the LDP’s strategy as a whole was, especially in this past election, the lower house election that took place on February 8. For the past few years, there has been a group of more right-leaning or more conservative voters who have been drifting away from the LDP because of what they perceive as the past few leaders’ more liberal or more centrist approach. Many of them went to new parties like Sanseito. A major goal of the past election was to bring many of those more right-leaning voters back into the LDP, and the results show that, in many ways, they were successful in doing so. Many of the people who were conservative or who had supported Sanseito in previous elections supported the LDP this time.

So I think that this is a sort of short-term and perhaps longer-term strategy of the LDP leadership to prevent that kind of populist challenge to its incumbency.

Downplaying Gender While Subtly Leveraging It

Takaichi’s leadership style appears to combine the novelty of being a prominent female conservative leader with a strong emphasis on themes such as strength, discipline, and national security. Based on your observations, to what extent does she highlight or downplay her gender in shaping her political image and appeal?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: That’s a very interesting and complicated question. From what I’ve seen so far of her leadership since she became LDP party leader and then Prime Minister, it seems that her approach is a delicate balance between downplaying or not explicitly mentioning the gender aspect and, more subtly, sometimes using her gender to gain a favorable impression or to connect with people in Japan. One interesting example is that after becoming Prime Minister, she was asked by an opposition lawmaker to focus on dressing well and wearing Japan’s best materials or textiles, and that as Prime Minister she should not wear rather drab clothes or something like that. In response, she talked about how she is in a difficult position because she has to wear something good so that people take her seriously as a female leader on the international stage, and that she has to think carefully about what she wears.

That was an episode where she usually does not touch upon gender at all, but by talking about things like that—without really focusing on gender itself—she was still using the gender aspect to connect with people. I think that aspect of her leadership is something many of the people who supported her in the recent election appreciate, especially independent or younger voters. They like this personality-based and relatively ordinary style that she often emphasizes, which at times includes a subtle gender aspect. So, I think it is a very subtle approach, not one that explicitly focuses on gender.

Do you think Takaichi’s rise shows that gender matters less in leadership today, or that she succeeds by adopting traditionally masculine leadership traits?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: I would say that it is neither that gender does not matter nor that she is consciously trying to adopt masculine traits. Her example is simply exceptional. On the first point about gender not mattering, I think it still matters a great deal, since Japan, on many measures of gender parity and gender equality, still ranks lower than other advanced industrial countries. There are many barriers for women to achieve leadership positions in Japan, including in politics. She was able to overcome those, and that is part of her appeal to many people.

At the same time, as I mentioned in relation to the previous question, she is not completely denying her gender. She sometimes subtly appeals to people in ways related to it. So I would say it is neither; the fact that she has been able to break some of those barriers is what appeals to many voters in Japan.

Abe’s Legacy as the Informal Architecture of Takaichi’s Rise

Japan’s former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Photo: Dreamstime.

Your work on Satō Eisaku highlights the stabilizing function of informal authority and elder statesmanship in moments of systemic uncertainty. To what extent does Abe Shinzo’s enduring legacy function as a form of posthumous informal governance structuring Takaichi’s political maneuverability?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: From your question, I think you’re referring to the extent to which Shinzo Abe’s legacy is significant for Takaichi and her politics. I would say that, in many ways, Abe’s legacy and his career contributed to her rise to the leadership of the LDP and to the Prime Ministership. Because Takaichi is a protégé of Abe, while he was alive he supported her past attempts— the first attempt was while he was still alive, before she was assigned to become leader of the LDP and potentially Prime Minister. She wasn’t successful at that time, but his support helped her get relatively close to reaching that position then. In the most recent leadership contest, when she was able to secure the leadership of the party and then become Prime Minister, the support of Abe’s former faction members was very important. Even though she was not officially a member of his faction, she was his protégé, and many people around him are also supportive of her politically and ideologically, so in that sense it is very important.

Many of her policy ideas are also continuations of Abe’s policy agenda, such as building a more assertive Japan on the international stage and maintaining close relations with the US, including Donald Trump, who had a close relationship with Abe while he was alive. So in many ways, that legacy is very important.

We also have to point out, however, that Abe’s legacy contributed to those factors that have caused recent difficulties for the LDP, such as the political scandals relating to the party’s ties with the Unification Church and the slush fund scandal that focused on the former Abe faction. In those ways, these issues created difficulties for the LDP that Takaichi had to overcome in order to succeed in this past election. So in many different and complex ways, Abe’s legacy continues to be important for Japan’s politics.

Executive Dominance Rising Amid Residual Factional Power

Are we witnessing a transition from factional oligarchy to leader-centered executive dominance, or do factional networks remain the latent institutional infrastructure of LDP governance?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: That’s also quite a complicated question. We can definitely say that the influence of factions is much less in Japanese politics than previously thought. In the sort of golden age of LDP rule during the Cold War, especially during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, factions were involved in many different aspects of LDP politics and Japanese politics: election strategy, fundraising, and choosing the leader of the LDP, who, because the LDP was the leading party, almost automatically became prime minister. Thus, many aspects of factions were the central units of the LDP’s rule.

But that later diminished because of electoral reform in the 1990s, which, as the election system changed, reduced the factions’ influence in election strategy. Further on, with the scandals I mentioned earlier relating to the Unification Church and ties with the LDP, and especially the slush fund scandal, former Prime Minister Fumiyo Kishida led an effort to dissolve the factions. Almost all of the LDP factions stopped existing, at least on paper, in 2024. One major faction of former Prime Minister Aso Taro still exists, but most of the others have dissolved, which has very much reduced the role of factions.

However, there has been a long history of people in the LDP talking about the need to get rid of factions as a source of corruption and division in the party. There have been earlier efforts to weaken the factions, but what has often happened is that the factions are weakened and then able to come back and become stronger again. So this could happen again in the future, and even if the formal factions are mostly no longer existing, there are still strong informal groupings within the LDP. So, for the moment, factions are much reduced in their influence, but it is still hard to say that they are irrelevant or that they will not become stronger again in the future. At the moment, much less.

Managing Scandal Through Leadership Appeal

Given the LDP’s recent decline due to scandals and erosion of public trust, do you think a strategy of proactively addressing these issues could help restore its credibility, or are patronage-based practices too deeply entrenched for meaningful reform?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: That’s also a very interesting question. A few months ago, I wrote an opinion piece in the Japan Times that addressed this very issue. I wrote it very soon after Takaichi became Prime Minister of Japan, and I argued that this was an opportune moment for her, because she was popular, not only to consolidate support among more conservative voters but also to address the political scandals that had damaged the LDP. I thought her position and her closeness to Abe and Abe’s faction put her in a good position to do this, and that it could also stabilize the LDP’s rule. However, what has happened in the subsequent months is not really what I suggested.

Instead, she has focused more on other policy issues and on her personal appeal with the Japanese public, so the issue of political reform has been put to the side to some extent. She has agreed with the coalition partner—or the coalition partner, the Japan Innovation Party, has emphasized this issue as well—but it is no longer at the forefront. At the moment, it seems she has been successful in turning the page on this issue without directly addressing it.

It remains to be seen whether that can continue. There is always a possibility that a similar scandal could emerge again, although I think the likelihood in the near future may be lower because of the lessons some members learned from these past scandals and because the faction system is now, for the moment, defunct. Still, since she has not addressed it directly, it could return in the future. In the long term, this is something that should be addressed for the country itself and for the stability of the LDP’s rule.

Balancing China Through Alliances and Supply-Chain Resilience

Photo: Dreamstime.

Japan’s security posture is evolving amid intensifying US–China rivalry. Would you characterize Takaichi’s foreign policy orientation as a continuation of post–Cold War embeddedness, or as a move toward strategic autonomy within a multipolar order?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: I think that because of the recent dispute between Japan and China, sparked in part by some of Takaichi’s comments about Japan’s response in a hypothetical contingency relating to Taiwan, many assume that she is departing on a very different path in terms of foreign policy. But as I see it, her policy is, at least at the moment, very much a continuation of the path of some of her predecessors, especially starting with Prime Minister Abe. Abe is known for pioneering the idea of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific, bringing together not only the US and Japan in their alliance but also like-minded countries in the Indo-Pacific to work on a range of economic and security issues, in a form of implicit balancing against China. Some of his successors, such as former Prime Minister Kishida, also committed to boosting defense spending and capabilities in light of the Ukraine war.

I think she is continuing along that path, so I would not say there is a major departure from her predecessors. It is still very much reliant on the US–Japan security alliance, but it also involves reaching out to other countries in the region that share interests and values with Japan, such as India, Australia, and South Korea. She has, perhaps more than her predecessors, forged constructive relations with South Korea, which until recently were quite tense. That is generally the path she is following in terms of foreign policy.

How do you see Japan’s recent focus on economic security and supply-chain resilience — mainly as a response to new global risks, or as part of a broader shift in its economic and industrial strategy?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: In terms of economic security, Japan has always had an interest in it because it is a resource-poor island nation that relies heavily on global trade. Securing vital raw materials and natural resources has therefore always been a major concern and an important factor in its foreign policy.

However, there has been a recent and even greater emphasis on this issue because of developments such as the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and now tensions with China. These events have highlighted Japan’s vulnerability and its reliance on sea lanes and supply chains. There has been an even stronger focus on economic security since the 2020s. The position of Minister of State for Economic Security, now one of the important Cabinet posts, was officially created in recent years; it did not exist before. The creation of this position demonstrates the stronger emphasis on economic security.

Leadership Image as the Engine of Electoral Revival

And finally, Dr. Tsuda, to what degree has Takaichi’s electoral success been mediated through narrative construction—her image as a disciplined, uncompromising, and reformist leader—and how central is this symbolic dimension to sustaining the LDP’s renewed legitimacy in the medium term?

Dr. Taro Tsuda: If you’re referring to the electoral success of this past election in the lower house, that it was very much based on Takaichi herself. Her own brand of leadership and her image were a central part of that election and the success of the LDP. If you compare the support rate of Takaichi with the support rate of the LDP before the election, there was quite a big gap. Even today, there is a gap between the actual support of the LDP and Takaichi’s very high approval rating. So basically, she became the face of the LDP for this election, and many people who liked her and approved of her leadership, but who may have had more skepticism toward the LDP itself, were persuaded to vote for the LDP. This included not only the conservative voters that I talked about earlier, but also many non-party-affiliated voters—people who are not strongly aligned with one party and who can shift their support from election to election—as well as a large number of younger voters, who historically did not support the LDP that strongly. This shows that her image and leadership were very important to the success.

For the medium or longer term, I think that depends on whether she can deliver on some of the things she promised in the election, such as improving the economic situation of the Japanese people and addressing other important issues, including concerns relating to immigration or foreigners in Japan, to mention a few issues that were very prominent in that election. If she can address those issues, I think that will help the LDP in the near future. But if she has trouble addressing them, or if some kind of scandal or other problem emerges, then it may be difficult, even if she herself remains popular, to sustain support for the government as a whole.