In this compelling interview with ECPS, Dr. Hakki Tas argues that repression—not legitimacy—has become the Erdogan regime’s default mode of rule. Highlighting the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, Dr. Taş contends that Turkey is moving further from competitive authoritarianism toward full authoritarian consolidation. As electoral legitimacy weakens, coercion fills the void, revealing a regime reliant on fear, control, and chrono-political narratives to survive. “Remaining in power,” Dr. Tas says, “is the only survival strategy.” This conversation explores the strategic logic behind repression, the shrinking political arena, and the uncertain future of ailing Turkish democracy.
In an interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Hakki Tas, Research Fellow at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, offers a sobering assessment of Turkey’s democratic trajectory under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Dr. Tas argues that “coercion has become the Erdogan regime’s default tool of governance,” signaling a shift in strategy where repression, rather than consensus or legitimacy, undergirds the government’s hold on power. This growing reliance on coercive mechanisms reflects not only the regime’s authoritarian drift but also its deepening vulnerability in the face of economic instability and eroding public support.
In Dr. Tas’s view, the political elite in Turkey face a stark reality: “remaining in power is the only survival strategy.” With dwindling economic resources, declining electoral popularity, and limited institutional buffers, Erdogan and his allies find themselves increasingly dependent on repressive tactics to maintain control. The arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, widely seen as the most viable opposition figure, exemplifies this logic. For Dr. Tad, such moves do more than target individuals; they erode fundamental democratic principles by narrowing the space for political competition and undermining voter choice.
Indeed, Dr. Tas highlights the regime’s systematic efforts to degrade electoral competitiveness. While Turkey has retained the formal trappings of multiparty elections, the conditions required for genuine democratic choice—such as “electoral vulnerability,” “electoral availability,” and “decidability”—have been steadily dismantled. The elimination of high-profile opposition figures like Imamoglu not only tilts the playing field but also challenges the very notion of Turkey as a competitive authoritarian regime. As Dr. Tas succinctly puts it, “calling Turkey’s regime ‘competitive’ is increasingly difficult to justify.”
Beyond specific political maneuvers, Dr. Tas situates these developments within a broader authoritarian logic—one that employs what he calls a “chrono-political strategy” to frame every election as an existential battle for the nation’s soul. Through an intricate weaving of past grievances, present insecurities, and imagined futures, Erdogan casts challenges to his rule as threats to the entire Turkish polity. This blend of populist narrative-building, strategic repression, and institutional erosion has enabled the regime to survive despite mounting internal and external pressures.
This interview explores the implications of Imamoglu’s arrest, the fragility of Erdogan’s political toolkit, and the possible futures of ailing Turkish democracy. At stake is not only the fate of one politician or election, but the broader question of whether Turkey can still lay claim to competitive politics—or whether it has entered a new phase of authoritarian consolidation.
Dr. Hakki Tas, Research Fellow at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Dr. Hakki Tas with some edits.
Calling Turkey’s Regime ‘Competitive’ Is Increasingly Difficult to Justify
How does the arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu fit within the broader trajectory of democratic backsliding in Turkey, and does it signify a critical turning point toward full authoritarian consolidation, or does it remain within the bounds of competitive authoritarianism?
The competitiveness of the regime in Turkey has been in question not only today but throughout the last decade as well. While Turkish elections have long been marked by significant contentiousness, this indeed does not necessarily translate into genuine political competition. True competitiveness requires conditions such as electoral vulnerability (where incumbents can realistically be unseated), electoral availability (where voters are open to changing party preferences), and decidability (where parties offer distinct and clearly communicated platforms).
Nevertheless, by potentially eliminating the most prominent challenger from the electoral arena, the jailing of Imamoglu further undercuts each of these core democratic prerequisites. While Turkey has not yet crossed into fully authoritarian rule, actions like arresting leading opposition figures push the system closer to outright authoritarian consolidation, and the adjective “competitive” to describe the current regime becomes increasingly tenuous.
For Turkey’s Ruling Elite, Staying in Power Is the Only Survival Strategy
To what extent can Imamoglu’s arrest be interpreted as a reflection of Erdogan’s growing political insecurity in anticipation of the 2028 elections, rather than an expression of consolidated authoritarian control?
These two dimensions—growing political insecurity and authoritarian tendencies—often intersect, since remaining in power is the only survival strategy for the current political elite. The insecurity itself is clear: with economic resources depleted, Erdogan can no longer dispense patronage to his base as effectively, nor can he weave compelling narratives that resonate with voters and align with his domestic or foreign policy choices. Consequently, if he cannot win the minds and hearts of the masses, coercion becomes his default instrument. Of course, such reliance on repression highlights the fragility of the regime. Repression may not be the most effective tactic, but it probably is the only remaining path to maintain power.
In the light of Erdogan’s declining popularity and the ongoing economic crisis, to what degree can the regime continue to depend on electoral legitimacy, or is it likely to increasingly abandon the electoral route in favor of more authoritarian mechanisms?
Erdogan faces a fundamental conundrum when it comes to sustaining electoral legitimacy amidst dwindling popularity and deepening economic woes. Unlike many of his autocratic counterparts, he cannot rely on a rentier economy to placate key constituencies, nor can he fully count on a steadfast, loyal military to neutralize dissent. In this context, elections—no matter how constrained—have long served as a principal source of legitimacy. The semblance of competitiveness has permitted Erdogan to maintain at least a façade of democratic governance, preserving his rule without incurring the immediate costs of blatant authoritarianism.
Yet this tactic cuts both ways. Without holding elections, Erdogan risks forfeiting any claim to popular legitimacy, leaving him reliant on repressive mechanisms that are by no means guaranteed to remain loyal. At the same time, the very act of putting his government to an electoral test brings the danger that genuine opposition could mobilize sufficiently to threaten his grip on power.
When Parties Fail, the Streets Speak
Thousands gathered in Istanbul on March 23, 2025, to protest the arrest of Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu. Photo: Sedat Gulec.
How might a potential state-led intervention in the CHP—modeled after kayyum-style trusteeship—reshape the Turkish party system and transform the landscape of opposition politics?
This would only underscore the fact that the traditional institutional mechanisms of political mediation have long been obsolete in Turkey and could further legitimize street-level mobilization. Dismantling the CHP’s autonomy would not only deepen the regime’s authoritarian tilt but also galvanize citizens to challenge the government outside the confines of a party framework, amplifying the prominence of direct action in shaping Turkey’s political future.
Given Imamoglu’s capacity to mobilize broad, cross-ideological support, what are the strategic implications of his removal for the Turkish opposition’s ability to mount a viable electoral challenge?
Imamoglu is one of the Turkish opposition’s most versatile and unifying figures, whose cross-ideological appeal had begun to transcend traditional fault lines; however, this broad support did not necessarily constitute a robust coalition committed to full democracy. Moreover, the regime has strategically sought to keep the political and ideological fissures among the opposition intact—most notably by attempting to reconcile with Kurdish political actors. Nonetheless, Imamoglu’s ability to attract diverse groups demonstrated a tangible path toward a more inclusive opposition discourse, one that could, at least temporarily, bridge political cleavages around a common goal. The opposition leaders have performed well so far.
From Twin Enemies to Universal Threats
How does the post-2016 securitization of political opposition compare to earlier state narratives targeting the Gulen movement, and in what ways is this logic now being extended to opposition figures such as Imamoglu?
The post-coup securitization narrative has intensified and broadened the regime’s ability to label virtually any dissent as a threat to national security, building on earlier campaigns against the Gulen movement and Kurdish groups. Historically, it was relatively straightforward to demonize these constituencies by invoking entrenched suspicions of political Islam and Kurdish nationalism—“twin enemies” in the public imagination.
Compared to its anti-Gulen campaign, the government has deployed similar tactics—such as dehumanizing language, terrorism accusations, and show trials—; extending such rhetoric to figures like Imamoglu, however, proves more challenging, given his secular and broadly appealing profile. The scope of securitization continues to expand, as seen in the Gezi trials, and likely will intensify further, reinforcing polarization, when the support of the majority is not viable.
In what ways is the Erdogan regime deploying chrono-political narratives—fusing past, present, and future—to legitimize authoritarian measures against the opposition in the lead-up to the 2028 elections?
Currently, Erdogan lacks a popular grand narrative to frame recent developments. Instead, he taps into center-right and conservative sentiments with rhetoric about “street terrorism.” Meanwhile, pro-government media and figures recirculate default anti-Kemalist tropes, constantly reminding the AKP base of the 1997 “postmodern coup” and emphasizing the AKP’s role as the champion of an “Anatolian Revolution” against the vestiges of “Old Turkey” represented by the CHP. By melding past grievances with current insecurities, this chrono-political framing casts state crackdowns as the preservation of a people’s revolution rather than an assault on democratic norms, thereby embedding present events in a broader narrative of conflict between a secular Kemalist elite and Muslim Anatolian people.
In a Post-Truth Arena, Victimhood Becomes the Most Potent Political Weapon
What does the political discourse surrounding Imamoglu’s arrest reveal about Turkey’s ongoing shift toward post-truth politics, in which narrative construction increasingly overrides evidence-based governance?
The discourse surrounding Imamoglu’s arrest illustrates Turkey’s deepening post-truth environment, in which the regime’s narratives often eclipse factual evidence through a deluge of fake news, half-truths, and conspiracy theories. Despite its formidable control over media outlets and intensified censorship of opposition voices, the government’s ability to craft a cohesive, persuasive message appears weaker compared to earlier high-stakes moments like the 2013 Gezi Protests or the aftermath of the 2016 coup attempt. This relative disarray in the official narrative highlights the regime’s further reliance on post-truth tactics to obfuscate the truth.
How does Erdogan’s portrayal of Imamoglu align with populist strategies that frame challengers as enemies of “the people,” and how does this dynamic intersect with Imamoglu’s own populist appeal?
Erdogan’s populist messaging has long relied on a Manichean division that pits “the people” against an allegedly subversive elite. Initially aimed at the Kemalist establishment during the 2000s, this rhetoric evolved to target foreign “dark forces” and domestic opponents, situating any threat to the AKP’s dominance within a grand narrative of external conspiracies seeking to weaken Turkey. In presenting Imamoglu as insolent and dismissive of the popularly elected government, Erdogan reinforces this populist framework, albeit in a manner that appears increasingly strained. The irony lies in removing a democratically elected mayor through what many view as politically motivated charges while simultaneously accusing him of undermining democracy—a strategy meant to maintain Erdogan’s self-image as the authentic representative of the public’s will.
Imamoglu, however, employs a form of counter-populism by depicting Erdogan’s regime as the entrenched new establishment and urging disparate groups marginalized under the AKP’s rule to unite. In this sense, he challenges Erdogan on his own turf, effectively turning the populist dichotomy back against the incumbent. Moreover, the very act of arresting Imamoglu grants him the victimhood status that has historically served Erdogan well, endowing Imamoglu with the same potent political currency of victimhood and moral high ground.
How Erdogan Weaponizes Crisis to Sustain Power
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Photo: Shutterstock.
To what extent is anti-Western rhetoric being utilized to domestically legitimize the arrest of Imamoglu, and how does this tactic align with the AKP’s broader strategy of politicizing foreign policy?
Despite the AKP’s reliance on anti-Western rhetoric to legitimize controversial domestic and foreign policy moves throughout the 2010s, Erdogan has been more circumspect in explicitly invoking such themes to rationalize Imamoglu’s arrest. Some pro-government outlets have circulated conspiracy theories linking Imamoglu to foreign plots; however, Erdogan currently appears to prioritize pragmatic relations with both the European Union and the United States. This shift partly stems from renewed Western interest in Turkey’s security partnership against Russia, as well as the transactional dynamic that characterized Erdogan’s rapport with US President Donald Trump. In other words, while anti-Western discourse remains a familiar tool in the regime’s arsenal, Erdogan has downplayed it in favor of current diplomatic gains and economic considerations.
Nevertheless, the broader AKP strategy of politicizing foreign policy remains evident in the potential use of external conflicts as a diversionary tactic. Historically, Erdogan has displayed a capacity to refocus domestic anxieties onto external threats, thereby consolidating his base. If Imamoglu’s arrest triggers wider unrest, the regime may revert to stoking regional tensions and rally the public under a unifying, antagonistic narrative. Given the volatile regional landscape—replete with ongoing conflicts—there is ample opportunity to leverage foreign policy crises to overshadow or justify heavy-handed measures at home.
Does Imamoglu’s arrest represent a calculated moment within Erdogan’s chrono-political strategy to frame the 2028 election as an existential national struggle, and how does this timing contribute to the construction of a long-term authoritarian myth?
Erdogan’s repeated depiction of every electoral contest—with remarkable examples such as the December 2015 general elections and the 2017 constitutional referendum—as an existential choice for the nation epitomizes a populist politics of time. In this framework, the present becomes a decisive juncture between a promised utopia of national triumph and an apocalyptic scenario of total annihilation, all hinging on the leader’s continued rule. Imamoglu’s arrest, then, can be seen as another attempt to situate the 2028 election within this broader chrono-political strategy. Erdogan is undoubtedly a master of chrono-populism, a skill that has helped him become one of the longest-serving populist leaders in world history.
However, sustaining perpetual vigilance among the public is costly. If Erdogan cannot deliver tangible rewards beyond the mere avoidance of catastrophe, voter fatigue over these endless existential crises may erode the very support he seeks to reinforce. The timing of Imamoglu’s arrest, therefore, not only reflects a calculated bid to sustain a grand authoritarian myth but also risks overextending the populist device of crisis mobilization—leaving the regime vulnerable to disillusionment from an electorate that grows weary of ever-present emergency narratives.
In a comprehensive interview with ECPS, Professor Jenny White calls the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu “absolutely… a sign of insecurity”—not strength. Professor White warns that this preemptive strike ahead of the 2028 elections reflects “regime fragility,” not confidence, adding: “If this stands… voting ceases to have any real meaning.” Drawing on her concept of “spindle autocracy,” she explains how personal loyalty has overtaken institutional merit, creating a brittle, fear-driven system. With Erdogan’s popularity fading and international pressure weakened, Professor White argues, “This is a line that has now been crossed”—one with dangerous consequences for Turkey’s democratic future.
In a wide-ranging and incisive interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Jenny White—renowned anthropologist and scholar of Turkish politics at Stockholm University—explores the deeper implications of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu’s arrest and what it reveals about the current phase of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s authoritarianism. “Oh, absolutely—it’s a sign of insecurity,” Professor White declares. “And that makes it all the more dangerous, because this is a line that has now been crossed.”
This stark assessment lies at the heart of Professor White’s reflections on how Erdogan has evolved from a populist reformer to an embattled strongman. The arrest of Imamoglu—widely seen as the opposition’s most viable presidential contender in 2028—is not an act of confidence, but of regime fragility. “If this stands… and especially if the party itself is taken over, then voting ceases to have any real meaning,” she warns.
Professor White locates this shift within a broader trajectory of democratic erosion in Turkey. Drawing from her concept of spindle autocracy, she describes a system where loyalty to the leader has eclipsed merit and institutional integrity. “You cannot disagree. If you disagree, you are a traitor,” she says, noting that once individuals fall out of favor, they are discarded—spun out like raw wool from a political spindle.
Far from being the first rupture, Imamoglu’s arrest is a culmination of earlier moves: the post-Gezi crackdown, the co-optation of the judiciary, and the mass purges following the 2016 coup attempt. “At this point, there are really no institutions left around Erdogan that have competence, aside from loyalty to him,” Professor White states.
The sense of insecurity extends beyond domestic calculations. Professor White suggests that global shifts, including the return of Donald Trump, have reinforced Erdogan’s sense of impunity. “Erdogan has nothing to fear from US censure… I’m quite sure Trump would support that kind of move,” she notes. The European Union, too, finds itself in a bind—caught between supporting human rights and preserving strategic ties with Turkey.
Despite Erdogan’s waning popularity, the fear of retaliation—and the AKP’s entrenchment in every layer of society—limits open dissent. As Professor White concludes, “You can’t forget that Erdogan still has a lot of people willing to vote for him—not necessarily because they’re passionately in love with him, but because they’re afraid of what happens if he’s gone.”
This interview sheds urgent light on the authoritarian logic of fear—and what happens when that fear governs.
Professor Jenny White, renowned anthropologist and scholar of Turkish politics at Stockholm University.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Jenny White with some edits.
Turkey Is a Roller Coaster—Who’s on Top and Who’s Not Constantly Shifts
Professor White, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In your articles, you describe Turkish political life as a “horizontal topography of action” rather than a vertical model of oppression and resistance. How does this framework help us better understand Erdogan’s consolidation of power post-2016 coup attempt?
Professor Jenny White: Well, I think of politics both in micro terms and over the long term. So, if you think of politics as just what’s happening now, you can try to clarify who’s on top and who’s on the bottom. But if you look at it even in just a slightly longer time frame, you see that the constituents of “Up” and the constituents of “Down” don’t stay the same. They, especially in a place like Turkey, are almost like a roller coaster. For a long time in the 20th century, the secular Kemalists were on top, and they were able to, or they tried to, determine how the rest of the population should live according to their standards. A lot of people went along with that because they also agreed with it. Those who didn’t were, you know, the religious, the peasants, the ones who lived in Turkey and tried to do well for themselves but often found that being religious or from the countryside was a drawback when it came to moving ahead. At some point, I think it was in the 1960s, you weren’t allowed to wear a headscarf in a civil service job or even to visit someone in a state hospital. Eventually, you weren’t allowed to wear a headscarf to go to university.
For many people who had been left out of the nation’s vision of progress, that was the ultimate insult. Not only were they kept down because they were peasants or migrants to the city, but they were also not allowed to practice their religion if they wanted to participate in modern society. There was this profound sense of being disenfranchised, being oppressed by the elites who, at the time, were trying to raise everyone up. So, depending on where you’re looking from, it’s determined by the observer. What’s the position of the observer in making the determination of who is oppressed or who is the oppressor? Then, of course, in the 1980s, the Islamist party started winning local elections and then national elections, representing these disenfranchised people. They came to power, and now we have the AKP. The AKP, in turn, decided to impose on the population their view of how one should live. It’s a different part of the population now.
Again, depending on who the observer is, you could either feel oppressed or say that those are the oppressors. It’s a roller coaster, with who’s on top and who’s not. Then, if you take it down another level, you look at people who are otherwise the same, like the followers of Fethullah Gulen and the members of the AKP. Before that, the Refah Party (RP) consisted of lower-middle-class merchants—not really merchants, but more like business people—and later on, they became wealthy. These were the people who had managed to step up in the new 1980s economy. They felt empowered, believing they were now on top. The Fethullah Gulen followers were heavily involved in all of this. They worked together with the government, had their own version of what they were doing, but in many ways, culturally and religiously, in terms of piety, they were indistinguishable from the AKP followers. So, you would think they wouldn’t be differentiated, but they fell afoul of the AKP, became the “bottom,” were hounded out of existence, and declared terrorists.
The scary thing for a lot of people was that you couldn’t actually know who was in and who was out, who was up and who was down. Your neighbor wore a headscarf, and you wore a headscarf. You were culturally identical and had known each other for years. How do you know who is on the up and who is on the down? There was also a culture of snitching. If you didn’t like your mother-in-law, you could snitch and claim she was a Gulenist, and then watch her fall. This is not the usual up-and-down scenario, which stems from a liberal leftist view that the world is divided into people who are oppressed—the poor, the minorities—and then the oppressors. In reality, the oppressed themselves can oppress others. It’s much more complicated than that.
There Are No Institutions Left—Only Loyalty
In your analysis of “spindle autocracy,” you argue that personal loyalty to a leader has replaced institutional merit. How has this dynamic reshaped Turkey’s political institutions and public trust in them since the executive presidency was introduced?
Professor Jenny White: Thank you. That’s a good question. But all I can think of right now is the US. This is so applicable. You can see the spindle forming, and just the idea of spindle autocracy, or spindle politics, as I ended up calling it, is that you move from being a country where people look at the politicians, and they may like or dislike the politician, but they look at the policies. “I like the policies of this politician, too. I like this politician.” To “I love this politician because this is an incredible outpouring of emotion, a passionate emotion that’s much more than simply liking your politician.” And I don’t really care what his policies are. I go with them because they are things that he wants us to do.
That’s an enormous difference, and the implications of that are also enormous. Because if you have a political leader who is a spindle autocrat, surrounding himself with people who are loyal as the first criterion, whether or not they are competent shouldn’t be beside the point, but often is. In the Kemalist era, there has always been a kind of big-man authoritarianism in Turkey, starting with Ataturk—the love of the leader. Atatürk is the beloved leader throughout, but whenever individuals like Menderes, Demirel, and Ozal, for example, came along, there was this attachment to particular leaders, including leftist leaders who are now icons.
So, I’m not saying this is something new with the AKP. These are old habits of power, big-man autocracy, and authoritarianism. All of this is wrapped up in a kind of patriarchy: “the devlet baba,” the state as your father, which is now personalized as Erdogan, your father figure. Intolerance of difference—people don’t like things that are different, or people who are different—has always been present in Turkey. But what is different now is the character of this central leader, right?
The styling. Another thing that’s been around for a long time is the styling, where the leader presents himself as both a hero and a victim—the heroic victim who is there to take care of you like a father. Erdogan embodies all of this, as did the leaders before him. But the difference now is that he has sort of forgotten the part where he takes care of the family. It’s almost as if remaining the leader has become a purpose in itself. All the pomp and circumstance surrounding the presidency now just feed resources and attention to the central figure. There are really no institutions left around Erdogan that have competence, aside from loyalty to him.
Obviously, not everyone is incompetent, but Erdogan has removed anyone he deemed disloyal. This started happening in the late 2000s. At one point, the Gulen movement, which had significant influence within the police, went after some of Erdogan’s family members for corruption and they wanted to arrest the government’s emissary who was traveling to Europe to negotiate a peace deal with the PKK. Erdogan didn’t like that, which caused a clash within the government.These individuals were part of government institutions, and the Gulen movement was singled out. Erdogan’s government then targeted the Gulen movement, leading to what became almost a feud—back and forth—culminating in the 2016 failed coup attempt. These were the people who had surrounded Erdogan at the beginning, and they moved down on the roller coaster, while the people who moved in were not necessarily known for their competence.
One of the major consequences of a system like this is that nobody can disagree with the leader. In a normal political situation, even in an authoritarian context, you have advisors, right? They can discuss things with you and disagree. But in this case, because the relationships are all personal—based on loyalty and passionate devotion to the leader—you cannot disagree. If you disagree, you are a traitor. “Hain,” or traitor, is a term often thrown around in Turkey, and even though it’s used frequently, it’s always taken very seriously. If you are labeled a traitor in the newspapers, you could be arrested. It’s not something said lightly, but traitors emerge every minute, because people will disagree with what the leader is doing, and then they go down on the roller coaster.
So, it’s a very unstable system, even though it looks like it should be stable because of the strongman structure. But if you look closer at the micro level, there are always people moving in and out. If you think of the spindle, for those who don’t know, a spindle is a stick on a string that twirls, and you take raw wool and spin it until it turns into yarn that you can use to knit a sweater. Think of the raw wool coming from the sheep as the recruits who get involved around the leader, and as they do, they network and become obedient. They get “cooked in,” and then, as inevitable breakups happen, they split off. Even though it looks stable—with this leader who is always there—and if you look back in time, you’ll see many spindles, names of leaders, but you don’t see what was happening around the spindle, the people moving in and out.
Today It’s Gulenists, Tomorrow Someone Else
On 20 July 2016, Turkey’s Islamist-populist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared a state of emergency, enabling him and the AKP cabinet to bypass parliament and rule by decree. The crackdown on possible coup plotters has since been turned into an all-out witch-hunt not only against alleged Gulen sympathizers but also leftists, Kurds and anyone critical of the government.
You note that Erdogan’s regime revived the “threat paradigm” once used by Kemalists, but with updated targets like the Gulen movement. How do these manufactured inside/outside enemies influence popular support and the regime’s legitimacy?
Professor Jenny White: I think it’s something that is deeply embedded in the Turkish educational system. Children learn from a very early age that there are enemies. In the Kemalist days, that was quite overwhelming, and the enemies—there’s a whole list of them—were foreigners, the inside enemies. These were the non-Muslim minorities who, because they’re not Muslim, can’t possibly be loyal to the Turkish state and are probably working together with non-Muslim or Christian outsiders to undermine Turkey, as they had done in World War I. Some people call it the Sèvres syndrome.
So this is a serious issue that has affected the population, partly through the educational system but also through the media. It’s always present—it’s in everything, you know, even the soap operas. Even the Ottoman-era soap operas contain this underlying distrust of non-Muslim foreigners, especially Christians.
But again, on a micro level, it takes different forms, right? I’m just thinking of an example. One of the biggest threats to Turkish national unity in the 1980s and early 1990s, according to the Turkish military, was missionaries—Christian missionaries. There were almost no missionaries in Turkey. Why would this even be a thing, let alone one of the biggest threats to national unity?
It’s because it’s not really about the missionaries per se, even though some of them were actually killed or attacked by people. They were a symbol of a Christian West that is believed to be out to destroy Turkey. That’s what people believe. And you could be Jewish, you could be gay, you could be any one of the many categories of “other”—and still be lumped in. Or Armenian, right? So those are all kinds of insults when used in this way—as someone who is out to get Turkey. And they’re interchangeable.
So it’s not the particular people or the particular category that’s a threat. It’s the fact that there is this threat—it’s existential—and the category that belongs to the threat is constantly fungible. So you don’t ever hear about missionaries anymore. It’s as if that never happened, even though it was a serious thing for many years.
Now you hear about Syrians or the Gulenists—another new threat category. They’re considered an even greater threat because they are the enemy within: they are also Muslim and look just like you. So it’s a way to polarize the population. And in polarizing the population and the other political parties—because everyone feels like they have to take a stand on these issues—for many years, the CHP, the main opposition party, was in step with everyone else in demonizing both the external and internal enemies.
Well, they’ve moved away from that. Okay. But they still were—then they got on the bandwagon that everyone else was on, saying negative things about the Syrian refugees or the Kurds. Now there’s an attempt by the AKP to reach out to the Kurds in a way that I’m not sure is believable, because nothing has been given to the Kurds in return for Ocalan’s speech—or request—that the PKK lay down its arms.
But what this does is split the CHP. It also splits the Kurdish party, the DEM Party. It’s like—are they going to support the CHP candidate for president, or are they going to sit it out and see whether they can get anything in return from the AKP for what Ocalan said?
So it’s not really a matter of fearing; it’s a matter of using fear to create division. And division is always useful in politics.
It’s Competitive—Unless There’s No More Competition
How would you characterize the current political regime in Turkey following the arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu? Has the country now fully crossed the threshold into competitive authoritarianism—or something more consolidated?
Professor Jenny White: I think Turkey has been in a state of competitive authoritarianism for a long time now. Competitive authoritarianism means you have elections that are contested—parties like the CHP compete, other parties compete—but it’s not a level playing field.
Ninety percent of the media in Turkey is owned by pro-government businesses. So, if there’s an election, the CHP might—if they’re lucky—get a couple of minutes on TV, whereas the rest is all AKP, all the time. They’re not even allowed to put up posters. So, while technically competitive, the system is heavily skewed.
But it’s still “competitive” in the sense that you could, against all odds—very long odds—still win, as Imamoglu did. And then, of course, we know—was it in 2018? I’m bad with dates—but in the local election Imamoglu won, Erdoğan didn’t like the result, so he had it rerun. And then Imamoglu won again, with an even greater number of votes.
So, it is possible. But if you now arrest Imamoglu—and there’s been talk of appointing a kayyum, or the government effectively taking over the CHP, replacing its leadership with government-appointed trustees—then there’s no more competition.
Right? That’s it. It’s a competitive authoritarian regime—unless there’s no more competition.
Erdogan Will Do Whatever It Takes to Stay in Power
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has transitioned from being a model of democratic political Islam to an Islamist populist autocrat. Photo: Mustafa Kirazli.
Erdogan’s authoritarian turn has evolved in phases over the past two decades. What would you say distinguishes this current phase from earlier moments of democratic erosion, such as post-Gezi or post-2016?
Professor Jenny White: You know, I was doing research in Turkey at the time the AKP was elected, and I had already done a lot of work with the previous parties. But when the AKP first came to power, it was a completely different scenario.
There was a lot of talk about what kind of Islam they represented. It was framed as a personalized Islam—practical and pragmatic. The message was: we’re pious Muslims at home, but we make decisions in office based on practical concerns, not Islamic ethics. They emphasized that while their personal ethics might inform their conduct, policy decisions would not be based on religious doctrine.
That was the beginning. And Erdogan also reached out to non-Muslim minorities. There was a sense of progression, a feeling that genuinely heartened people—that finally, we had something different, a new way of doing politics.
It felt like, maybe for once, whoever was at the top wouldn’t force everyone to conform to their lifestyle or their values. That perhaps, finally, there could be some kind of pluralism.
But it didn’t last very long. The first major turning point came with the attempt by the police to arrest people in Erdogan’s close circle on corruption charges. That was a crucial moment—because his response was to essentially co-opt the judicial system. He transferred judges to remote parts of the country where they would be unable to act effectively. He fired prosecutors and lawyers, and replaced them—if I remember correctly, around 5,000 new lawyers were brought in. These were individuals who were, in a sense, in his pocket—closely aligned with him, loyal to the system he was building. They were, as it were, attached to the spindle—being drawn in and reshaped to fit a new judicial order.
So now, you don’t really have a free judicial system, as we see time and again. The same pattern occurred with people accused of being part of “FETO,” the Gulen movement. Once the movement was designated a terrorist organization, many individuals—some with no real connection to Gulen—were swept up in the crackdown.
They went through the process regardless, often without due process. Their passports were confiscated; they became social pariahs. People didn’t want to associate with them—even their own families distanced themselves out of fear of being implicated.
Many lost their businesses, which were taken over by the state. They lost access to social security. They became, in effect, non-people—despite the absence of any fair or reliable judicial process to prove wrongdoing.
Right? So then it just continued down that path. And I think the shift was driven largely by a reaction—a fear on Erdogan’s part that he was going to be overthrown.
If you remember, there was also Tahrir Square and other uprisings happening across the region. So when Gezi Protests happened, he interpreted it as part of the same wave of dissent. And then, of course, in 2016, there was an actual coup attempt.
I think all of this stems from a deep fear of falling—from a fear of being deposed. And so, he’s been willing to do whatever it takes to maintain power. As long as he could keep getting elected—which he did, because he remained quite popular—it wasn’t really a problem.
But now, he’s not so popular—largely because the economy has been in terrible shape for many years, due in part to his own brand of voodoo economics. Of course, some people have become very wealthy under this system, but the majority of Turks—regardless of background—are now at the bottom of the roller coaster.
Even if they haven’t been arrested, many are just barely managing to get by. Right? So I think his popularity has declined to such an extent that he knows if he were to go up against a candidate like Imamoglu, he would lose.
Voting Ceases to Have Any Real Meaning
Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu at the Gazi Race award ceremony at Veliefendi Racecourse in Istanbul, Turkey, on June 30, 2024. Photo: Evren Kalinbacak.
Many observers see the arrest of Imamoglu as a ‘preemptive strike’ against opposition in the lead-up to the 2028 elections. Do you see this as a sign of regime insecurity or confidence?
Professor Jenny White: Oh, absolutely—it’s a sign of insecurity. And that makes it all the more dangerous, because this is a line that has now been crossed. If this stands—if Imamoglu, who is the CHP’s candidate (and clearly targeted for that reason), and who would have won or likely will win an election—is arrested and removed from politics, and especially if the party itself is taken over, then voting ceases to have any real meaning.
From the beginning, Erdogan has taken great pride in being the voice of the people. “I am the voice of the people.” He’s long been proud of his popular support—“People love me.”
And again, thinking of the US as a parallel, the size of the crowds matters. The optics of mass support matter. So the fact that he can no longer rely on that is telling. Most importantly, it shows that he knows he can no longer rely on that. There’s no bringing the people back unless something dramatic happens—like an economic miracle.
So the other option is simply not to hold an election. If you can’t win it, don’t have one. But that would be a monumental step for Turkey. It might not seem so dramatic in countries without a strong tradition of democratic elections, but Turkey is different. For years, I’ve observed how proud Turks are of their elections—of having the ability to elect or remove their leaders. It means a great deal to them. It’s not something they could easily give up, and I think that pride is being reflected in the streets right now.
That said, it’s mostly young people who are out there—many others are not. And that’s because young people have nothing to lose. They truly have nothing. They see no future for themselves under this government, under a regime where, unless you know someone in the ruling party, it’s nearly impossible to secure a decent job—even with a good education.
Surveys show that around 50% of young Turks want to leave the country. This was from a couple of years ago, and I remember one survey that even looked at party affiliation—it turned out that many of those young people were AKP-affiliated. So even AKP youth want to leave, because the prospects are so bleak. Put simply: they have nothing to lose.
Their parents, on the other hand, have a lot to lose. Over the past 20 years, the AKP has embedded itself so deeply into the Turkish economy and society that many people’s livelihoods now depend on being affiliated with or supportive of the party.
Whether you’re working as a civil servant or one of the women hired to rake grass—as part of a charity-style initiative distributed by the municipality to earn a bit of money—the AKP is present at every level of interaction between the state and the citizen.
They have also co-opted much of civil society. So the fear people feel is quite realistic—if the AKP falls, if Erdogan loses the election and the CHP comes to power, what will happen to me? Will I still have a job? Will they do what everyone else has done—replace the old people with their own?
For many—especially the poor, who are just barely getting by—it’s an enormous risk. Right? So I think you can’t forget that Erdogan still has a lot of people following him or people willing to vote for him, but not necessarily because they’re passionately in love with him.
The Sense of Impunity Has Emboldened Authoritarians
And lastly, Professor White, how might the return of Donald Trump to the US presidency influence Erdogan’s authoritarian behavior? Would it embolden similar tactics and reduce external democratic pressure on Turkey?
Professor Jenny White: I think it already has. Apparently—though it wasn’t officially confirmed—Erdogan and Trump had a phone call just a few days before the arrest of Imamoglu. I’m almost certain Trump said something like, “Oh yeah, go ahead”—no problem. Why would he object?
This sense of impunity has emboldened authoritarians around the world. Erdogan has nothing to fear from US censure—no expectation that Washington will hold him accountable for his human rights record or for arresting political opponents. In fact, I’m quite sure Trump would support that kind of move.
The European Union is in a different situation. But it’s also connected to Trump—because now that he’s pulling back from the US’s commitments to European defense and traditional economic relations, Europe has to reassess its strategic alliances. It doesn’t have to, but I think it would be smart for Europe to recognize how important Turkey is—not only for European defense and NATO, but perhaps in other ways as well.
If the US is no longer a reliable partner, Europe needs to look elsewhere and build its own strong networks. And Turkey will always be a key player in any such network.
So Europe finds itself in a difficult position. Even though it genuinely cares about human rights, and about Imamoglu—who, for many, represents a liberal democratic future—they’re not in a position to speak out forcefully, because they need Turkey.
And Turkey also holds a very strong position in Syria right now. So, if Erdogan is going to take this kind of action, this is a strategic moment to do it.
In this timely and incisive interview, Professor Philippe Marlière (UCL) discusses Marine Le Pen’s conviction, the limits of far-right populism, and the resilience of democratic institutions in France. While Le Pen’s narrative frames her disqualification as a “denial of democracy,” Professor Marlière warns against buying into this rhetoric. “Politicians are not above the law,” he asserts, adding, “The far right has no free pass to establish a dictatorship in France.” A must-read on the legal, political, and symbolic stakes of France’s 2027 presidential race.
In a wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Philippe Marlière of University College London offers a trenchant analysis of Marine Le Pen’s conviction, the broader rise of the far right in France and Europe, and the fragile boundaries between democratic politics and authoritarian temptation. Known for his work on French and European politics, Professor Marlière opens the conversation by sharply distinguishing between fascism and the far-right populism embodied by Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN). “I would describe Marine Le Pen’s National Rally as a far-right party,” he says, stressing that although it is “reactionary” and “nativist,” it is “not fascist” in the classical sense, since it operates within existing democratic institutions.
The interview takes on greater urgency in the wake of Le Pen’s conviction on corruption charges and her disqualification from running in the 2027 presidential election. According to Professor Marlière, the ruling represents a “major blow” not only to Le Pen personally—who was widely seen as a leading contender—but to the party’s claim of moral superiority over the political establishment. “The conviction is so clear-cut,” he notes, “and her defense so weak,” that overturning the verdict on appeal seems unlikely.
At the heart of the conversation is the far right’s delicate balancing act between anti-establishment rhetoric and the imperative to appear legitimate within democratic norms. Marlière cautions that while Le Pen and her allies may frame the ruling as “a denial of democracy,” they have not dared to attack the judiciary wholesale, because “if she does, she risks being seen as undermining French justice and being pushed back to the political fringe.”
This fragility, he argues, reveals the limits of populist authoritarianism in France. “In a democracy, when you are a politician, you must respect the decisions of the judiciary,” he insists, citing Montesquieu’s separation of powers. And that is why, he concludes, “the far right has no free pass to establish a dictatorship in France.” Voters may be willing to punish the mainstream, but they are not prepared to dismantle liberal democratic institutions in the process.
Dr. Philippe Marlière, Professor of French and European Politics at University College London.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Philippe Marlière with some edits.
RN Is Nativist, Reactionary, Far-Right—But Not Fascist
Professor Marliere, thank you so very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: You’ve distinguished between authoritarianism and fascism in recent analyses. Given Le Pen’s ideological evolution and her party’s increasing parliamentary power, where would you situate her movement today?
Professor Philippe Marlière: Well, I would describe Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) as a far-right party. If you want to place it on the left-right axis, as political scientists typically do, it clearly falls on the far-right. That’s also how many people in France perceive it today. Le Pen herself resists the “far-right” label, as it implies being on the fringe or extreme end of the political spectrum. However, that is how pollsters and the media commonly categorize the party. So yes, it is far-right.
It’s not fascist. I don’t think the National Rally can be described as a fascist party. Fascism is something quite specific. You can find fascism today in some countries and in some parties, but I don’t think the National Rally is fascist. I would call it nativist. The main concern of the National Rally is the support, through policies, of the indigenous population—the French—as they describe it, as opposed to non-French people or migrants. So: nativist.
Probably reactionary. Much of the National Rally’s policy and ideology seems aimed at returning to a past—often an idealized or even mythical version of the past—that France, in reality, never fully experienced. A past, of course, with fewer migrants and fewer foreigners. In that sense, it is reactionary.
The party used to advocate policies that were decidedly illiberal. For a long time, it supported the death penalty, opposed abortion, and stood against LGBTQ rights. It has evolved on these issues, and that’s likely something we’ll discuss further. In sum: reactionary, nativist, far-right—that’s how I would describe it.
Fascism, as I’ve said, is different. It involves the attempt to establish a totalitarian regime. It can promote racial politics and undermine or directly challenge the rule of law. I don’t believe the National Rally is currently inclined to do that—although, of course, once in power, they might attempt to.
That said, within the current political context, the National Rally appears to be a party that, if elected, would operate within the main institutions of France and Europe. It would likely cooperate with European partners within the European Union. For all these reasons, it is a far-right party, but not a fascist one.
A Major Blow to the RN’s Anti-Establishment Credibility
How do you assess the political implications of Marine Le Pen’s conviction and subsequent disqualification from running for office in 2027? Given the National Rally’s efforts to portray itself as a respectable, anti-corruption alternative to the political establishment, to what extent does this judicial outcome represent a decisive rupture in the party’s quest for power—and could it destabilize its electoral momentum ahead of a crucial presidential race?
Professor Philippe Marlière: Le Pen’s conviction—alongside that of up to 20 party members, mostly elected representatives in the European Parliament—is undoubtedly a major blow. It’s especially significant for Le Pen herself. She might not be able to run in 2027. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t think the decision will be overturned on appeal. She likely won’t be a candidate, so someone else will have to step in.
For now, she’s fighting to clear her name, but the conviction is so clear-cut, the corruption charges so substantial, and both her defense and the party’s defense so weak, in my view, that overturning the verdict will be extremely difficult.
This is a serious setback for Le Pen, particularly because she was seen as having a strong chance of winning the 2027 presidential election. It now seems increasingly unlikely that she will be able to run.
But more broadly, it’s also a significant blow for the party. As you mentioned, it has increasingly been seen as a normalized political force—no longer on the extreme fringe, but rather as a party whose ideas, members, and officials have gradually gained a degree of legitimacy. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it fully belongs to the political mainstream—not yet, not entirely—but to some extent, it is certainly no longer the early National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the party that once frightened a large portion of the public.
So it’s a major blow for the party because part of its appeal lay in being increasingly perceived as no longer extreme by a majority of voters—or at least by a solid base of 37 to 40% of the electorate—while simultaneously remaining highly critical of the system; that is, the other mainstream parties, which it portrayed as corrupt and part of a de facto coalition responsible for poor governance in France and for the French people.
So, of course, being convicted and found guilty of corruption is a major blow, especially since much of Le Pen’s rhetoric has focused on attacking other parties—branding them as corrupt, accusing them of collusion, and portraying them as operating within a deeply flawed system. Now, that very charge is being applied to her.
There is evidence, and according to the first opinion polls, many people now view the National Rally as a corrupt party—or at least believe that the initial conviction handed down by the judges last week was justified.
Politicians Are Not Above the Law
Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella are seen at the end of a polical meeting in Marseille for Rassemblement National party on March 3, 2024. Photo: Obatala-photography.
In a democracy, how should we balance judicial independence with the political fallout when a leading presidential contender like Marine Le Pen is barred from running due to financial crimes? Do you see this ruling as reinforcing or undermining public trust in French institutions? Moreover, is there a risk that—even if legally justified—it will fuel far-right conspiratorial narratives about ‘elites’ silencing dissent? How should mainstream parties navigate this moment without inadvertently legitimizing those populist frames?
Professor Philippe Marlière: As you would expect, Le Pen’s defense—and the party’s defense—was to claim that this is a denial of democracy, that the conviction was politically motivated, that the judges are politicized, and that the goal is to bar her from running because she would likely win. That’s what she said at a large rally last Sunday at Place Vauban in Paris. She made these claims, and throughout the week, Le Pen and her supporters have continued to repeat them. Of course, that is their narrative. But that doesn’t mean the narrative is true. In my view, it should be taken with a large pinch of salt and critically examined.
Let’s start with the heart of the matter. What is that? It’s the conviction of Le Pen and her supporters. She is guilty—guilty of a serious act of corruption. Several million euros of public funds were diverted to fake jobs. So we begin with that fact: she is guilty.
However, I believe that, with the support of some media outlets in France—not all, but some—the discussion has shifted away from Le Pen’s conviction and guilt toward a debate about politicized judges and an alleged denial of democracy. I remain very skeptical, if not outright critical, of Le Pen’s narrative, because it seems to me that the judges simply did their job: they applied the law.
By the way, who passed the law—the one that led to Le Pen’s conviction and its immediate effect? It was the lawmakers themselves. A bill was passed in Parliament in 2016. So it was people like Le Pen who voted for that law. They wanted to be extremely harsh on individuals convicted of acts of corruption.
That’s why I think it would be useful to bring the debate back to the heart of the matter: Le Pen’s conviction. She was found guilty of a serious act of corruption. And secondly, the judges simply did their job. To claim that they politicized the process is incorrect—they applied the law.
This also demonstrates something important: politicians are not above the law. They are treated like ordinary citizens—and rightly so. Why should a politician—even someone intending to run for the presidency, with a real chance of winning—be exempt from the law if condemned by French justice?
That’s the real issue. That’s what we should all be reflecting on, instead of defaulting to claims like “the judges are politicized,” and so on. In my view, that is the real question.
Undermining Justice Would Push Le Pen Back to the Political Fringe
Marine Le Pen has characterized her conviction and political ban as a ‘denial of democracy,’ echoing a broader far-right populist tactic of depicting institutions as tools of political repression. In the light of your critique of ‘political nudges’ like the ‘Islamo-gauchisme’ narrative, do you see a danger that the far right will now instrumentalize this legal verdict to delegitimize the French judiciary and fuel deeper mistrust in liberal democratic institutions?
Professor Philippe Marlière: I think it will be difficult to do that. They have probably already tried—particularly Le Pen. If you heard her speak last Sunday in Paris, when she addressed a rally of supporters, she was, of course, very harsh in her response to the judgment. She said, “Of course I’m innocent, this is a denial of democracy,” and so on. She also claimed that the judges who made the decision were politicized.
But she didn’t, so to speak, issue a broader criticism of the French judiciary. She didn’t say, for example, that the entire justice system is corrupt. She avoided that, because doing so would amount to directly challenging the French judicial system as a whole—and that would be quite serious.
It would indeed be highly problematic for a leading contender for the highest office in French politics to undermine the judiciary through such criticism. In a democracy, when you are a politician, you must respect the decisions of the judiciary. Failing to do so means interfering with justice—and that is a very serious matter.
The French political philosopher Montesquieu, in the 18th century, wrote about the separation of powers—executive, legislative, and judiciary—and he said that no power, executive or legislative, should be in a position to interfere with or encroach upon the power of the judiciary. If you do that, it’s no longer a democracy; it’s a tyranny. So justice must remain independent.
That’s why Le Pen will be very careful before launching a broader attack on the justice system. So far, she hasn’t done that. Some of her supporters have likely been less cautious, but she herself has been careful not to place blame on the judiciary as a whole. Instead, she has focused on specific individuals—the judges who issued the ruling—claiming, for instance, that the presiding judge was a leftist.
But this is a difficult line for Le Pen to walk. She cannot push too far in that direction. If she does, she risks being seen as undermining French justice and, as a consequence, being pushed back to the political fringe. Her opponents will say, “Look, you’re clearly not part of the mainstream. If you were ever elected, you would interfere with the justice system.” And that, of course, would be very serious.
Le Pen Must Defend Herself Without Undermining the Rule of Law
Given your work on the ‘dé–diabolisation’ or “de–demonization” of the Rassemblement National and the normalization of the far right in France, do you think Marine Le Pen’s conviction and political ban will disrupt this process—or could it paradoxically bolster her image as a political martyr and reinforce the RN’s anti-establishment appeal? Does this verdict pose a serious challenge to the RN’s attempt to position itself as a credible party of governance, or might it instead deepen its populist narrative of being targeted by a hostile elite?
Professor Philippe Marlière: Again, this is a difficult situation for Le Pen to handle, because she will, of course, try to defend herself. She has already filed an appeal, and I believe it will proceed very quickly—much faster than it would for ordinary citizens. Normally, an appeal takes two to three years, but in this case, it is scheduled for next year, which is unusually swift.
Why next year? Because it allows time for a decision to be made before the presidential election. This gives Le Pen one last chance to run—if she is cleared on appeal. In that sense, it also serves as further evidence that the judges, or the French justice system more broadly, are not conspiring against her. On the contrary, the legal process is offering her another opportunity to stand as a candidate.
So it’s a very difficult situation, because they have to be extremely moderate in their criticism of the justice system; otherwise, they risk being seen as a party that challenges the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. They simply can’t afford to do that. Someone like Donald Trump may be doing so in the US and getting away with it for now—but in France, where Trump is, by the way, quite unpopular, that approach would not be well received.
So the room for maneuver for Le Pen and her party is quite limited. She can say, “I’m innocent, I’m going to appeal, the judges who made the decision were unfair,” but they cannot go much further than that. They cannot openly criticize the judicial system as a whole.
That’s why I think, in terms of image—since that’s your question—if we look at the initial opinion polls, of course, these will need to be confirmed over time. But according to the polls, people don’t seem to have changed their minds. The party remains quite high in the rankings, and Jordan Bardella appears to have, roughly speaking, the same level of support as Le Pen.
There are two distinct points here. First, it’s clear that the National Rally is currently the leading party in French politics. That was evident in the last two elections—the 2024 European election and the general election—where the party came out ahead of all others.
That’s one thing. The other is the judicial decision. And I think, overall, the opinion polls show that the French public believes the decision was fair. That’s why Le Pen can’t make too much noise about it. It’s seen as a fair judgment. French voters appear to believe that no one should be above the law—including national politicians. If they’ve done something wrong, they should be punished like anyone else would be in similar circumstances.
A Far-Right International Is Emerging—But It Won’t Help Le Pen
In the light of the vocal support Marine Le Pen has received from international right-wing figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk, to what extent does this signal the emergence of a transnational populist narrative centered on judicial persecution or ‘lawfare’? Are we witnessing a growing global solidarity among populist leaders who frame legal accountability as political victimization by elite institutions and the consolidation of a transnational illiberal alliance?
Professor Philippe Marlière: Well, very likely. The initial signs suggest that there is a kind of de facto reactionary or far-right international that has rallied in support of Le Pen. I think all the major figures—key leaders of that movement in Europe—came out: Orbán in Hungary, Salvini in Italy, Trump, J.D. Vance, Bolsonaro. Many of them made public statements. Even Trump tweeted.
He probably doesn’t know Le Pen very well—perhaps not at all—but someone likely mentioned the case to him, so he tweeted in her support. Of course, he did so because these kinds of far-right leaders seek to undermine the rule of law in liberal democracies. They challenge judicial decisions whenever those decisions go against them, and that’s precisely what Trump has been doing in the US. So, this was more of an opportunity for them to do just that, rather than a genuine expression of support for Le Pen herself.
But yes, there is a de facto far-right international. And every time a decision appears to deprive far-right politicians of power—or simply goes against them—they tend to rally in support of that politician, as they did in this case.
What does that mean, concretely? I think this kind of reaction doesn’t clearly indicate what the future holds, one way or another. It remains very uncertain. When I refer to a far-right international, it shouldn’t be compared to something like the Socialist International, where organized parties met regularly and committed to shared policies. It’s not that structured. It’s more at the level of national leaders or heads of state issuing statements, especially via social media.
So yes, she received that support. But what does it mean for Le Pen in France? I don’t think it means much. As I mentioned, Trump is deeply unpopular in France—on both the left and the right. Almost no one likes him. So I don’t believe receiving support from those far-right figures will benefit Le Pen. I think she has to be very careful. Le Pen wants to be seen as more mainstream, so if she appears to be in cahoots with, or too close to, highly controversial politicians abroad, I don’t think it will help her.
Far Right Is Rising—But Too Divided to Replace Le Pen Easily
Leaflets featuring candidates for the 2024 legislative elections in Versailles, France, on June 28, 2024. Photo: Dreamstime.
From the French perspective, does Le Pen’s downfall create space for a new figure on the European far-right, or is her symbolic centrality too embedded in the populist narrative across Europe to be easily replaced?
Professor Philippe Marlière: This highlights the central challenge facing the far-right in Europe. The far-right has been steadily growing—making electoral gains, winning elections, and even holding power in several countries. To start with Europe: they were in power in Poland; they remain in power in Hungary and Italy—a major EU country—and Le Pen and her party are performing very well in France. The AfD in Germany has also been doing well. So there is a clear, steady rise of the far-right, marked by significant gains in the most recent European elections.
That’s one of the reasons why the far-right is no longer seriously considering leaving the EU if it were to come into power. They’ve realized they can fight from within and attempt to redirect the EU’s political course.
So that’s good news for the far-right. However, does this translate into greater coordination or cohesion among far-right parties and governments in Europe? Not necessarily. For example, there are at least two parliamentary groups in the EU that include far-right parties. They were unable to form a single group, which, of course, weakens their influence because their efforts are divided across multiple blocs.
It’s also well known that far-right leaders do not necessarily get along well; they do not necessarily work together. For instance, Marine Le Pen is close to Salvini and La Lega but doesn’t get along well with the Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni—which is strange, because Giorgia Meloni has a legacy that is more similar to Le Pen’s. They both come from far-right parties initially. Of course, they’ve evolved somewhat and are now a little bit different. But whereas La Lega initially wasn’t a far-right party when it was created in the 1990s, it became a far-right party. So it’s very strange, and I can’t necessarily explain the logic of these de facto alliances between far-right leaders and parties.
I think it often comes down to their positions on policy, but it’s also about whether the leaders get along personally. I believe it’s more the latter. And that, in itself, is telling. Political scientists often say that the left has trouble uniting—and if you look at the French left right now, that’s clearly the case. They can’t come together.
But it seems the far right also struggles to unite, for similar reasons: ideological differences and personal rivalries. So this is where things stand at the moment. The far right has become more successful recently, but it remains divided. It is not a unified movement. Instead, it’s a collection of far-right parties spread across various parliamentary groups in the European Parliament—groups that don’t necessarily cooperate well or work together effectively.
Bardella Isn’t a Le Pen—But He May Be Even More Radical
Jordan Bardella, Le Pen’s protégé, is poised to become her replacement. Based on your analysis of generational shifts within the European far right, do you see Bardella as a mere avatar of Le Penism by remaining dependent on the Le Pen name, or does he represent a potentially more radical or technocratic trajectory?
Professor Philippe Marlière: There are differences between Le Pen and Bardella. First of all, he’s not a Le Pen. If Bardella runs in 2027, it will be the first time since Jean-Marie Le Pen launched the National Front in 1972 that no Le Pen is running for the FN/RN party. That’s the first difference.
There’s also a generational difference. Le Pen is 56, and Bardella’s youth could be appealing—particularly to younger voters—by presenting a new, youthful face of leadership. But of course, there’s a downside: he is politically untested and very inexperienced. He’s not known as a strong debater or a skilled orator. Reaching that level in politics takes time—it requires years of experience. Le Pen has improved over the years, and with Bardella, it would be a very different proposition.
There are also political differences. I think Le Pen has been—and still appears to be—more supportive of the de-demonization strategy. Unlike her father, she hasn’t attempted to shift the party to the center—the National Rally remains firmly on the far right—but she has worked to make some of its flagship policies on immigration, Islam, and the interpretation of French laïcité more acceptable to a broader segment of voters.
To make them more acceptable to other parties as well, because de-demonization works both ways. It involves you, as a far-right party, refraining from using aggressive rhetoric or making racist statements—things that generally do not resonate well with the electorate. But it also involves your opponents shifting to the right and adopting some of your policies, particularly on issues like immigration.
So there are differences, as Bardella appears to be somewhat more radical on those issues. His economic policies also differ; he’s more like Jean-Marie Le Pen of the 1980s and 1990s—more neoliberal, more supportive of laissez-faire economics than Marine Le Pen. So, you might think these are merely cosmetic differences.
And who knows what will happen if we assume that Le Pen won’t run? Bardella seems to be in a good position—he holds a strong position as the party leader. But who knows? Something might change. Other candidates might try to enter the race, and there could even be a primary election within the party.
Think, for instance, of Marion Maréchal, the niece of Marine Le Pen. She left the party a few years ago to join Éric Zemmour, but now she seems to have taken a step back from him as well. She attended the rally on Sunday in Paris in support of Le Pen. Who knows? She’s very popular among party voters. She’s a Le Pen, even though she no longer uses the name—she’s Marion Maréchal-Le Pen—and for that reason, her presence could be significant. She’s also a better orator than Bardella.
So, who knows what might happen? Bardella appears to be the front-runner to replace Le Pen, but we might be in for a surprise.
Portrait of French politician Éric Zemmour with Marion Maréchal (formerly Le Pen), leader of the Reconquête party, seen in Toulon during a protest against the arrival of the migrant rescue ship Ocean Viking. Photo: Laurent Coust.
Le Pen’s Legal Struggles Will Have a Limited Impact on Europe’s Far-Right Strategy
And lastly, Professor Marlière, what ripple effects might Le Pen’s conviction and framing as a martyr have on sister far-right movements in Europe, especially in states like Italy, Hungary, and Germany? Could it embolden them or shift their strategies? Do you think this case and its framing could be used by other European populists to delegitimize legal institutions, especially in countries where the rule of law is already under strain?
Professor Philippe Marlière: I might be a little optimistic on this, but I don’t think it will have a significant impact on the political situations in other countries. Of course, some will use Le Pen’s case to talk about so-called politicized judges, to claim a denial of democracy, to argue that the “true patriots”—as they describe themselves—are being sanctioned by their opponents, that they can’t speak the truth to the people, that they are restricted and constrained. You know, all the usual arguments.
I think they might refer to the Le Pen case in national debates to make those points. But I’m optimistic in the sense that each national context is different. And besides, the pace of politics today is very fast. In a few months, who will still be talking about Le Pen’s conviction?
There will be the appeal, so in a year or so, it may come back onto the agenda. But if the appeal is upheld, I think people will move on—there will be a replacement, another candidate, probably Bardella—and Le Pen will be quickly forgotten.
That’s one thing. The other reason I’m optimistic is that, as I said earlier, Le Pen has to be very careful about criticizing the judges and the justice system—not to be seen as undermining the rule of law—because that would be an extreme move. It would place her in a very radical position, one that most of the electorate, particularly conservative voters who are not far-right, would likely reject.
These are the voters who, in the second round of a presidential election, might be tempted to vote for Le Pen or someone from the National Rally against, for instance, a left-wing candidate—if one were to make it to the runoff. This electorate is conservative, right-wing, but not far-right. The National Rally needs to keep them on board and continue appealing to them. If they can’t—if they lose that electorate—they will never get elected. That’s why they have to be extremely cautious. And I think the situation is the same across most European countries—Italy, probably—with one exception: Hungary.
Hungary has been governed by Orbán for a long time, and many people say that while elections still take place, they are not very fair. It’s a highly authoritarian regime—illiberal. So, probably with the exception of Hungary, where the opposition is now quite weak due to all the laws passed by Orbán’s government, I think in other countries there are still counterpowers—opposition parties, trade unions, the media, and most importantly, the public—the electorate.
It’s not because the electorate is putting the National Rally ahead in France that they want an authoritarian regime. It’s a very complex reality to grasp. I think supporting the far right in France today means, above all, rejecting the other parties—both left and right. People believe those parties were once in power and failed. They tried Macron, and they believe he failed too. So it’s more about the idea: let’s try the only party that has never governed—the National Rally.
But that doesn’t mean voters want an authoritarian regime, or a government that will curb public freedoms or take extreme measures. That’s why Le Pen can’t see herself as the new Trump. I don’t think being a Trump figure would go down well in France. Then again, you might say, in the US, who could have predicted what happened there?
You see, that’s why I’m optimistic. But of course, things can sometimes go wrong very quickly. Still, that’s my view. I think that for Le Pen and the party to be successful and ultimately win an election, they will have to stick to their strategy of de-demonization—which means no longer being seen as an extreme or threatening party—so that enough people will be willing to vote for them.
Of course, they will maintain their policies—against immigration, against Islam, and against a number of other things—but they do so because they believe there is probably a majority of people who could support those positions. Just enough. That’s their strategy. It doesn’t mean they have a free pass to establish a dictatorship in France.
In a compelling interview with ECPS, Dr. Salim Cevik argues that Turkey has “crossed the biggest threshold from competitive authoritarianism to full authoritarianism.” Highlighting the arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu, Dr. Cevik sees it as a targeted move to eliminate democratic competition: “He is being arrested because he could potentially defeat Erdogan.” Populism, once central to Erdogan’s rule, is giving way to raw coercion: “Force is the fundamental strategy of Erdogan.” Dr. Cevik also condemns Western silence, especially from Europe and the US, warning that their inaction amounts to complicity. “Erdogan feels very strong… because he has international backing.” Drawing a parallel with past mistakes on Putin, he cautions: “You can’t really trust a personal autocracy for strategic partnership.”
In a wide-ranging and sobering interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Salim Cevik—Political Scientist and Researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs—offers a critical diagnosis of Turkey’s deepening authoritarian turn under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Framing the recent arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu as a pivotal moment in Turkey’s political trajectory, Dr. Cevik asserts that “we’ve crossed the biggest threshold from competitive authoritarianism to full authoritarianism.” While acknowledging that political repression is not new in Turkey, he emphasizes that this particular case marks a critical rupture because it directly targets “the most potent rival of Erdogan” and aims to eliminate any realistic possibility for the opposition to win an election.
Dr. Cevik situates this development within Erdogan’s long-standing strategy of personalizing power and dismantling institutional checks and balances. Over the course of two decades, Erdogan has “sidelined all important political figures,” absorbed the party into his persona, and gradually brought the judiciary, media, business sector, and civil society under his direct control. This personalization of rule has been “formalized” through the switch to a presidential system, which Dr. Cevik sees as a culmination of earlier informal power consolidations.
While Erdogan’s rule was long bolstered by a populist strategy that fused economic provision with religious-nationalist rhetoric, Dr. Cevik argues that this strategy is faltering. Erdogan is now “no longer the popular figure” he once was, as economic decline has eroded his legitimacy among even his core supporters. This, Dr. Cevik suggests, is what pushes the regime to rely increasingly on coercion rather than consent: “Populist mobilization is no longer the key term to understand Turkish authoritarianism… Force is the fundamental strategy of Erdogan.”
Of particular concern is the muted response from Western powers, which Dr. Cevik interprets as tacit approval. He criticizes both the United States and the European Union for enabling Erdogan’s autocratization, noting that “Erdogan feels both very weak because he’s losing popular legitimacy, but he’s also feeling very strong… because he has international backing.” In Europe, especially, strategic interests tied to Turkey’s military capacity and geopolitical location have led to a dangerous silence. “Europe made the same mistake with Putin,” Dr. Cevik warns. “I see no reason why Erdogan should be trusted more than Putin… It’s not only normatively and morally wrong—it’s also strategically blind thinking.”
In this critical conversation, Dr. Cevik calls attention not only to Turkey’s alarming democratic backsliding but also to the global implications of Western complacency in the face of authoritarian consolidation.
Dr. Salim Cevik—Political Scientist and Researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Dr. Salim Cevik with some edits.
Erdogan Regime Is No Longer Competitive—It’s Full Authoritarianism
Dr. Cevik, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: To what extent does the arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu represent a definitive rupture in Turkey’s transition from competitive authoritarianism to full-fledged autocracy?
Dr. Salim Cevik: Thank you for inviting me, and for the question. I think this marks a major threshold. But to be honest, he is not the first politician to be arrested in Turkey. The country has been on an authoritarian trajectory for more than a decade, which has involved the imprisonment of many politicians—particularly members of the Kurdish political movement, who have been arrested en masse. Some are still behind bars, the most prominent among them being Selahattin Demirtas, who has been in prison for more than eight years. So, in that sense, Imamoglu’s arrest is nothing new in Turkey—but it is new in the sense that it aims to destroy the competitive element of the political regime.
When we talk about competitive authoritarianism, it is an authoritarian system, anyway—but what distinguishes it from full authoritarian regimes is that, in competitive authoritarianism, there is a realistic possibility that the opposition can win an election. Now, why is Imamoglu being arrested and not someone else? I think there is a clear answer to that: he is the most potent rival of Erdogan. He is being arrested because he could potentially defeat Erdogan in the next elections. If you put people who could win elections behind bars, that, by definition, undermines the competitive dimension of competitive authoritarianism. Because if you arrest whoever is going to win, then it’s no longer competitive—it becomes a fully authoritarian system. So, in that sense, I think we’ve crossed the biggest threshold from competitive authoritarianism to full authoritarianism.
Force Is Now Erdogan’s Strategy
University students stage a protest at Beşiktaş Square in Istanbul, declaring a boycott in response to the arrest of Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu — Istanbul, Turkey, March 24, 2025. Photo: Sedat Gulec.
How has Erdogan’s brand of populism evolved into an instrument of authoritarian consolidation, and how central is the creation of internal “enemies” to this strategy?
Dr. Salim Cevik: Populism and the creation of internal enemies have been central to Erdogan’s authoritarianism. That has been the case over the years—even when he was not yet a fully autocratic leader and when Turkey’s democracy was functioning relatively well. Erdogan has consistently employed a populist strategy for political mobilization, and he has now been in power for more than two decades. The first decade was relatively—or at least acceptably—democratic, and initially even pro-democratic. However, starting with his second term, during his second decade in power, he began to grow increasingly authoritarian.
Over these more than 20 years, he has always created internal enemies, and those enemies have actually changed over time. They have included Kemalists, Gulenists, Kurds, and Turkish nationalists—at different stages of his political career, he has targeted different groups. He managed to establish a minimum winning coalition to defeat each internal enemy. That’s his political style and strategy. In that sense, populism has been integral to the establishment of authoritarianism in Turkey.
However, when we talk about this recent event—this arrest—and Turkey crossing a threshold from competitive to full authoritarianism, I don’t think populism is the right term here. Populism, by definition, is about being popular. Populist autocrats usually mobilize the majority around themselves, and they create internal enemies in order to build this minimum winning coalition—at least to configure a majority. That tactic—creating internal enemies—has been Erdogan’s strategy for more than 20 years.
But as I said in the previous question, we are now crossing a threshold from competitive to full authoritarianism. Erdogan has been a popular politician—he has always been a very popular politician. He consistently managed to create a winning majority, a coalition of a minimum winning majority. He is now crossing that threshold because he believes, and sees, that he can no longer do that. He is no longer the popular figure. He no longer has 51 percent behind him, and that’s why he is crossing this threshold. So, I think populist mobilization is no longer the key term to understand Turkish authoritarianism.
Of course, the process I’m talking about has just started, and we don’t know where it will lead. But if everything goes according to Erdogan’s expectations—and if Turkey becomes a full authoritarian regime rather than a competitive one—then he no longer needs to be popular. It will not be a majority authoritarian regime; it will be an authoritarian regime ruled by a minority. And that means he will be ruling by force, rather than by creating the consent of the majority through populist means. But, this is just the beginning of the process. Where we are heading is that populism is no longer Erdogan’s fundamental strategy. Now on, force is the fundamental strategy of Erdogan.
Populism Dismantled the Rule of Law—Now Erdogan Rules Alone
Would you characterize the current crisis as the culmination of a long-standing populist logic that inherently undermines liberal democratic norms?
Dr. Salim Cevik: Yes. This populist strategy that Erdogan has pursued so far has enabled him to reach this point. It has allowed him to dismantle the rule of law and undermine political liberties. It has enabled him to inflict suffering on individuals and groups he has designated as internal enemies. But, as I mentioned in the previous question, those internal enemies are no longer the minority. Now, he is creating an internal enemy that will likely, by the end of this process, be the majority—making it a forceful authoritarianism. Ultimately, it was populism—and the systematic dismantling of the rule of law and the liberal protections that accompany it—that brought us to this point and enabled Erdogan to cross the threshold we are now discussing.
In what ways has the personalization of power under Erdoğan blurred institutional lines between the state, party, and judiciary?
Dr. Salim Cevik: Well, in very fundamental ways. I mean, when Erdogan came to power, the AKP was a ‘cadre’ movement. It had a number two—Abdullah Gul—a number three, Bulent Arinc. Some would even call Abdullatif Sener number four, and the list would go on. We had a powerful cabinet with very prominent politicians, etc. So, it was a genuine cadre movement. Now, there is no number two within the AKP—let alone a number three or a cadre—and the ministers no longer carry any real weight. Even in this current crisis, we see that Erdogan is, in a way, defending himself. He no longer has credible political allies to speak on his behalf. So, everything is now personalized in Turkey.
But it has first started with the personalization of power within the party. Erdogan initially hijacked the party. It had been a party of prominent figures—a cadre movement with a political ideology, or at least a claim to conservative democracy. But step by step, he personalized power within the party. He sidelined all the important political figures and stripped the party of its political substance. When we talk about the party’s ideology or political beliefs today, there’s really nothing left—because over the past 20 years, Erdogan has continuously shifted his coalitions, leaving no consistent ideological foundation. So, the party became Erdogan.
After that, he personalized other centers of power. He brought the judiciary under his control. He turned the party’s control over the state into personal control—and since the party is Erdogan, this meant bringing the judiciary, the media, the business community, and civil society under his direct influence. So, at the end of the day—with the switch to the presidential system, which in many ways formalized these already existing informal power configurations—the regime became fully personalized. That transformation, already largely complete by 2013–14, was cemented through institutional change. Now, we are talking about a single individual ruling not only over the executive, but also the judiciary, the parliament, civil society, and all segments of power.
Strong Enough to Suppress, Too Weak to Compete
Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu addresses supporters during a protest under the banner “The Nation Stands by Their Will” outside the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality on December 15, 2022. Photo: Tolga Ildun
Is the recent political crackdown a sign of regime insecurity ahead of elections, or a calculated strategy to establish post-electoral authoritarian permanence?
Dr. Salim Cevik: I think it’s both a symptom of weakness and of strength at the same time. It’s a symptom of weakness because Erdogan is increasingly lacking popular support.
What made him so indispensable to his allies for so long was his ability to bring the majority of the public with him. He kept winning elections—or, to put it another way, we can certainly criticize the tactics he used to maintain his popularity—but ultimately, he succeeded in staying popular.
That’s no longer the case. In recent years, those who don’t want to see him as president now form a larger coalition than those who do. This was already true in the previous election two years ago, but he managed to survive using various tactics: he divided the opposition, ensured they backed a candidate who couldn’t unify them, and relied on judicial tools—there was already a court case against Imamoglu at the time. He used other instruments too. The key was preventing the opposition from uniting behind a single figure.
But that’s no longer working. The local elections showed that the CHP is now the central actor in the opposition and capable of building a majority larger than Erdogan’s. So in that sense, he’s very weak in terms of popular legitimacy—and that’s what’s pushing him to take these extraordinary measures.
At the same time, he remains very powerful. He controls the state apparatus, the judiciary, the media, and the security forces. And the international context—perhaps you’ll ask about this later, but I’ll mention it briefly—has emboldened him even further. He knows the US is on his side, and he knows that, for a variety of reasons, Europe will stay silent. In that sense, he’s very powerful.
So it’s a paradox: he’s powerful because he can take these steps, but weak because he has to. He can’t afford to leave the competitive authoritarian game as it is and risk an election—even a highly unfair one—that he might lose. So, he takes measures to avoid that risk. In short, he’s strong in terms of state control, but weak in terms of popular legitimacy—and that combination is exactly what’s driving these moves.
Erdogan Exploits Islam as Rhetoric, Not as Rule
Has political Islamism in Turkey under the AKP shifted from a reformist ethos to a mechanism of ideological legitimation for autocracy? Do you see the regime’s increasing reliance on religious-nationalist rhetoric as signaling a radicalization, or merely instrumental populist recalibration?
Dr. Salim Cevik: Well, as I mentioned in the previous question, political Islam in the early 2000s had adopted a reformist character. At the time, they denied being Islamists. The famous claim was that they had “changed shirts,” and instead labeled themselves as Conservative Democrats. But that was merely a rebranding—because in order to navigate Turkey’s stringent secularist laws, it was not possible to openly identify as a Muslim democratic party. Unlike in Europe, in Turkey you have to use the label “conservative,” even though the public understands that “conservative” essentially refers to Islam and religion.
So, as a Conservative Democratic party, the AKP was indeed a reformist movement in its early years. I have to say that during that period, religious discourse in society also became more pluralistic and democratic—this was part of the cultural conflict in Turkey between authoritarian secularists and the conservative majority. To defeat—or rather, to undermine—the authoritarian secularist powers, who were a minority, Islamist actors adopted the language of democratization and pushed for reform within the system.
But around 2010 to 2012–13—it’s hard to pinpoint an exact moment—once it became clear that Erdogan was no longer under threat, he no longer needed the reformist agenda. At that point, the logic shifted entirely, and Islam became an instrument of authoritarianism, used to justify his populist, majoritarian, and increasingly autocratic actions.
As for the second half of your question, I don’t believe we are witnessing a radicalization. Radicalization would imply a structural transformation of the regime toward a more overtly religious order. If I understand the question correctly, I don’t see that happening—nor has it happened over the past decade. Erdogan has consolidated power, but he has never actually used that power to turn the system into a more theocratic one—he hasn’t changed the legal framework or granted religion greater authority in the functioning of the state.
The only time he explicitly referenced the Quran in policy terms was when he lowered interest rates—an idea that was ill-advised not just from an economic standpoint, but also because it lacked a sound religious basis. Religion prohibits interest altogether—it doesn’t differentiate between high or low rates.
If he had said, “I want to remove interest entirely from Turkey’s financial system because religion requires it,” then we could talk about a genuine turn toward religious rule—where religious texts begin to dictate policy. That would have been a clear move away from secular governance. But instead, he said something else—and I find this very telling. He said, “I’m lowering the interest rates because Islam doesn’t like interest.”
In that moment, it was clear: religion was being instrumentalized to justify a pre-existing policy agenda. He didn’t abolish interest; he didn’t change the institutional rules. He used religion as a rhetorical tool. Religion, in this case, was merely a pawn. And I see no indication that this dynamic will change anytime soon.
Religious Rhetoric Remains, But the Provider Role Is Crumbling
Turkish Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks in Van province of Turkey as holding a holy Quran on April 14, 2015.
To what degree does the AKP’s Islamic narrative still resonate with its core electorate, particularly in light of economic hardship and rising dissent?
Dr. Salim Cevik: It’s difficult to answer this as a simple yes or no. On the one hand, he clearly still commands a degree of popularity. As I mentioned, he has lost the majority and will probably never recover it, but he continues to enjoy the support of—perhaps—30, 40, or even 45 percent of the electorate. I can’t cite precise numbers, but some of that support undoubtedly stems from religious sentiment. Certain segments of society view him as a devout figure. More importantly, they harbor such deep resentment toward secularists that they rally around Erdogan, whom they see as a protective barrier between themselves and the secular elite. So, part of his enduring popularity is still grounded in religion.
On the other hand, that popularity is clearly in decline, and the driving factor is economic hardship. The economy alone may not be sufficient to build a majority coalition, but it is powerful enough to dismantle one. Or let me put it this way: up to now, Erdogan has played a dual role—both as an economic provider and a religious protector. He positioned himself as the guardian of religious values while delivering material prosperity. That balance was key to sustaining his electoral majority. But if he falters on either front, that majority begins to unravel. He continues to lean on the religious narrative, but he’s steadily losing the economic argument—the “provider” role.
So, yes, his base is eroding. But as I said, it’s a gray area. Religion remains a powerful political tool for him. Yet in times of economic hardship, it alone won’t be enough.
Unlike Gezi, This Time the Protest Began with Repression, Not Resistance
How do the current mass protests compare to the 2013 Gezi Park movement in terms of mobilization dynamics, ideological coherence, and regime response? Could the protests catalyze a broader democratic awakening, or will they be contained through increased repression and securitization?
Dr. Salim Cevik: Let me start with the second half of your question. If the mobilization continues and manages to force Erdogan to back down, it could mark the beginning of a new era of democratization in Turkey. That’s possible, but unlikely. The more probable scenario is that Erdogan will suppress the current mobilization and push the system toward an even more authoritarian model. Still, it’s a process in motion—we simply can’t know for sure yet.
Now, if we compare this to the Gezi Park protests, one major difference stands out. As we discussed in the previous question regarding the economy—when the Gezi protests erupted, they were largely a middle-class reaction. People were frustrated with Erdogan’s growing personalization of power—his attitude of “I am the ruler of this country, and I don’t care what you think; everything goes the way I say.” It was a kind of delegative democracy, as political scientists would call it. “I was elected, therefore I have all the power, and I don’t need to answer to anyone.”
That attitude contributed to the uprisings. And if those protests hadn’t been met with such severe repression, I don’t think they would’ve escalated the way they did. Gezi began as a peaceful demonstration—completely legitimate—and Erdogan could have simply let it happen. Had he done so, we might not have seen the full-scale protests or the resulting political crisis.
I don’t know whether he planned it all from the start, but at some point, Erdogan seemed to decide that Gezi wasn’t a threat but rather an opportunity—a way to boost his popularity. He could frame the protesters as urban, middle-class, secular elites. And that’s classic populist strategy: pitting “the elite” against “the people.” He painted Gezi protesters as privileged, urbanites who were safe and comfortable, yet complaining about trivial matters. That framing resonated with his base.
This current wave of protests, however, is different because it started with repression. It didn’t begin as a small demonstration that spiraled into something larger due to state violence—it began with the arrest of Imamoglu. It was repression from the outset. It was an intentional move to dismantle the competitive element of the regime. So, whereas during Gezi Erdogan’s stance was “I was elected and therefore I rule,” now it’s, “You once elected me, and I’ll make sure you never get the chance to unelect me.” That’s the key difference.
This time, it wasn’t police brutality that brought people to the streets. Rather, people were already in the streets, and Erdogan is trying to stop them with police brutality. It’s a different dynamic.
Also, I don’t think this protest is being led by the middle class. It’s being led by urban youth who feel economically crushed, who don’t see a future for themselves, and who are desperate. That’s why they’re protesting. In that sense, this moment feels more radical than Gezi. Back then, protesters were largely middle-class—they had something to lose. They wanted a more responsive government, but they weren’t acting out of despair.
Today’s youth have little or nothing to lose. That’s why even harsh state repression hasn’t stopped them—at least not yet. I was a young academic during Gezi—I was a university assistant, and by Turkish standards, I had a pretty good life. I honestly don’t think even full professors today enjoy the lifestyle I had back then. The economic decline has been dramatic. And I don’t think today’s university assistants, graduate students, or undergrads see much hope in their futures. That, too, fuels their willingness to take to the streets.
So yes, in that sense, there are some fundamental differences between then and now.
Ballots Aren’t Enough—The Opposition Must Mobilize the Streets
University students protest at Beşiktaş Square in Istanbul on March 24, 2025, declaring a boycott in response to the arrest of Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu. Photo: Sedat Gulec
What does the sidelining of Imamoglu suggest about the regime’s tolerance for political pluralism within the current constitutional framework? What risks do opposition parties face in navigating between electoral participation and resistance within an increasingly autocratic system?
Dr. Salim Cevik: Well, the opposition parties are now in a dilemma. I’ve been talking about how the competitive element is disappearing. It’s becoming a fully authoritarian regime, and I’m sure that at some point people will begin to ask: “Is this just theater? Why are we playing our roles in this performative act that only serves to legitimize Erdoğan’s authoritarianism? Why are we even competing in the elections?” I think that would be a trap—the same trap the Venezuelan opposition fell into at one point.
Whatever happens, there will be pressure on the opposition to boycott the elections or withdraw—but I think that would be the wrong path. No matter what, the opposition must go to the ballot box, participate in the elections, and make it clear to the public that they won. I’m not saying the regime can necessarily be unseated through elections—I think we are passing that threshold. I use “passing” intentionally—I’m not saying we’ve already crossed it. It’s a process. But even if we eventually do pass that threshold, and it becomes impossible to remove the regime through elections alone, the opposition must still participate and demonstrate that they hold the popular majority.
At the same time, they have to acknowledge that it probably won’t be enough. You can no longer unseat Erdogan simply through words or ballots. You need to mobilize the streets—through demonstrations and by raising a broad popular demand for change. The opposition must combine both strategies: win at the ballot box and sustain mobilization on the streets.
Europe Made the Same Mistake with Putin—Why Trust Erdogan?
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara, Turkey on August 30, 2014. Photo: Mustafa Kirazlı.
And lastly, Dr. Cevik, how do you interpret the EU’s and US’s muted response to Imamoglu’s arrest? Can this be read as a form of tacit legitimation or geopolitical pragmatism? To what extent does Western inaction amount to a “green light” for Erdogan’s continued autocratization?
Dr. Salim Cevik: I think this is a very important question, and thank you for asking this. And, as I said in one of the previous questions, Erdogan feels both very weak because he’s losing popular legitimacy, but he’s also feeling very strong because he has control of the coercive apparatus of the state, and he also has international backing. And when we say international backing, he has the backing of both Americans and Europeans.
We have to talk about this very briefly, so let me say a few words about both. I mean, if Trump talks with Erdogan, he would probably ask for advice on how to repeat what Erdogan is doing in Turkey in the United States. So obviously there would be no backlash coming from the American side, and all democracy movements in the world have to adapt to the fact that America is no longer ruled by a democrat. I mean, America’s own record for supporting democracies has always been a critical one. It has sold out democrats when it suited its strategic interests—that’s for sure. But it has now come to a point where America is ruled by a president who actually admires autocrats more than democrats. So we’ve left that era behind.
And for the Europeans, I think it’s clear—they will criticize it, and they do criticize it with weak words and sentences, expressions of concern. But nothing will come out of it, and everybody knows that they don’t mean it, because they actually feel that they need Turkey more than ever. Once Trump made it clear that American security guarantees are no longer reliable, Europe began discussing creating its own strategic autonomy, its own defense capabilities—and Turkey emerged as a very crucial actor here, with its strong military, large population, and growing defense industry, as well as its strategic location. So Turkey is a very important partner, potentially, for European security. And Erdogan knows this and hopes that Europe will ignore his authoritarian moves because they need him—and so far, he has been proven right.
But let me finish by saying that it is not only a normative mistake for Europe to allow Erdogan to make this move—hoping that Turkey is strategically important—but it’s also strategically blind thinking. Because once Erdogan removes all the thresholds between himself and full authoritarianism—once Turkey becomes a Putin-like regime—the question for Europeans should be: can a regime like that be trusted for security cooperation? Can it really be a security partner?
Turkish–European relations have been transactional for the last decade, and an authoritarian figure like Erdogan was quite fine for that. Transactionalism allowed for bargaining, and you could prefer to deal with a single individual rather than a state—and that was fine. But once you move beyond that—if you want to create a strategic partnership between Europe and Turkey, if Turkey is to become an important part of European security—then you can’t really trust a personal autocracy.
Europe made the same mistake with Putin. They hoped that by creating economic interdependencies, Russia would never be a threat to European security—and they were proven wrong. I see no reason why Erdogan should be trusted more than Putin in that sense, and why European security should be entrusted to a political system that is ruled by the whims of a single individual.
As I said, it’s not only normatively and morally wrong—it’s also strategically blind thinking on Europe’s part.
In a powerful interview with the ECPS, veteran political scientist Professor Doğu Ergil warns that Turkey has crossed from populist authoritarianism into full autocracy. “Persuasion—which was once the AKP’s greatest success—has evaporated,” he explains. “In its place, coercion has become more prominent, and the instruments of coercion, including the judiciary, have proliferated.” Professor Ergil outlines how Erdoğan’s regime has personalized power, delegitimized the opposition, and dismantled democratic norms. With Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu’s arrest and mass protests unfolding, Turkey, he says, faces a “deadlock” where the state’s legitimacy is crumbling from within. This is a timely and sobering reflection on democracy under siege.
In an exclusive interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), veteran political scientist Professor Doğu Ergil delivers a stark assessment of Turkey’s current political trajectory under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s rule. Framing the ongoing turmoil as a crisis of legitimacy and democratic erosion, Professor Ergil argues that the country has moved from a populist-authoritarian hybrid toward a more fully autocratic system. “The ongoing crisis,” he explains, “lies in the growing strength of the opposition and the blurring of the line between persuasion and coercion. Persuasion—which was once the AKP’s greatest success—has largely evaporated. In its place, coercion has become more prominent, and the instruments of coercion, including the judiciary, have proliferated.”
At the heart of Professor Ergil’s analysis is the paradox of populist regimes relying on democratic legitimacy while simultaneously undermining the very institutions that sustain it. “If you demonize, criminalize, and prosecute your opponents, and attack the very institutions that brought you to power,” Professor Ergil warns, “you begin to delegitimize the system—and, in doing so, yourself.” This dynamic, he observes, has led Turkey into a “deadlock,” where democratic procedures are maintained in form but hollowed out in substance.
Professor Ergil traces this degeneration to the AKP’s strategic shift from early reformism to an increasingly nationalist and authoritarian agenda, using political Islam not as a blueprint for governance, but as an ideological tool to legitimize power. He also underscores how the personalization of power around Erdoğan has dissolved the boundaries between state, government, and party—turning the state apparatus into an extension of partisan control.
Professor Ergil’s insights are especially timely in light of the recent arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, which he views as emblematic of the broader erosion of the rule of law and the manipulation of the judiciary for political ends. As Turkey experiences historical developments, this interview offers a compelling and sobering diagnosis of a political system teetering on the edge of autocracy.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Doğu Ergil with some edits.
Populism Under Erdogan Becomes Parochial and Authoritarian
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan watching the August 30 Victory Day Parade in Ankara, Turkey on August 30, 2014. Photo by Mustafa Kirazli.
Professor Ergil, thank you so very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: How would you characterize the evolution of Turkish populism and authoritarianism under AKP’s and Erdogan’s rule, and how has it redefined the boundary between the people and the political elite? In what ways has the ruling AKP’s populist discourse transformed into a vehicle for authoritarian consolidation rather than democratic inclusion?
Professor Doğu Ergil: The nature of the political regime in Turkey has always been populist. The founding party of the Republic is called the Republican People’s Party, and one of the six principles of the regime has been populism. Anyway, I mean, it’s written down as populism rather than being populist. It is populist because the ruling elite wanted to execute a revolution from above, and they found the people not ready for a revolution to join the modern society or the modern world. Hence, to transform a backward society, they took the initiative of a revolution from above—an elitist revolution—and changed the fabric of society accordingly. So, the populist nature of the regime has always been there, ingrained in it. It’s in the DNA of it.
But now, with the incumbent AKP, it has become rather diluted. It’s no longer secular, and it’s less oriented to the world. It’s expressed as localism and nationalism, because in classical populism, there are the good people and the representatives of the good people against an evil, inefficient, and rather alien elite that forcefully wants to change the society—its culture, its identity, and so forth. But this localization and nationalization—rather than westernization and modernization, which were the true assets of the Republican regime at its outset—have made Turkish society and the present regime a rather local, non-elitist, and parochial society. In a virtual sense, more peasant-like, more Eastern, more Middle Eastern if you like, and more religious rather than secular, modern, and world-oriented.
Turkey’s Populism Has Turned Fully Autocratic
Can Turkey’s current political crisis be interpreted as a case study in populism transitioning into autocracy? If so, what distinguishes the Turkish model from its global counterparts?
Professor Doğu Ergil:Of course. The Turkish regime is not only popular but also populist, and increasingly authoritarian. This is largely because the incumbent party has blurred the distinction between the state and society by merging the government with the state apparatus. When this separation erodes, central authority becomes more consolidated and less differentiated, and the division of power weakens as authority becomes more centralized and autocratic.
In the Turkish case, it has become more personalized, and the personification of the government can be identified with the present president Erdoğan. So, all powers accrue in his hands, and he can exercise authority over all aspects of life and all institutions of the government, including the judiciary. The judiciary is now used as an extension of politics and control over society. Thus, Turkish populism has not only become more populist but more authoritarian and autocratic in this sense.
There are similar regimes in the world, but the Turkish one has become overly personalized—concentrating all possible powers—political, judicial, legislative, military, and so forth—in the hands of a single individual. The party that brought this man to power has effectively faded from view; it is no longer visible. What remains is the machinery of state power in the hands of one man—and the rest of society. That society is now split into two: the supporters of the incumbent government and its leader, and those who oppose them.
The ongoing crisis lies in the growing strength of the opposition and the blurring of the line between persuasion and coercion. Persuasion—which was once the AKP’s greatest success—has largely evaporated. In its place, coercion has become more prominent, and the instruments of coercion, including the judiciary, have proliferated.
Islam Became a Tool to Bolster Populist Power
Turkish Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks in Van province of Turkey as holding a holy Quran on April 14, 2015.
How has political Islamism evolved under Erdoğan from a reformist agenda in the early 2000s to a more illiberal and authoritarian governance model today? Is the AKP’s version of political Islamism now functioning primarily as a tool for ideological legitimation, or does it still contain genuine theological, political or societal aims?
Professor Doğu Ergil: The AKP’s political Islamism is one of the contemporary ideologies that found a place in Turkish politics. The political landscape had long been partitioned: there were the socialists, and slightly to further left, the communists—though they were a small minority—followed by the social democrats, liberals, conservatives, and nationalists. Each ideology was represented by a political party with a distinct historical background.
When the AKP emerged and began to take the stage in Turkish politics, it had to anchor itself in something—and it chose religion. Religion served as a supportive mechanism for nationalism and populism. In this context, religion was not used as a foundation for governance per se, but rather as an instrument to bolster a populist, nationalist, and increasingly authoritarian regime.
This strategy was effective for a while. However, it has since lost much of its fervor and effectiveness, as religion is traditionally associated with values such as honesty, integrity, and efficiency.
All these other parties with different ideologies had not made Turkey as great as people expected. So, the Islamic powers’ rhetoric said, “Look, even the name of the party is ‘AK,’ meaning pure white.” They represented themselves as honest, non-corrupt, and also more popular—closer to the people. In that sense, they seemed more empathetic toward the people, more intertwined with their needs, and so forth. But as time passed and the AK Party exposed its weaknesses, it became clear that being religious doesn’t mean being honest. Being in control of everything—ending the tutelary system, at the center of which was the military, as you know—doesn’t mean that democracy would take root or that there would be a more efficient, less corrupt, more responsive society.
As the AKP lost its credibility, the Islamic rhetoric has also become dysfunctional. This is what has happened in Turkey. And because of that, this 23-year rule of the AKP has come to a halt with these apparent street demonstrations and protests, showing that the party and its leadership cannot deliver anymore. It cannot keep its promises. And it cannot do so any further. So, I mean, it has come to a halt.
Islamism in Turkey Has Been a Supportive Value System
To what extent has political Islamism been radicalized under the pressures of regime survival and repression of opposition groups like Kurds, Alawites, Gülen followers, and political figures like Selahattin Demirtas and, most recently, Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu?
Professor Doğu Ergil: Islam could not be radicalized because the entrenched institutions and the majority of believers believe in the general assets of the Republic. Turkey has been—though the founding fathers have been criticized for adopting the Swiss civil code, for example—benefiting from it. People have enjoyed all the advantages it brought, because there is no discrimination in that code. In it, women are much freer, men can act more freely in their daily dealings. Although that code has been criticized as being alien, people have benefited from it for many years, for many decades.
In that sense, people are not opposed to the republican regime, its laws and its values. People expect those to be furthered, to be reinforced, and new advantages and developments to be integrated into society, rather than taking society backward to another century where Islam dominated with its Sharia law. In Turkey, that never happened. Only a minority want Sharia law because they believe the system is not just. But Sharia law does not make a society more just, moral, or egalitarian. People understand that.
In that sense, Islamism in Turkey has been a supportive value system for an insufficient political system that could be improved, rather than bringing an abrupt halt to it and taking society back to another century.
Turkish Politics Has Become Warlike—Not Competitive
Protests sparked by plans to build on the Gezi Park have broadened into nationwide anti government unrest on June 11, 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey. Photo: Thomas Koch.
To what extent has Erdoğan’s populism depended on the construction of internal “enemies”—such as the Kurds, followers of the Gülen movement, and İmamoğlu—to sustain a polarizing narrative and consolidate power?
Professor Doğu Ergil: It didn’t start with Erdoğan. Populism is built on dichotomies and contradictions, as you know—such as the idea of a good society versus a bad elite, or good people rather than bad politicians. These dichotomies help consolidate the supporters of the government, the regime, or even the nation, as envisioned by the founders of the system.
Unfortunately, these contradictions—and the inbuilt conflicts they foster—have been present since the onset of the Republic. The definition of the nation was not an inclusive one embracing all citizens, but rather based on an ethnic identity, mainly Turkishness. This approach has, of course, automatically excluded others—if not legally, then emotionally, and later in practice, including politically.
Erdoğan did not change this, although Erdoğan and his party were non-nationalistic in the beginning, because Islamism transcends nationalism and ethnic boundaries. So, you can have a body of believers coming from different ethnic backgrounds and different nationalities.
But seeing that the bulk of the people are nationalistic, and that the founding ideology of the country is nationalism, the AKP and Erdoğan adopted nationalism and reinforced its Islamic leanings with the rhetoric of religion or Islam—but primarily became nationalistic. And nationalism always needs an enemy—or more than one, always. So, when you define “us” with certain qualities and deny those qualities to others—who are then cast as enemies—you create a conflictual atmosphere in which your supporters are closely knit, while the others become more than opponents; they become enemies. Thus, Turkish politics has become, rather than competitive, warlike.
By Undermining Their Rivals, They’re Undermining the System—and Themselves
What does İmamoğlu’s arrest signify in terms of the erosion of rule of law and judicial independence in Turkey?
Professor Doğu Ergil: The rule of law has been lost for a long time. I mean, we cannot find it anywhere—it has been hiding somewhere. It has been kept in chains or hidden somewhere. But it may reemerge if the incumbent government and its leadership see no other way—then they might return to the rule of law and democracy. Today, they still believe that they can win elections. And all this latest ado—imprisonments, crackdowns on the opposition, the incarceration of anyone who criticizes the government and its leadership—is due to the fact that they are losing hope of winning the next elections.
So, they are clearing the way: first, by removing the supposedly successful competitors, and then by undermining the rules of engagement—that is, democratic rules and norms. But here lies a contradiction—a very substantial, significant contradiction. If you demonize, criminalize, and prosecute your opponents, and attack the very institutions that brought you to power, you begin to delegitimize the system—and, in doing so, yourself. That is, you undermine the very avenue you used to come to power. So, Turkey is now living in this unfortunate deadlock, because the delegitimization of the system through the delegitimization of the opposition is taking place.
The Judiciary Is Now a Tool of Politics
How do you interpret the strategic use of the judiciary to disqualify or imprison political opponents within Turkey’s broader trajectory from competitive authoritarianism toward full autocracy?
Professor Doğu Ergil: It’s so obvious. If you move from competitive authoritarianism to brute authoritarianism, of course the judiciary is either dismissed or becomes a tool of politics. That’s inevitable. This occurs everywhere in the world where the government or the regime becomes more authoritarian. So, this is almost inevitable. This is a choice, and this government and its leadership have chosen the path to autocratization and authoritarianism.
Do you see parallels between the Erdoğan regime’s control of institutions and historical patterns of soft coups in Turkish political history, or is this an unprecedented form of civil authoritarianism?
Professor Doğu Ergil: No, it’s not unprecedented. I mean, the same patterns are visible all over the world. We see it in Russia, Belarus, Latin America, Hungary, and so forth. In that sense, there is nothing unusual. The real question is why people tolerate such a deterioration of the regime. That’s important. I believe that where there is corruption, there is also the consent—at least by part of society—effectively becoming a silent partner in that corruption. In that sense, the people also need greater education in democracy. Rather than giving in to an authoritarian regime in return for favors, advantages, or privileges—rather than insisting on rights, freedoms, and equality—society, unfortunately, ends up deserving the poor governance it supports, at least for a time.
Ongoing Protests Have a Leader and a Clearer Purpose
Following the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, protests erupted across numerous cities in Turkey. Citizens took to the streets to voice their opposition to the decision and express growing discontent. Photo: Dreamstime.
How do the ongoing mass protests compare to the Gezi Park movement in terms of scope, motivation, and political potential?
Professor Doğu Ergil: In the Gezi Park demonstrations, it was so colorful, so unexpected, and so detached from any particular political party, social class, or political agenda—it was a wonderful, kaleidoscopic movement, I would say. It had no organization, no leadership, and no ideology. When I say ideology, I mean—if not totally and neatly defined—at least a trajectory for action and its aftermath. What will happen later? How will we proceed, to do what? And what will we do after the moment? That’s a broad definition of ideology. In that sense, Gezi didn’t have this.
But this time, although people erupted into the streets unexpectedly, inadvertently, they found the CHP—the Republican People’s Party—already there protesting and already a victim of oppression and crackdown. So this wave, this popular wave, pushed the Republican Party forward, making it the leader of the movement. And the CHP lived up to that expectation. So far, it has successfully led the opposition. Although we do not know where it will take the movement, to what extent it can lead it, or what the outcome will be, the conditions of leadership and organization have so far been met.
Now, what will happen? How the regime will be transformed—and into what—is still unknown. But it’s clear that corruption must end, oppression must end, democratic institutions must be restored, and Turkey must become more aligned with the world. In that sense, there is no need for a neat ideology or ideological agenda. If these goals can be met, the outcome of these protests can be very productive.
With İmamoğlu sidelined, what implications does this have for the legitimacy of the upcoming local and general elections?
Professor Doğu Ergil: We do not know what will happen—whether the government’s crackdown will continue, and what the response of the people will be. I mean, whether protests will grow and the pressure placed on the government will lead it to change its authoritarian stance, or whether the crackdown will intensify and we will become an absolutely authoritarian regime. And whether the system can endure this much pressure—I mean, the economy, which is on the brink of collapse, may collapse entirely, and conflicts may escalate into outright friction in the streets or elsewhere. So, it’s hard to say. It depends on how events evolve, I think, and on the response of the opposing factions in the process.
Erdogan Regime Is Too Useful to Be Criticized by the West
And lastly, Professor Ergil, how do you think the second Trump administration is affecting Erdoğan and his regime?
Professor Doğu Ergil: Well, it has been rather surprising that the US government—not only Trump and his entourage, but in general the American civil society, and, for that matter, the European Union and European governments—have been rather quiet on the authoritarian ascent of the Turkish government. All these parties—American and European actors—are expecting things from trade. Europe wants to keep all those millions of refugees and migrants in Turkey, so that Turkey would not open the gates of the dam and let the flood into Europe. Europe is very apprehensive on that stance.
Secondly, they don’t want the radicalism that’s simmering in the Middle East to reflect on Europe, and they see Turkey as a barrier to it. And thirdly, now with Russia—after a possible peace deal with Ukraine—being a threat against the security of Europe, and with the US abandoning Europe and making its security rather liable, Europe needs Turkey as a military power—as cheap soldiers—and does not want to antagonize the Turkish government because of this.
As for the US government, as long as Turkey does not threaten the security and interests of Israel—which it doesn’t—Turkey is a good friend of the White House. Secondly, Syria has to be stabilized, and Turkey, as a neighboring country and as a factor that’s present on the Syrian political stage, can contribute to the stabilization of Syria. How? By supporting the transitional government in Damascus and also reconciling the Kurds and others with the incumbent government in Syria.
Thirdly, the US wants Turkey to be in the anti-Iranian axis—to share this with its other allies, at the top of which is Israel. All these combined, the US—meaning the Trump administration—sees Turkey as a rather advantageous ally in this volatile region, and it could serve the purposes of American foreign policy.
In a time of rising populism, Professor Eric Beinhocker explains how populist leaders capitalize on economic grievances and social distrust to fuel their movements. “When people feel the system is unfair and rigged, they seek someone to blame,” he says, pointing out how populists exploit feelings of broken social contracts to gain political traction. According to him, trade wars and economic nationalism further exacerbate global instability. “No country can make an iPhone alone,” Professor Beinhocker states, stressing that interconnected supply chains make protectionism self-destructive. Tariffs and trade barriers, he warns, will “lower living standards and harm American competitiveness” rather than protect workers. This insightful discussion unpacks the economic forces fueling populism and the fragility of global trade.
In an era of rising political polarization and populist movements across the globe, the erosion of trust in institutions has become a defining challenge for democracies. In an intriguing interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Eric Beinhocker, Executive Director of INET Oxford and Professor of Public Policy Practice at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, discusses how populist politicians leverage the breakdown of the social contract to fuel political movements. He introduces the concept of the “psychology of broken contracts” as a key factor in the rise of populism, arguing that when people perceive a fundamental violation of fairness, “some of our strongest emotions arise from fairness violations,” leading to anger, resentment, and a desire to strike back—a phenomenon that populist leaders exploit.
According to Professor Beinhocker, the modern economy has undergone major shifts since the 1970s, particularly in Western democracies, where working-class citizens and those outside major metropolitan centers increasingly feel “the system isn’t working for them—that it is unfair, rigged, and benefits others at their expense.” He argues that these perceived injustices—whether economic or political—create fertile ground for populist rhetoric, which provides “a clear enemy,” often framed as elites, immigrants, or individuals outside of one’s identity group. Populist politicians, he explains, thrive on these grievances, “preying on and exploiting the psychology of broken contracts to gain political traction.”
A crucial factor accelerating this process, Professor Beinhocker contends, is the role of social media. While he does not see it as the primary cause of populism, he acknowledges its role in intensifying moral outrage. “Social media algorithms quickly identify that the content generating the most engagement is that which triggers moral outrage,” he explains, reinforcing tribal identities and making “resetting these emotions incredibly difficult.” Populist leaders capitalize on this dynamic, using divisive narratives to deepen distrust in institutions and erode democratic norms.
To counteract these trends, Professor Beinhocker suggests that restoring trust requires rebuilding fairness and re-establishing a strong social contract. He argues that past leadership, such as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, demonstrated how governments can “reset the social contract” through economic reforms, symbolic policies, and direct engagement with public concerns. However, he warns that “merely talking about trust is not enough—people need to experience fairness and institutional accountability.”
This interview provides a thought-provoking analysis of the intersection between economic shifts, political trust, and the psychology of populism, offering essential insights for scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Eric Beinhocker with some edits.
Trust Erodes When the Social Contract Is Broken
A fatigued factory worker experiencing exhaustion, weakness, hopelessness, and burnout. Photo: Shutterstock.
Professor Beinhocker, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In your article “Trust, Populism and the Psychology of Broken Contracts,” you argue that over the last few years, there has been a worrying decline in faith by the citizens of many countries that institutions, including government and the media, are doing what is right. Can you explain the reasons why trust in institutions has eroded?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: I think a good starting point is that our relationships with key institutions like employers and governments are not just economic in terms of costs and benefits, as economists often think of them, but also emotional.
We can think of people as having a social contract with these institutions. I contribute work to my employer, follow their rules and norms, and, in exchange, I receive pay, along with other benefits such as status, social connections, and security. So, there is a two-way deal—a contract between people and institutions.
When people feel that this deal has been broken or violated in some way—what I call the psychology of broken contracts—they perceive fairness as being violated. Some of our strongest emotions arise from fairness violations. Psychologists have shown that this response is deeply biophysical—hormones flood the brain and body, triggering feelings of anger, resentment, and a sense of being taken advantage of. This emotional response can even override rational, thoughtful parts of the brain. Research also shows that people will sometimes strike back in ways that harm themselves, simply to restore a sense of fairness. There is an evolutionary explanation for this: enforcing norms of group cooperation is essential for social stability.
My interpretation of the rise of populism is that it stems from this reaction. Over the past few decades—beginning as far back as the 1970s in the US and parts of Europe—we have seen major changes to the social contract. People’s sense of what they contribute to society versus what they receive in return, particularly among working-class citizens and those with less education, has been disrupted. Many people outside of the large, prosperous cities feel that the system is not working for them—that it is unfair, rigged, and benefits others at their expense.
Often, these “others” are defined as people outside one’s identity group—those of different ethnic or religious backgrounds, immigrants, or elites in big cities with different cultural values. Populist politicians have exploited and preyed on this psychology, using it to fuel their narratives and gain political traction.
What is the relationship between the rise of populism and the lack of trust in institutions?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: When you feel that fairness has been violated, when you feel that the terms of the deal you had have been broken, you lose trust.This is very corrosive, both economically and politically, because our economic and political systems run on trust. They rely on the cooperation of millions of strangers—non-family members—working together in organizations and institutions.If we don’t have trust and that cooperation breaks down, our ability to function effectively is eroded, whether in economic or political spheres.
I argue in my work that at the core of restoring trust is the need to restore fairness and balance. People need to see and feel that they are getting a fair deal and that their expectations are being met. If we look back to Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Depression in the US, I think he understood this psychology very well. The New Deal was an explicit effort to reset the social contract, recalibrate people’s expectations, and, through concrete actions and lived experiences, rebuild trust.
You can’t rebuild trust just by talking about it—although language does play an important role—but rather through what people actually experience.
Fairness Violations Fuel Populism and Tribal Politics
Illustration by Ulker Design.
You argue that the ‘emotions of fairness violation’ may be playing a role in shaping politics and society today, which might be ‘the deeper and more universal explanation for the rise of populism,’ and add that highly emotional, seemingly irrational reactions have an underlying logic to them. Can you elaborate on this underlying logic?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: Well, first—and I’m sure you are studying this at the center—one striking thing about the rise of populism is how it has happened almost simultaneously across a number of quite different countries, economies, and even political systems. And even though the US and (Donald) Trump are getting a lot of attention today, this phenomenon has occurred in countries as diverse as India, Brazil, and Central European nations.
So, we have to ask: what are the more universal phenomena that might be driving this? This is where I come to an explanation at the intersection of economics, politics, and psychology, where changes in the economic and political environment have triggered these psychological reactions of fairness violation, which have then been easy prey for populist politicians.
Another universal phenomenon has been the change in the media landscape, particularly the rise of social media. While I don’t see it as a primary causal factor, it has clearly acted as an accelerant. When feelings of fairness violation occur, they trigger a form of moral outrage. Social media algorithms quickly identify that the content generating the most engagement is that which triggers moral outrage—it gets shared the most and garners the highest interaction, making it the most profitable. This creates a strong incentive for social media companies to fan the flames of these emotions.
Psychology research also shows that when people experience these emotions, it is very difficult to reset them. People literally stop listening when they are in this mode, and they tend to bond together tribally. If you feel wronged, or that someone has broken a deal with you, you become more powerful when you find others who feel the same way and work together to correct things.
To mitigate these responses and change the political landscape, political leaders first need to acknowledge these feelings and the realities behind them. In many center-left parties in the US and Europe, there has been a tendency to either tell people what is good for them or focus on issues that do not necessarily address their core concerns. Second, once these problems are acknowledged with empathy, leaders must credibly work on solutions to rebuild trust.
Populists Exploit Grievances to Deepen Identity-Based Divisions
Why do you think ‘identity-based tribalism’ and ‘inter-group conflict’ have increasingly gone up? Can you explain the link between the economic contract and the political contract and how the breakdown of these contracts plays into the hands of populists?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: As I mentioned, it’s a natural reaction. When people feel they are being treated unfairly by a system or that their trust has been violated, they look for people like them to team up with, strike back, avenge the harm, and try to reset the balance of the deal.
Social media has played an important role in helping people who feel this way find each other. The evidence I’ve seen suggests that many of the changes driving these feelings—such as shifts in employment, income levels, job security, and the role of the welfare state—have been affecting people for a long time. However, in the past, individuals may have felt these concerns in isolation. Someone might have worried about their job security, questioned whether their skills would remain relevant without a university education, or wondered whether their children would have opportunities in a declining area.
Previously, these concerns might have been personal and disconnected. But the internet has allowed people to find others experiencing the same anxieties, making them realize they are not alone. There is also a natural tendency to seek solidarity with those who share an identity group. For instance, white male working-class voters have been a prominent base of support for populists across multiple countries, as they have coalesced around shared grievances and a sense of being left behind. Populists have been highly skilled at linking these emotions with the need for identity and solidarity, capitalizing on the breakdown of both economic and political contracts.
You argue that when the social contract is broken, it is very hard to put the moral outrage genie back in the bottle, yet you give the example of the US as a successful case of containing social outrage. What should Europe do to combat the rise of far-right populism?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: I meant that the US historically, in the 1930s, was a successful case through Roosevelt and the New Deal. Whether it will be successful in putting the genie back in the bottle this time remains to be seen. Right now, the genie is very much out of the bottle in the US, and looking at all the results we’re seeing, the challenge is significant.
If we look at cases where social cohesion has been rebuilt, more research is needed because there have only been a few cases I’ve examined, and nothing systematic. However, what seems to happen is, first, leaders must express real empathy with the emotions involved—not deny them but acknowledge the real causes behind them and understand the people expressing them. Then, they need to outline a pragmatic path forward to restore fairness, rebuild the social contract, and address specific issues.
Sometimes, symbolic actions play a key role in demonstrating a commitment to recovery. For example, Roosevelt’s public works programs during the Great Depression, while large in scale, were not enough on their own to lift the country out of the depression. However, they had a huge symbolic impact in showing that Roosevelt and the government cared and were actively working to address these problems and restore people’s sense of mutual commitment with their government.
I think we need to think creatively about identifying the real underlying issues and what can practically be done to address them. However, the current environment presents a much greater challenge than Roosevelt’s time. The influence of social media has significantly eroded trust in basic ideas of truth and facts. That is a challenge we will need to figure out how to overcome.
The Clean Energy Transition Needs Global Cooperation and Capital
Aerial drone view of a hybrid solar and wind farm in Bannister, NSW, Australia, featuring large wind turbines in the background generating renewable clean energy on a sunny day. Photo: Steve Tritton.
Many clean energy transitions are happening in wealthier nations, while developing countries struggle with financing. What global financial mechanisms or cooperation strategies can ensure a just and inclusive transition? Are we on track for a sustainable and inclusive green transition?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: These are very important questions. A colleague and I at Oxford recently published a piece in The Wall Street Journalarguing that the clean energy transition now has significant momentum, and that the economics and technology behind it are very promising. Even if Trump is re-elected and takes an anti-clean energy stance, he is unlikely to stop the transition entirely—he might slow it down in the US, but at a global level, clean energy technologies will continue to grow.
Despite the fact that these energy sources are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many cases and are getting even cheaper as technology improves, they remain highly capital-intensive. Wealthier countries are increasingly finding ways to mobilize capital to make these investments and accelerate the transition.
However, as you point out, access to capital remains a major issue in developing countries. The shift to clean energy in many of these nations would be highly beneficial both economically and environmentally, yet the capital needed to make this transition is not being mobilized, even though these investments would be positive over time.
For a long time, the proposed solution has been global-level action through the UN process, development banks, and aid agencies. However, this has been a slow and cumbersome political process, and developing countries argue—rightfully so—that the promised capital flows have not materialized. Given the current environment of low global cooperation, particularly with the political situation in the US, I am not optimistic that this will improve significantly in the near term.
That said, perhaps a “coalition of the willing” among certain countries could take steps to improve the situation. The best answer, in my view, is to find ways to attract private capital to these countries and projects. Governments and multilateral organizations can play a crucial role in de-risking private capital flows, and there are various mechanisms to do this. My hope is that as the economics of clean energy technologies continue to improve, we can lower some of the barriers that currently prevent private capital from seeing the opportunities for clean energy investment in developing countries.
Trump’s Trade Policies Could Disrupt Global Supply Chains and Undermine Climate Cooperation
With Trump previously withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, how will his return to office impact global cooperation on initiatives like the Breakthrough Agenda? Will he further undermine international climate agreements?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: It’s clearly not good for international cooperation on climate. But my sense, from talking to folks in that field, is that we made it through the last Trump administration on these issues. While his return may slow things down and cause harm in some areas, we will make it through again.
The US is an important player in these forums, but it is certainly not the only one. Other countries will need to find ways to keep the momentum going. The good news is that the economic and technological trends behind clean energy provide some tailwinds to support those efforts.
Given Trump’s second-term policies, how would a renewed “America First” approach impact global trade and climate initiatives, particularly in relation to tariffs on China, withdrawal from international agreements like the Paris Accord, and protectionist policies? How might these trade policies affect efforts like the Breakthrough Agenda, which aims to drive down clean energy costs?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: There was a piece by Tom Friedman in The New York Timesseveral weeks ago where he interviewed me on Trump’s tariff plans. I think the part that hasn’t been discussed enough is that, of course, added tariffs increase costs and frictions on trade, reducing trade flows and raising costs for consumers—those are well-known effects. But what has been less appreciated in the analyses of the damage they will cause is just how interconnected global supply chains are.
It’s not like the old days, back in Adam Smith’s time, where one country makes wine, another makes cheese, and trade simply makes both better off. In the modern economy, I can’t even make the wine, and you can’t make the cheese without each other because so many inputs, machines, and supplies come from global supply chains. As I said in that article, no country on earth can make an iPhone alone. There’s probably no country that can make a modern jet aircraft, an automobile, or even many agricultural products without access to global supply chains.
Farmers today get their seeds from one country, fertilizer inputs from another, machinery from yet another, and so on. These trade wars and frictions may result in some restructuring of supply chains, but mostly, they will create difficulties in producing complex products, increase costs, and lower living standards for everyone. They will also severely hurt American competitiveness.
Trump believes that imposing these barriers will increase production in the US, but when you talk to the companies involved—like automakers—they will tell you they cannot operate in a country with these kinds of barriers. They rely on a global supply chain, and if they face trade restrictions, they will simply move production elsewhere to avoid these barriers. It seems quite unambiguous that these policies will be harmful—not just to the global economy, but significantly to US workers, consumers, and overall competitiveness.
Trump’s Tax Cuts Enriched the Wealthy While Exacerbating Inequality and Deficit
Demonstrators gather at the US Capitol on President’s Day to protest the actions of President Trump’s administration and billionaire Elon Musk in Washington, D.C., on February 17, 2025. Photo: Rena Schild.
Your work discusses the need to rethink economic welfare. How might Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and de-regulation affect economic resilience, especially for those most vulnerable to climate change? Could Trump’s fiscal and monetary policies worsen economic inequality and climate vulnerability?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: On the question of the Trump tax cuts, which they are looking to extend in this current congressional session, we actually now have several years of evidence on what the first Trump tax cuts did to the economy. The findings from those analyses are quite clear—they did very little to spur actual investment in productive assets.
The money that corporations received from those tax cuts largely went into stock buybacks, which inflated stock prices and enriched shareholders and CEOs, further exacerbating inequality while doing very little for average people.
Additionally, the tax cuts massively increased the deficit—likely the largest non-wartime increase in the US deficit in history, if I am remembering correctly. It was essentially a huge giveaway to the wealthiest, with minimal benefits for everyone else. Given that evidence, we would expect a renewal of those tax cuts to produce a similar outcome.
At the same time, while cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, they are simultaneously slashing other parts of the government. As a result, Americans will see critical services they rely on—such as veterans’ services, healthcare, education, and infrastructure—deteriorate.
Some economists anticipate that the combination of these tax cuts, trade wars, and changes in fiscal policy could lead to a very problematic mix of inflationary pressures and economic stagnation for the US economy.
Global Economic Fragmentation Is the Most Likely Scenario for the Foreseeable Future
And lastly, Professor Beinhocker, trade tensions, economic nationalism, and supply chain disruptions have led to “de-globalization” discussions. Is globalization in decline, and what are the consequences? Do you see a permanent shift toward regional economic blocs, or will globalization find new forms?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: What I would like to see is a kind of smart globalization. I haven’t—I’ve been a critic of the 1980s and 1990s neoliberal model of globalization, which essentially threw open the doors and let the chips fall where they may. We have seen that this approach has produced very mixed results.
On the one hand, globalization has led to increased trade and investment worldwide, yielding many positive benefits, such as helping developing countries and lifting millions out of poverty, particularly in China and other parts of the world. On the other hand, it has also had negative impacts on workers in certain sectors and regions of the US, Europe, and elsewhere.
Moreover, we need to be realistic about the geopolitical and security risks associated with the type of globalization we have had. COVID-19 exposed the vulnerabilities of supply chains that rely too heavily on a single country or supplier. Additionally, geopolitical tensions present risks if, for example, the US is entirely dependent on critical technologies from certain countries.
I believe there is a middle ground between the neoliberal “throw open the doors” approach and the Trump-era strategy of raising trade barriers. We should seek the benefits of globalization and global supply chains while also being strategic about diversification and forming trade relationships with reliable partners.
Janet Yellen, Biden’s Treasury Secretary, gave an insightful speech on this topic, advocating for what she called “friend-shoring”—strengthening trade relationships with the US’s allies and partners. Additionally, trade policies should consider the interests of workers, environmental protections, and broader societal concerns, rather than solely prioritizing corporate profits.
There are smarter ways to approach trade, and the Biden administration was making steps in that direction. Unfortunately, that is not the trajectory we are currently on. In the near term, it seems inevitable that trade will become more fragmented into regional blocs.
I was just listening to a report on how China has responded to Trump’s tariffs by lowering trade barriers with a large group of developing countries, attempting to form its own trading bloc with nations across Asia and other regions. Unfortunately, this kind of economic fragmentation appears to be the most likely scenario for the foreseeable future.
Despite recognizing the difficulties brought by growing authoritarianism, Dr. Roberto S. Foa of Cambridge University maintains a measured optimism regarding the prospects for democratic renewal. He highlights historical patterns of democratization and shifts in public opinion—such as those triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Trump presidency—as indications that democratic principles can regain strength in response to perceived threats. However, he cautions against generalized solutions, stressing that each democracy grapples with distinct institutional and political hurdles that demand context-specific strategies for revitalization.
The resilience of democracy in the face of mounting global challenges has become one of the most pressing questions of our time. As populist leaders continue to gain traction, democratic norms erode, and authoritarian tendencies rise, many scholars and policymakers are left wondering whether these trends signal a long-term shift or a temporary setback in the cyclical evolution of governance. Dr. Roberto Stefan Foa, Assistant Professor in Politics and Public Policy at Cambridge University, has dedicated his research to understanding the dynamics of democratic deconsolidation and the conditions necessary for democratic renewal.
In this interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Foa provides a nuanced perspective on whether the recent wave of democratic backsliding—evident in both Western and emerging democracies—represents an irreversible decline or a phase within a broader historical pattern. He highlights the importance of distinguishing between informal and formal democratic norms, explaining how social media, populist rhetoric, and political polarization have eroded basic principles of civility and accountability. However, he also underscores the resilience of institutions, particularly in Western Europe, where robust political frameworks have mitigated some of the more extreme consequences of democratic decline.
A key theme in this conversation is the role of economic hardship and cultural grievances in shaping voter behavior, particularly among younger generations. Dr. Foa explores how disillusionment with mainstream politics can lead to either political apathy or support for more radical alternatives, including both left-wing and right-wing populist movements. At the same time, he argues that traditional political parties must adapt to these shifting dynamics by engaging in meaningful reform, rather than relying on outdated strategies to counteract the appeal of extremist factions.
While acknowledging the challenges posed by rising authoritarianism, Dr. Foa remains cautiously optimistic about the potential for democratic revival. He points to historical cycles of democratization, as well as recent public opinion shifts following events such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Trump presidency, as evidence that democratic values can reassert themselves in reaction to perceived threats. Ultimately, he warns against simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions, emphasizing that each democracy faces unique structural and political challenges that require tailored approaches to renewal.
This interview provides a thought-provoking analysis of the current state of democracy and the pathways available for its restoration. It is an essential read for scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike who seek to understand the evolving nature of political power in the 21st century.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Dr. Roberto Stefan Foa with some edits.
From Democratic Apathy to Democratic Antipathy Among Youths
A group of multicultural, peaceful activists sit outside, holding hands and displaying posters in a demonstration against climate change. Photo: Shutterstock.
Professor Foa, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In your research on democratic deconsolidation, you highlight a decline in public support for democracy in developed nations. Do you see this trend accelerating with the second Trump presidency and with the recent surge of far-right parties in Europe?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: No, not necessarily. I think, in some ways, what we’ve seen since Trump took office in January is that there has actually been a reaction in some countries, and that’s been quite clear. If you look, for example, at the polling of Poirier in Canada. Since then, if you look at the situation here in the UK, regarding Farage’s Reform Party and public support for them, I think you’ve actually seen, to some extent, an inoculating effect.
But whether that continues really depends a lot on the example that the Trump presidency sets—whether it gets mired in deeper and deeper difficulties on the economic side, in pushing forward its domestic reform agenda, in conflicts with the courts or the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., and in its difficulties to date in delivering on Trump’s promises of peace in the Middle East and in Ukraine. So, I think that’s still very much to be seen.
How do you explain the paradox where younger generations in some countries lean toward populist movements while in others they disengage from politics altogether?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I don’t think there’s a paradox at all. In fact, I would describe it as a two-step process. In the first phase, in some countries, younger generations become disconnected or disillusioned with mainstream politics. This manifests in lower membership in traditional political parties, reduced electoral turnout, and declining interest in politics—what could be termed democratic apathy.
If this disengagement deepens, it can escalate into what might be called democratic antipathy. In such cases, younger generations—particularly young men in the United States and many parts of Continental Europe—become more inclined to support extremist parties, including populist movements on both the left and the right.
The Erosion of Informal Norms and the Failure of Traditional Parties
Given your research on public opinion and authoritarian resilience, how do you assess the impact of far-right leaders on democratic norms and political polarization in Europe and the US?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: Well, I think these are very different contexts. However, there is one common factor between Europe and the US in how democratic norms have shifted, and that is primarily on the informal side. When populist movements, whether from the left or the right, gain prominence, we often see challenges to basic norms—civility in debate, truthfulness in politics, and accountability for mistakes in political life. These informal norms have eroded in many countries.
In terms of more formal threats to democracy—such as respect for free and fair elections, acceptance of electoral outcomes, intimidation, declining electoral integrity, or the politicization of the judiciary, courts, and civil service—we see these issues more prominently in the US than in Europe, particularly Western Europe. There are specific reasons for this. The political institutions in many parts of Western Europe tend to be more robust, making them more resistant to such erosion.
Does the rise of populist leaders across Western Europe and North America signal a failure of traditional political parties in responding to economic and cultural grievances?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I think it signifies a failure of traditional political parties in responding to voter demands and concerns. That is almost true by definition—whenever new political parties break through, whether they are populist or not, whether they are right-wing, left-wing, or centrist, it clearly signals some failure in the existing party system to deliver what voters are demanding.
Now, whether that is a result of economic and cultural grievances, I think there are many different factors at play. Clearly, in some countries and among certain constituencies, there have been unaddressed economic grievances. Similarly, there have been unaddressed cultural grievances, particularly in Europe regarding immigration. However, I do not think there is a generalized thesis that applies across all countries regarding the specific types of grievances at play.
The Erosion of Accountability in the Age of Social Media
How significant is the role of social media and digital platforms in fueling democratic deconsolidation, and are these platforms more influential than traditional media?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: Okay, I’ll take that one at a time. Yes, I think the rise of social media has had a significant effect, but I would say that its impact is largely limited to the informal norms of democratic life and competition.
It used to be the case that strong media gatekeepers held politicians accountable. If a politician was caught in a corruption scandal or, like Trump, taken to court and found guilty of an offense, there was no way around it. The only option was to acknowledge the fault, take responsibility, resign if necessary, and move on.
In the social media environment we live in now, however, that is no longer the optimal strategy. Trump’s approach to politics is a great example of this. It has become much more effective to double down, continue denying accusations, and keep shifting the conversation from one topic to another—something Trump is particularly skilled at doing on social media. And, of course, Trump is not the only example. Many populist politicians have adopted similar strategies on social media, which has eroded some informal democratic norms, particularly around truthfulness, civility, and responsibility in public life.
However, I do not believe social media is to blame for democratic deconsolidation in terms of the erosion of formal institutions. When we see threats to judicial independence or harassment of civil society activists, I do not attribute that to social media. That is a separate issue and something that does not occur in every country.
A Cycle of Democratic Erosion with No Clear Limits
Your research on America’s shift from “clean” to “dirty” democracy suggests a weakening of democratic norms. How would a second Trump term impact democratic institutions in the US and beyond?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I think in the US, it’s clear—we are already seeing these trends unfold. As you referenced, my article was about understanding these developments as part of a longer-term process. The United States has been on this trajectory for more than a generation, where both Republicans and, in some cases, Democrats have attempted to change the rules of the game to gain partisan advantage. This includes the breakdown of bipartisan consensus over the political neutrality of Supreme Court appointments and the excessive politicization of the judiciary and civil service.
This shift has contributed to increased polarization, which in turn fuels the next cycle of democratic erosion. If you look at the current Trump presidency, it is evident that there are virtually no limits to what Trump is prepared to do. His administration has been planning for quite some time—through initiatives like Project 2025—to implement sweeping changes. This includes placing pressure on senior civil servants and, in many cases, firing those who are perceived as bureaucratic obstacles within the federal government. Many of these individuals were seen as sources of resistance during Trump’s first term when they attempted to uphold institutional norms.
This process is clearly already in motion, and it will undoubtedly continue at least until the midterms. Even if Republicans do not win the midterms, Trump will still control the executive branch, meaning these trends will likely persist beyond that point.
Outside the US, I do not see this process occurring in exactly the same way. Every country has its own unique political dynamics. For example, in Israel, there have been intense debates over attempts to curtail judicial independence. While democratic backsliding is a concern in multiple contexts, the US remains the primary focus and the number one concern right now.
Europe May Step Up as the US Steps Back
EU flags in EU Council building during the EU Summit in Brussels, Belgium on June 28, 2018. Photo: Alexandros Michailidis.
How will second Trump presidency affect international organizations like NATO, the EU, and the UN, which traditionally promote democratic norms?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I actually don’t think the effect will be as large as people currently believe or fear it may be. The major impact will be on the United States’ direct influence, which is quite clear—for example, eliminating USAID, canceling democracy promotion programs, and withdrawing US support for liberal internationalism.
However, I don’t believe that an organization like the European Union will be negatively affected in its own capacity to promote democracy. If anything, the opposite is more likely—there will probably be an increase in European solidarity and a greater effort by the EU to take on some of the programs that the US discards. We can already see this in direct support for Ukraine, provided both by European countries and the United Kingdom, including military aid. If US support declines, European countries may be required to increase their contributions in the coming year to compensate.
On the international level, I don’t think Trump’s presidency will have as significant an influence as some fear. The United Nations, however, is a different case. If the Trump administration truly follows through on pulling US funding for the UN, that would present a major problem, given that the US is one of its largest financial contributors. This could create a substantial funding gap. However, what we have seen so far is a trend where other Western democracies step up to fill the void.
Far-Right Unity Is More Myth Than Reality
Given Trump’s anti-globalist stance, what impact do you expect on global democratic solidarity movements or efforts to counter authoritarianism?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I think that will vary depending on the region. Within Europe, where democratic values are already well embedded and the public strongly supports international democratic solidarity, I see less of a threat. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, in Europe, the reaction has largely been to step up and fill the gaps left by the US.
However, in emerging democracies, the situation is quite different. The United States has historically provided significant bilateral support to civil society movements and political actors working to protect and advance democratic norms in many parts of the Global South. In these regions, the withdrawal of US support poses a much greater threat to democratic consolidation and resilience.
But we see a broader alignment between right-wing populist leaders globally, where Trump serves as a rallying figure for European far-right movements?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: No, no. I think this is something that is frequently misunderstood. When conducting comparative analysis across countries or examining international relations, terms like “populism” and “far-right” need to be unpacked, as they encompass a wide range of movements with differing interests that do not always align—nor do they necessarily align with Donald Trump’s agenda in the United States.
For example, within Europe, since Trump’s election, we see leaders like Giorgia Meloni in Italy largely adhering to the European line. This was already the case under Biden, particularly regarding her policy on Ukraine. Even though she personally has connections with figures like Elon Musk and Trump, she has had to navigate Italy’s commitments carefully, including apologizing for the country’s potential withdrawal from certain international agreements.
So, I would not assume there is an automatic far-right international unity. These movements are often driven more by national interests and political differences within their respective countries, making them quite disparate.
Economic Struggles Are Reshaping Youth Political Behavior
Prices of fruit and vegetables in stores: A woman holds euro banknotes against the backdrop of a vegetable stand at a local market. Photo: Andrzej Rostek.
In your study on youth and populism, you argue that economic hardship fuels support for radical movements. Given the cost-of-living crisis in Europe, do you anticipate a further shift of young voters toward far-right parties?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I think there could be a further shift. It may not necessarily be driven solely by the cost-of-living crisis, but economic factors certainly play a role. For younger generations right now, there is already evidence of economic struggles, particularly in the job market.
With automation and the replacement of jobs through AI, we are already seeing—and will continue to see—these challenges affecting younger generations as they try to establish themselves, pay off debts, secure employment, find housing, and move forward in life.
It is very clear that in countries where these challenges have been acute for a long period—such as France, Greece, and Italy—disillusionment among younger generations began much earlier, 20 to 30 years ago. I would anticipate that similar trends will continue in the US and the UK, where, until now, economic conditions for younger generations had not been seen as quite so dire.
How does the rise of nationalist-populist parties in Europe (e.g., AfD in Germany, Rassemblement National in France) affect the future of the EU and democratic cooperation?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: Again, I would say it really depends on the party. When looking at far-right parties, I always distinguish between different factions. You have the ultra-conservative far right, which in the European Parliament is represented by the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists) faction. This includes parties like the Conservative Party in the UK and Law and Justice (PiS) in Poland. These parties are actually quite pro-Western in their outlook, certainly very Atlanticist in their foreign policy platform. Their fundamental beliefs and views are a continuation of Cold War-era conservatism, structured around social conservatism, tradition, and national sovereignty. Ultimately, they may pose less of a threat to Western solidarity.
The far-right faction I see as most damaging is what I would call the mercantilist populist right. Trump is a prime example of this, as is Orbán in Hungary, and Erdogan in Turkey has increasingly adopted this approach in his international engagements. These leaders view the world through a purely mercantilist lens, focusing on national self-interest and short-term leverage—whether in trade, aid, or diplomatic concessions. As a result, they are quite willing to undermine EU solidarity, Western alliances, or NATO commitments for immediate political or economic gains. This is something we frequently see with Orbán, who consistently seeks to extract concessions at EU summits.
That said, I would not categorize either Rassemblement National (RN) in France or Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany within this mercantilist populist category.
Centrist Politicians Can Learn from Populist Challengers
In your view, what strategies should centrist parties adopt to counteract the far-right’s rise, particularly in countries with increasing voter disillusionment?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: It really depends on the country. In cases where there are proportional representation systems and coalition politics, the far right can sometimes be defused by including them as a minor party within a coalition. I know that this is a controversial stance, as many people support the idea of a cordon sanitaire and believe that far-right parties should never be given even a single ministry in government. However, this approach has been used in Denmark and Austria over time, and in some cases, the experience of governing has actually weakened these parties. A taste of power often delegitimizes them—holding office makes them accountable for scandals, forces them to take responsibility for government actions, and compels them to moderate their positions to remain in the coalition. As a result, they must justify more centrist policies to their voters.
However, this strategy only works in political systems with proportional representation and coalition politics. It is a different situation in presidential systems like the United States or France, or majoritarian systems like the UK,where a far-right party could potentially gain majority power with only a minority of the vote. In these cases, centrist parties must focus on winning elections outright rather than attempting to contain the far right within coalitions.
Looking at successful cases, Macron in France provides an interesting example. He understood the collapse in support for the Socialist Party and recognized that he could position himself as an anti-establishment challenger from the center. By creating a new party and engaging in what was not quite a populist style but certainly a highly personalist political approach, he successfully revived the center and has remained in power for two terms so far. This suggests that centrist politicians can learn from populist challengers, particularly in terms of adopting new styles of political engagement.
No Permanent Shift Toward Illiberalism
Does the rise of authoritarianism in countries like Hungary and other Central European countries indicate a long-term shift, or do you see the possibility of democratic revival?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: Yes, there is always the possibility of a democratic revival. When discussing democratic backsliding, especially in a global context, there is often a pessimistic view that this decline started around 2005 or 2006—depending on the measure used, such as Freedom House rankings—and has only worsened over time. However, these processes tend to be cyclical. I have long believed that another democratic wave or a restoration of belief in liberal democratic values is possible at some point.
In fact, we have already seen some evidence of this. Earlier in our conversation, we discussed the Trump effect—how witnessing democratic erosion in the United States has led citizens in other countries to reconsider similar political trajectories. Similarly, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, public opinion data showed what could be described as a rally for democracy effect. Across Western countries, there was an increase in support for NATO, Western solidarity, and even liberal democracy—not a dramatic shift, but a noticeable one, particularly on the left. So, I absolutely believe that democratic revival remains a possibility.
Are we witnessing a permanent shift toward illiberal governance, or do you see democracy rebounding in the long run?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I certainly don’t think there is ever a permanent shift in politics. Politics is not kind to those who predict permanent shifts of any kind. I do believe there is a cyclical nature to these trends. Democratization has historically occurred in waves, and we could see another wave at some point—that is always a possibility. Perhaps that is even the lesson of history in some broader sense. So no, I absolutely do not see any kind of permanent shift toward illiberalism. There is always a contest.
No One-Size-Fits-All Solution to Strengthening Democracy
And lastly, Professor Foa, if you could advise policymakers on one crucial reform to strengthen democracy, what would it be?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: You know, Tolstoy famously said that “all happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” I think the same is true for democracies. Stable democracies—like Iceland, Switzerland, or Norway—tend to share similar characteristics. However, failing democracies each have their own unique problems.
These challenges vary: in some cases, the most urgent need might be electoral reform; in others, it could be campaign finance reform—particularly in the United States, where the to-do list is quite long. In some situations, strengthening the independence of the judiciary and civil service or ending clientelism is crucial. So, while every democracy has its own set of necessary reforms, I wouldn’t say there is a one-size-fits-all solution.
In a thought-provoking interview with the ECPS, Professor Stephen E. Hanson unpacks how US President Donald Trump exemplifies a growing global trend of patrimonial rule. Professor Hanson argues that Trump governs as if the state was his personal property—distributing power to loyalists, undermining impartial governance, and attacking state institutions. Drawing comparisons to Russia, Hungary, and Brazil, he warns of long-term damage to democratic institutions. Professor Hanson stresses the need for renewed public trust in government and a collective effort to counteract the erosion of modern governance.
In an in-depth interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Stephen E. Hanson, the Lettie Pate Evans Professor in the Department of Government at William & Mary University, offers a compelling analysis of the erosion of modern governance under US President Donald Trump. Drawing on his co-authored works The Global Patrimonial Waveand The Assault on the State, Professor Hanson argues that Trump’s presidency exemplifies a broader 21st-century resurgence of patrimonial rule—a system in which leaders govern as if the state were their personal property.
Professor Hanson underscores that “the key features [of Trump’s governance] are that the ruler governs the entire state as if it were his personal possession, viewing the state as a kind of family business. He distributes parts of the state and its protection to loyalists, cronies, and even family members directly. At the same time, he attacks the impersonal and impartial administration of the state as an obstacle to his arbitrary power.” This, he argues, is a defining characteristic of patrimonialism, a governance style that many assumed had been relegated to history but is now re-emerging in modern democracies.
Through the course of the interview, Professor Hanson details how Trump’s administration actively worked to dismantle bureaucratic institutions, a trend he links to similar developments in Russia, Hungary, Turkey and Brazil. He explains that Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results—mirroring tactics used by patrimonial rulers—posed unprecedented risks to American democracy, undermining public trust in institutions like the electoral system and the judiciary.
Professor Hanson also addresses the long-term consequences of Trump’s governance, particularly in how it has fueled distrust in expertise and weakened state capacity. He describes how, under Trump, public service was increasingly devalued, discouraging young professionals from pursuing government careers. “At this moment, no one in their right mind would join the federal government—massive layoffs are happening, and every office is being downsized,” he warns, emphasizing that rebuilding state institutions will be a daunting, long-term challenge.
Yet, Professor Hanson remains hopeful, advocating for a reassertion of the state as a force for public good. He stresses the need for new strategies to counteract patrimonialism, urging scholars, policymakers, and civil society to shift the discourse toward defending democratic governance. His insights offer a sobering but essential perspective on the ongoing assault on the modern state—and what can be done to reverse it.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Stephen E. Hanson with some edits.
How Trump’s Governance Undermined the Modern State
US President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing after a Black Hawk helicopter collided with American Airlines Flight 5342 near DCA Airport in Washington on January 30, 2025. Photo: Joshua Sukoff.
Professor Hanson, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In “Understanding the Global Patrimonial Wave,” you discuss the resurgence of patrimonial rule. How does Trump’s presidency fit into this framework, and what long-term effects might his style of governance have on American democracy?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: Thanks for this question. I want to begin by acknowledging my co-author, Jeffrey Kopstein, who, of course, can’t join us for this interview, but everything we’ve done together is a completely equal collaboration. So I always begin by acknowledging his great work.
We do think, sadly, that our predictions in The Global Patrimonial Wave and The Assault on the State, the book we’ve just published, have unfortunately come true. The Trump administration, in its early weeks, has fulfilled these predictions practically, and we believe that our warning was, unfortunately, quite prescient.
Now, what did we see coming down the road? We argued that this new version of patrimonial rule is really a wave of the entire 21st century and quite unexpected. The old literature on patrimonialism—or neopatrimonialism, as it was often called—assumed it was a relic of traditional society destined to be overthrown by modernity. You might see periods of patrimonial interludes, particularly in the developing world, but nobody had predicted patrimonialism of the 19th-century sort, or even earlier, in countries like the US, Israel, the UK, much of Central and Eastern Europe, and now threatening the world.
So, we’ll discuss more details about the Trump administration in this interview, but the key features are that the ruler governs the entire state as if it were his personal possession, viewing the state as a kind of family business. He distributes parts of the state and its protection to loyalists, cronies, and even family members directly. At the same time, he attacks the impersonal and impartial administration of the state as an obstacle to his arbitrary power.
All of this comes directly from Max Weber, and in a way, we are simply applying Weber’s analysis to these unexpected 21st-century cases.
You highlight how strong bureaucratic institutions played a key role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. How did the Trump administration’s approach to governance impact the US response to the crisis, and do you see lasting damage to state capacity?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: We discuss this extensively in both the book and the article. What we argue is that patrimonial-style politics is fundamentally ill-suited for handling global pandemics. The first casualty of patrimonialism is the public good because governance is not about serving the public—it’s about fulfilling the private will of the ruler.
As a result, we see poor performances in countries governed by patrimonial rulers. If we compare data statistically, countries like Russia under Putin and the US under Trump performed very poorly. Patrimonial states tend to foster both distrust in the government—which discourages people from getting vaccinated or trusting experts—and the arbitrariness of the ruler himself. Trump’s public appearances, for example, where he seemingly endorsed sunlight as a cure for COVID-19 or suggested injecting bleach in front of his expert advisors, contributed to the excess death toll in the US compared to countries like Canada, which handled the crisis much more effectively.
Now, there are instances where patrimonial-style rulers managed certain aspects of the pandemic well. For example, Operation Warp Speed under Trump led to the rapid development of the vaccine, and Netanyahu’s vaccination campaigns in Israel were quite effective. However, we argue that these successes were not the result of patrimonial rule itself but rather the legacy of state-building efforts that predated these leaders. They were able to deploy existing state capacity, experts, and institutions in response to the crisis. But, of course, if the state is eroded too much over time, those resources will no longer be available in the future.
Rethinking Regimes: Why the Democracy-Autocracy Divide Is Not Adequate
Elon Musk speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center on February 20, 2025, in Oxon Hill, Maryland. Photo: Andrew Harnik.
Your work discusses the global trend of leaders undermining bureaucratic institutions. How does Trump’s presidency exemplify this, and what challenges does this pose for future administrations attempting to restore trust in expertise?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: The book is called The Assault on the State, and I think one reason it’s now getting some attention is that the title encapsulates what we expected to happen under Trump. Maybe even we were surprised by the extent of the assault on the state. It’s not just an attack on the so-called “deep state” as a rhetorical device—it’s an actual effort to dismantle the entirety of the US federal government. With DOGE, the agency essentially created out of the blue and directed by Elon Musk in all but name, they are now going into every single state agency in the United States. They have very young people, between the ages of 18 and 25, embedded in agencies, looking at files, personnel issues, and money flows.
While there has been some effort lately to cut that back—largely due to the anger of Trump’s Cabinet ministers—it is still in place. The long-term damage to state capacity is incalculable.
So all of this fits within our framework, but in an extreme form. I’ll add one thing that might actually be a bit surprising—and perhaps even, in a strange way, good for those of us who want to restore the state. This is happening so quickly that the damaging effects will become apparent sooner rather than later. If that happens, maybe public opposition can also be mobilized more quickly.
You argue that traditional democracy/autocracy classifications are insufficient. Given Trump’s attempts to subvert democratic norms, where would you place his presidency within your broader conceptual framework?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: One of the arguments in the book that has actually been a little bit controversial—and difficult to convey to people—is that we really don’t think the democracy-autocracy divide is adequate to understand this phenomenon. It’s ingrained in how we think about political regimes; it’s the standard framework used by political scientists, social scientists, and journalists alike.
When we talk about regime types in political science, people assume it’s a scale measured by V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy), Polity, or Freedom House. In each case, there’s a line ranging from positive—representing the most democratic—to negative—representing the most autocratic.
One reason we failed to recognize the rise of patrimonialism earlier is that it doesn’t fit into this framework. A patrimonial-style ruler can win free and fair elections repeatedly. In some cases, they even thrive in electoral competition. Trump is a great example of this, as is Boris Johnson. These leaders leverage populist tropes, portray machismo, and rail against the so-called “deep state” bureaucracy or, in the case of Europe, anti-EU politicians in Brussels. This rhetoric has a strong popular appeal, allowing them to win elections handily.
When they do, it becomes difficult to argue that they are anti-democratic, given that they just won an election. So, we argue that the axis needs to change. Our analysis must shift to a second dimension: impersonal versus personalized state governance. This concept is rooted in Weberian sociology.
If this is an independent axis, it implies that there are four regime types, not just two. You can have bureaucratically rational democracies—Denmark or Canada come to mind. You can also have personalized democracies, which are patrimonial—this is the US under Trump. Similarly, you can have personalized autocracies, which are quite common, and bureaucratic autocracies, like Singapore or the 19th-century Prussian Rechtsstaat model.
If this two-by-two framework holds, then we need to recognize that patrimonialism can exist within democratic systems without immediately eroding their democratic nature. In cases like the Philippines, voters essentially choose which patrimonial clan will rule—whether it’s Duterte’s or the Marcos family’s—but the patrimonial style remains constant. These hybrid forms of governance challenge our traditional political science classifications, requiring us to rethink how we analyze regime types.
The Legacy of Trump’s Election Denial
Jake Angeli or QAnon Shaman was among those who participated in the riots initiated by former US President Donald Trump at the Capitol, Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. Photo: Johnny Silvercloud
Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results mirrors tactics used by patrimonial rulers. How does this compare to other historical or global cases, and what risks does it pose for future US elections?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: Well, connecting to what we just talked about, the January 6th events and Trump’s unwillingness to admit defeat are somewhat unusual in these cases. The reason for that is that, typically, you either have a clear-cut electoral victory—like Orbán in Hungary, where he wins elections that propel him to absolute power, securing a parliamentary supermajority that allows him to amend the constitution over time—or you have leaders who reluctantly step aside without outright denying their defeat. In Orbán’s case, the space for democratic competition clearly erodes, but it happens through legal mechanisms. He doesn’t need to claim the election was fake because, in fact, he won.
There may be some elements of this with Boris Johnson’s departure, where he was reluctant to step down and continued to complain that his downfall was somehow orchestrated by others. However, he never actually claimed he deserved to be the permanent ruler, and, of course, he exited through parliamentary means rather than an election dispute.
In this respect, Trump’s insistence that he never lost the election, that it was all rigged, and that the so-called “deep state” blocked his victory is somewhat unusual in the annals of these regime types. However, it has played a significant role in further undermining trust in US state institutions—particularly in voting systems, ballot counting, and electronic voting machines.
This poses a serious issue going forward. While, as I mentioned earlier, you can have a patrimonial democracy that remains competitive, it does erode the quality of democracy over time. If the public becomes convinced that the ballot box is rigged and that votes are fake, then eventually, supporters can be persuaded that their candidate won even when they actually lost. This, of course, can lead to even worse regime outcomes.
Western Democracy in Crisis
Your research connects US political shifts to broader global patterns. Does Trump’s rise signal a deeper systemic failure in Western democracies, and how can the US counteract these trends moving forward?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: It’s definitely a bad situation. And we should add—Jeff and I are definitely in favor of democracy. Sometimes we get asked this question: “You’re so concerned about the State. Would you rather have a Reichstadt with no democracy than a democracy that’s patrimonial in some ways?” And the answer to that question is that we don’t have to make that choice.
The reality right now is that there’s no Reichstadt or a Singapore-style uncorrupted autocracy on offer. The only options available are populism in a democratic context and patrimonialism in the state context versus the old forms of liberal, rational-legal order, to use Weber’s terminology.
So part of our goal is to reclaim the State as a positive entity. We’ve seen it is bashed for so long from both the left and the right. Libertarians argue that the State is a block to liberty. On the left, critics see the military-industrial complex and the surveillance state as suppressing the people’s will. Religious nationalists believe the State is too secular and is stamping out religious life—and this isn’t just in the US but also in places like Russia. It’s different religious traditionalisms, but with the same kind of complaint.
The idea that the secular modern state is a good thing, that it helps protect the public welfare, is often missing from our political discourse. When you defend the State, you sound like you’re upholding an old, discredited status quo. But we should recognize that it’s not actually the status quo—that’s the whole problem.
This also connects to another issue. We are definitely in the camp that says neoliberalism has a lot to answer for over the last 30 years. The notion that the State should be reconstructed solely in service of markets, that it should be downsized as much as possible to become more efficient, or that the old welfare state was bloated and ineffective—those arguments, we believe, did significant damage. The financial crises of 2008 and then 2010–11 convinced many that the so-called meritocrats were not meritocratic, that the experts weren’t actually experts, that they didn’t know what they were doing, and that they didn’t care about ordinary people.
So now the task is to clarify that what failed was not the welfare state, nor the old establishment—it was a new group who came in, believing the establishment was inefficient and trying to dismantle the State. In some ways, returning to the State as a source and defender of public goods does not take us back to neoliberalism. It takes us further back—to the idea that the people can own the State, that the State can be democratic, and, ironically, that it can be truly republican in the sense of being a public institution that ordinary citizens own and connect to.
The Breaking of the Bureaucratic State: Can US Institutions Recover?
In ‘The Assault on the State,’ you argue that modern government is under attack. How does Trump’s presidency exemplify this trend, particularly regarding the erosion of democratic institutions and bureaucratic expertise?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: What’s happening in my country right now is painful to watch, especially for those of us closely connected to the production of expertise. I’m a university professor, and many of our students and graduate students go on to work in the federal government.
They do things like work on climate change, secure military bases against flooding, prepare for future pandemics, and test new vaccines. Even before the Trump administration, it was sometimes difficult to convince young people to join public service. Many would say, I can make more money in the private sector, or the public sector is too slow, too bureaucratic. But despite these concerns, we still managed to attract a number of brilliant young people every year who were willing to commit their entire careers to public service.
Now, that pipeline is nearly broken. At this moment, no one in their right mind would join the federal government—massive layoffs are happening, and every office is being downsized. But the bigger issue is long-term: How do you convince people that this won’t happen again? How do you get young professionals to invest years in degrees and early-career government positions when they know that the next administration could just come in and fire everyone again?
The damage is much more severe than just a single administration. The US may be the most extreme case, but we see versions of this pattern in every patrimonial system. Take the Tusk government in Poland—they’re struggling to restore trust in the judiciary and undo the changes made by the PiS party. Rebuilding state institutions is incredibly difficult. The old joke applies here: It’s a lot easier to turn an aquarium into fish soup than it is to turn fish soup back into an aquarium.
The destruction of the State leaves behind a mess that takes years, even decades, to repair. So I think we have to be very realistic about the crisis we face. This won’t be fixed with just one or two elections. Those of us who care about democratic states that provide public goods in the modern world—and I hope that’s a lot of people—will have to start with education, collective action, and actively countering this disastrous assault on institutions that truly matter.
Loyalty Is the Most Important Currency in Trump’s America
US President Donald Trump applauds from the White House balcony during a welcoming ceremony for the Washington Nationals baseball team on the South Lawn in Washington, D.C., on November 4, 2019. Photo: Evan El-Amin.
Trump frequently positioned himself against the “deep state,” portraying government institutions as adversaries. To what extent do you see this rhetoric as a deliberate political strategy versus a genuine ideological stance?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: I don’t think patrimonial rulers are best understood as ideological. That’s the big difference between patrimonialism and fascism—certainly compared to Nazism. Leaders like Hitler and Mussolini had ideologies; they had visions of the future. You could say those visions were crackpot or outright evil, and certainly they were. But their argument was: We know where we’re leading this new empire—it will be racially pure, or it will be a resurrection of Roman virtue. Young people will imbibe this spirit, march in step, and be mobilized.
In contrast, patrimonialism tends to demobilize society. This was true of the old Tsarist style of rule, as well as older monarchies and other non-ideological regimes, which essentially said: Let the ruler take care of the state; it’s his personal possession—gender intended. Ordinary people, the Narod in Russian (the masses), were not supposed to have a direct connection to the state, which is the opposite of fascism and other mobilizational ideologies.
When it comes to Trump himself, there’s clearly no coherent ideology. He has shifted positions on all sorts of issues, but people make the mistake of assuming that means he has no center at all. He does—his center is that he alone can fix it. He sees himself as the anointed leader—now even believing that he is divinely chosen—to govern America’s patrimony.
The consistent theme underlying everything he does is that loyalty is the most important currency. If you’re not perfectly loyal, he will punish you. The deep state, those with expertise in impersonal legal norms, are actually “fakers” who need to be destroyed. And the US itself should be treated as the property of the ruling party, the ruling state, and, ultimately, the ruling household—namely, the Trump family.
We even see echoes of imperial-style patrimonialism here. Historically, patrimonial rulers made claims on territories that were supposedly part of their rightful domain. Putin, for example, asserts that Ukraine is inherently part of Russia. Now, with Trump, we start to see similar rhetoric—claims that Greenland, Canada, or even Panama somehow “belong” to the US. This imperialist mindset, tied to a patrimonial vision of governance, is something to watch closely.
Misinformation Thrives When ‘People Are Not Hearing Both Perspectives in Real Time’
Your studies highlight how distrust in government is often fueled by misinformation. How did Trump’s presidency contribute to this, and what long-term effects do you foresee on public trust in US institutions?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: It really is a big part of the problem—no question. Social media, the internet more generally, the decline of local newspapers, and, again, the decline of trust in the so-called legacy media have made it much more difficult to get a coherent message out. Not everybody would have agreed with it, but at least elites in local politics across each state in the US, in each major city, used to have some common points of reference.
Back in the day, it was impossible to make a completely baseless claim and have it be repeated by media outlets all over the United States. That simply couldn’t have happened because not only did you have professional journalists reporting in each locality, but there was also the Fairness Doctrine—before the Reagan administration eliminated it. Under this rule, if you made one claim, you had to allow equal space for the opposing claim.
These sound like quaint notions now, but we actually need to return to them. Restoring the Fairness Doctrine would go a long way. I don’t know exactly how you would enforce it in today’s environment, but imagine if every podcaster or news show that put out an outrageous claim—say, all the election machines are rigged—had to give equal time immediately after for someone to say, ‘Actually, there’s no evidence for that whatsoever, and the people making this claim have been thoroughly debunked.’ Right now, people are not hearing both perspectives in real time. They are only hearing their point of view, and that clearly makes rebuilding trust difficult.
One last comparative point: If you look at the history of failed democracies, it’s not just social media that causes breakdowns. Weimar Germany famously fell into extreme party polarization, leading to a situation where budgets couldn’t be passed, and the political deadlock ultimately created the conditions for autocracy and Nazism. And all of that happened well before social media or the internet.
So, while misinformation and echo chambers exacerbate these crises today, they are not the only ways societies break down. However, once polarization takes hold, and each side of a divided society finds its own media outlets to reinforce its perspective—while completely distrusting all others—then it becomes incredibly difficult to restore public trust in government institutions.
Putin Is the Starting Point for the 21st-Century Wave of Patrimonialism
Nested dolls depicting authoritarian and populist leaders Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan displayed among souvenirs in Moscow on July 7, 2018. Photo: Shutterstock.
You discuss the global assault on modern governance. In what ways did Trump’s administration mirror or influence similar movements in countries like Hungary, Brazil, or the UK under Brexit leadership?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: The question of where it began is part of our book, and we make a claim that people found hard to believe but that we really stand by: it started with Putin.
We argue this partly through chronology. If you look carefully at the evidence before the rise of Putin in 2000 and the decades after, you had populism, of course—as you know better than anyone. There were plenty of populist movements in Europe, and they would rise on the far right or far left. They would sometimes gain parliamentary representation and make coalition-building difficult, but they never formed governments.
They were either systematically excluded from governance by pacts among mainstream parties, or they simply never achieved the electoral success to do so. The one breakthrough before Putin was Berlusconi and Forza Italia, where he briefly became Prime Minister in the 1990s. But his quick loss of power proves the rule—only after 2000, with a very close alliance with Putin, did Berlusconi’s leadership begin to take on more familiar patrimonial features.
So we place a lot of emphasis on Putin’s example. We think this is both emulation and direct support. It’s true that the Putin regime has funded pro-Russian parties worldwide, particularly in Europe. They have also pushed disinformation campaigns that serve the interests of the Russian Federation and its increasingly imperial ambitions.
Take Brexit, for example—the UK Parliamentary Commission concluded that Russia’s role in disinformation mattered in the referendum. Moscow has not been passive in this process. But beyond that, we argue the biggest factor was people simply looking at Putin’s model and realizing: “It never occurred to us before that you could build a 19th-century-style state in the 21st century—but look at what this guy has done.”
People thought Russia was finished. To quote a famous 2001 headline, Russia was seen as a laughingstock. International relations realists ignored it. And yet, Putin managed to reassert Russia as a great power, influencing global events—from Syria to US elections. Those who hated the liberal center, mostly on the right, but also some on the left, began saying: “Whatever’s going on in Russia, we need to figure it out. This guy has proven we no longer have to listen to the experts. We can beat the technocrats. We can restore traditional forms of machismo, religious veneration, and hierarchy.”
This emulation factor was very direct—for Orbán, for Netanyahu, and many others. These are empirical links, not speculation. People were surprised by our argument at first. But now, with recent events—including Trump’s presidency and the invasion of Ukraine—more people are asking us: “Did you really say Russia was the starting point for this?” Yes. That’s exactly what we said.
Patrimonialism Is Gaining Momentum—How Do We Stop It?
Even after his presidency, Trump’s influence may remain strong in shaping Republican politics. Do you see the attack on modern government as a continuing movement, and how might a second Trump term escalate these trends?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: I’m hoping when you say ‘a second Trump term,’ you mean this one—not the one that would come after. There’s already a lot of talk about amending the Constitution in the United States or reinterpreting it in a way that would allow him to serve beyond this term. This is very reminiscent of discussions in Russia in the 2000s, when Putin had to circumvent the official two-term limit in the Russian Constitution—first by installing his Prime Minister and then by changing the Constitution to allow himself to rule indefinitely.
These kinds of discussions matter for your question because, ultimately, these leaders must first be defeated before we can talk about reversing these trends. As long as they remain in power, the patrimonial style of governance will continue to be a dominant force—as everyone in the world can now see.
This is especially problematic when even China under Xi Jinping, while still a Leninist state with Leninist institutions, is increasingly taking on patrimonial features—with Xi posing as the father of the nation and asserting patrimonial rights to territories around China.
When China, the United States, and Russia—and to some extent Turkey, India, and Brazil—all lean in this direction, it becomes extremely challenging for the Macrons, the Scholzes, and the Starmers of the world. The remaining leaders who support modern democratic institutions are now struggling to figure out how to protect what’s left. So, the immediate problem is simply figuring out how to win in an increasingly lopsided world where patrimonialism is gaining momentum.
The longer-term challenge, which we discussed earlier, is about rebuilding a vision for the future—one that defends a modern, liberal state in the US (though, ironically, you can’t even use the word “liberal” anymore without it being dismissed as leftist radicalism or Marxism).
There is an enormous rhetorical and mobilizational challenge ahead—convincing ordinary citizens to resist these trends by making the case that patrimonialism doesn’t serve their public welfare. It doesn’t create a fair society. It fosters corruption, undermines integrity, and ignores public opinion. All of these principles—fairness, accountability, and good governance—depend on the survival of the modern state. Now is the time to spread that message.
The State Itself Is Under Assault—Democracy Comes Next
Demonstrators gather at the US Capitol on President’s Day to protest the actions of President Trump’s administration and billionaire Elon Musk in Washington, D.C., on February 17, 2025. Photo: Rena Schild.
And lastly, Professor Hanson, if modern governance is indeed under siege, what steps can be taken—either by policymakers, scholars, or civil society—to rebuild public trust in democratic institutions and counter the assault on the state?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: We were beginning to speak about this, and it’s the question that we all really have to engage with together.
We end the book by saying that proper diagnosis helps on its own. One of the key steps is simply getting people to understand that it is the state itself that is under assault—and, in the longer term, democracy as well. Because if you don’t have a modern state, you eventually can’t run free and fair elections. You don’t have the impersonal procedures necessary to count votes fairly. Instead, you end up with what you see in Russia—political pressure to produce vote totals that show the leader receiving 90% or 80% of the vote, or some other absurd outcome. And that isn’t democracy. So, we are absolutely not saying that democratic erosion isn’t a problem—it is a serious problem. But it is a longer-term issue. The immediate, short-term problem is the destruction of state capacity—something that is already happening in the US and other places as well.
So, what can we do about it?
Diagnosis – The first step is recognizing that this is a political issue that must be tackled directly.
Reviving Public Service – The second is getting people to care about public service as a legitimate and worthwhile career—which is incredibly difficult these days, as I mentioned earlier, given the material concerns of young people. But, at the same time, I see many students at William & Mary every day who genuinely want to do good in the world—who want their lives to be dedicated to service.
And the truth is, there are many people like that around the world—especially in modern democracies—who would agree that if we don’t have the institutional capacity to deal with climate change, the next pandemic, immigration, or any number of existential global threats, then we simply won’t be able to solve them. As a species, we will not succeed.
So, I think another crucial step is getting the rhetoric right. Instead of constantly accusing patrimonial leaders and their supporters of being anti-democratic, which only alienates their voters, we should frame the argument differently. If you tell Trump voters, “Trump is an anti-democrat, and you’re an idiot for supporting him,” they will naturally reject that. They will see it as just another elitist telling them what to think—which only fuels the cycle of resentment. But if you frame the issue as “What’s happening is the destruction of the state’s ability to do good in the world,” you can actually win people over.
In an interview with the ECPS, Professor Thiemo Fetzer argues that populist grievances are largely shaped by perception rather than lived experience. “Populism is a phenomenon of information overload,” Fetzer explains. “Many grievances amplified by populists are not grounded in demographic or economic realities but are shaped by narratives, particularly those spread through modern media.” Discussing global trade, economic inequality, and the rise of far-right movements, he warns that misinformation fuels discontent, making societies more vulnerable to populist rhetoric. From the future of the liberal order to the geopolitics of energy, Fetzer offers a data-driven perspective on the forces reshaping today’s world.
In an interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Thiemo Fetzer, an economist at the University of Warwick and the University of Bonn, argues that populist grievances are largely rooted in perception rather than actual lived experiences. However, as he warns, populists are particularly adept at exploiting these narratives for political gain.
“Populism is a phenomenon of information overload,” Professor Fetzer explains. “Many grievances that populists amplify are not based on actual demographic or economic realities but are shaped by narratives, particularly those spread through modern media.” He highlights how, in many cases, communities most resistant to immigration often have little to no firsthand experience with immigrants—a paradox that underscores the role of perception over reality.
Professor Fetzer’s research delves into the economic, political, and social forces driving contemporary populism. In this interview, he explores the dynamics of global trade, industrial policy, economic inequality, and geopolitical shifts, particularly in the wake of a second Trump presidency.
Discussing global trade realignments, he explains that while China has aggressively localized production and built dominance over key supply chains, the US has primarily specialized in financialization, service-sector trade, and digital technology. This has led to geopolitical tensions, as China’s strategic control over minerals and industrial supply chains threatens US economic leadership.
Regarding the rise of far-right movements like the AfD in Germany, Professor Fetzer stresses that economic grievances alone do not fully explain their appeal. Instead, he argues, populist movements often thrive on a combination of perceived cultural shifts, economic anxieties, and declining trust in institutions.
He also critiques the role of digital media in fueling discontent, stating that “the collapse of traditional media landscapes has created an environment where misinformation and sensationalized narratives shape public perception more than facts.”
Finally, addressing the decline of the liberal world order, he challenges the idea that neo-mercantilism and protectionism signal its end. Instead, he suggests that a shift toward industrial policy—particularly in the energy sector—has long been in motion.
With economic nationalism, trade wars, and geopolitical realignments defining today’s global landscape, Professor Fetzer provides a data-driven perspective on the forces shaping modern populism.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Thiemo Fetzer with some edits.
Global Trade and the US-China Rivalry
A metaphorical image depicting the US-China trade war, economic tensions and tariff disputes on imports and exports. Photo: Shutterstock.
Thank you very much, Professor Fetzer, for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: How would a second Trump presidency reshape global trade dynamics? Given his previous and current tariff policies and confrontational trade stance, which sectors and economies are most vulnerable to renewed trade wars?
Professor Thiemo Fetzer: That is an incredibly complex and intriguing question. One important aspect to consider is the evolution of the international division of labor over the past 10–15 years, which provides context for the US trade policy maneuvers. Of course, this is my interpretation of the data and evidence, and I acknowledge that it may not be entirely accurate.
Over the last 20, or even 30 years, a global division of labor has emerged. The US has largely specialized in financialization, focusing on service sector trade, particularly through its digital tech companies, as well as its expertise in knowledge production and innovation. Meanwhile, China has aggressively localized production and strategically established dominance over key supply chains, particularly in industries that are crucial for global priorities such as climate action.
China is undoubtedly a leading player in decarbonization technologies, including renewable energy, photovoltaics, wind power, and electric vehicles. While the US has specialized in service sector trade, China has strategically developed control over value chains in industries that are not only considered the future of global economies but also essential for addressing climate challenges.
This context is key to understanding the confrontational dynamics and geopolitical rivalry between the US and China. While Europe is also engaged in this contest, it has not deindustrialized to the same extent as the US and has pursued a different specialization path.
A crucial element of this geopolitical contest is control over strategic minerals and supply chains. China holds significant leverage due to its dominance in mineral processing and access to raw materials. In response, the US is now aggressively shifting toward industrial policy, making efforts to secure access to critical minerals and supply chains through a mix of policy initiatives and strategic trade measures.
This is happening alongside increasing disputes over trade governance. Countries that specialize in service sector trade—particularly in knowledge production and innovation—rely heavily on intellectual property protections. However, a key point of contention between the US and China is that not all countries adhere to the same intellectual property governance standards. This discrepancy plays a major role in the US’s more aggressive stance in trade policy.
From a strategic perspective, the US has been outmaneuvered in certain areas by other geopolitical players—one of the most prominent examples being critical minerals. Both the US and Europe have been making efforts to develop alternative supply chains for rare earth elements and other crucial materials needed for technologies such as semiconductors and renewable energy infrastructure.
However, China has weaponized its control over these resources, particularly through its dominance in mineral processing and reserves. One interpretation is that China has deliberately disrupted competitors’ efforts to establish alternative supply chains by strategically releasing mineral reserves to drive down prices, thereby making it economically unviable for private enterprises in market-based economies to compete.
This dynamic mirrors what we observed in the early 2010s, when US shale oil and gas production disrupted global energy markets. Historically, energy-exporting countries—such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE—played a dominant role in setting crude oil prices through export relationships with the US. However, the rise of US shale production significantly weakened their influence by creating a new source of swing production capability.
There is a clear parallel here, highlighting the broader clash between economic and social systems. The primary challenge for the US and Western players is the short-term policymaking horizon within democratic systems, where leaders operate within fixed electoral cycles. In contrast, non-democratic regimes—as we define them within representative democracy frameworks—can pursue long-term strategic planning without the same political constraints.
These tensions are now coming to the forefront, and the US is responding aggressively, using trade policy as a key instrument to counterbalance these structural disadvantages.
The Rise of Protectionism and Economic Realignment
3D illustration: Lightspring.
What are the long-term risks of Trump’s trade policies for global economic stability? With the US not only decoupling from China but also distancing itself from the EU and shifting alliances, how might geopolitical fragmentation and economic realignment unfold?
Professor Thiemo Fetzer: Again, there are ways of trying to think about the future path. And I mean, on average, I would like to think that the US’s specialization in service sector trade, which is actually something that the UK, in particular the Brexiteers, strongly advocated, has made both the UK and the US quite vulnerable.
Service sector trade, particularly in the digital economy, digital goods, and so on, has a relatively high degree of localization potential. At the end of the day, many of the digital services we consume are controlled by global tech platforms like Google, Microsoft, and others. However, we have seen, for example, in Latin America, where language was a barrier, strong and competitive local players emerging and capturing parts of these value chains, preventing them from falling entirely under the control of major US brands. A key example is Mercado Libre in Latin America. Similarly, in China, a big tech ecosystem developed independently because the market never fully opened to major US tech players.
This has been a longstanding political tension, particularly between the EU and the US, well before the first Trump administration. Big tech companies generate enormous revenues from highly scalable products, where a single innovation can reach an infinitely large market. However, global governance frameworks around service sector trade have struggled to adapt to this reality, as tax and regulatory systems were originally designed with goods trade in mind.
This has created a wedge issue in Europe, where big tech firms access large markets but transfer profits to offshore tax havens, leading to disputes over digital taxation. Under Trump’s first presidency, both the UK and France attempted to impose digital service taxes, which challenged the US advantage in service sector trade. Currently, the US exports services, knowledge, and innovation while protecting them through intellectual property agreements and benefiting from transfer pricing mechanisms. Meanwhile, the US also absorbs excess global production, leading to imbalances in both goods and services trade.
Trump challenged this structure in 2016, particularly through aggressive tax cuts. As European countries sought to impose digital service taxes, the US responded with tax incentives that enabled American tech firms to repatriate profits from offshore havens. This disrupted the traditional global division of labor, where Europe and China produced goods while the US dominated services. While US tech firms never gained the same market access in China that they had in Europe, these shifts threatened the existing equilibrium.
With a second Trump presidency, I expect a continuation of Trump-era policies, with service sector trade pitted against goods trade. On average, the US economy could become more balanced by leaning into industrial policy and shifting slightly away from services, which has become somewhat excessive. However, the US may struggle to accept that this rebalancing could also prompt other countries to localize their own tech sectors, leading to the regionalization of digital trade.
We have already seen this trend in Latin America and China, where local tech champions have emerged. This could further encourage tech companies with more geographic focus or even explicit localization mandates, potentially driven by differing regulatory frameworks on private data governance. The regulatory landscape itself could create further friction in global trade.
In addition, the tense security situation in Europe, with Russia’s aggressive actions, could accelerate these trends, particularly if the US is no longer seen as a reliable partner but rather as a potential adversary in certain domains.
Three years ago, I warned that a second Trump presidency could end the NATO alliance, a scenario that would pose serious challenges for Europe given its dependence on the US for security. This shift could also disrupt the international division of labor, as Europe has historically granted US big tech firms market access while simultaneously struggling with taxation issues related to these firms’ profits being transferred offshore.
If this equilibrium is disrupted, I expect significant policy shifts in Europe. However, Europe may struggle with its own contradictions, as it lacks a unified tech ecosystem that could compete with US or Chinese tech giants. Unlike the US, where service sector trade is deeply integrated across states, Europe remains a collection of nations with high trade barriers in services.
This contradiction has been highlighted by figures like Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, as well as in Brexiteer arguments, which claimed that service sector trade is the future and that Europe struggles with integration in this area. This situation is inherently risky, but at some level, perhaps necessary, if global trade is no longer governed by common standards.
Since 2016, we have seen a clear deterioration in global trade governance, accompanied by escalating trade conflicts. The situation today is highly dangerous and challenging.
All of this unfolds amid climate crises, rapid population movements, the weaponization of illicit migration, and demographic challenges. We are navigating an exceptionally fraught and difficult global landscape.
Populism, Economic Discontent, and the Role of Media
A protester holds a banner demanding economic justice. Photo: Shutterstock.
Your research highlights economic discontent as a driver of populism. How might Trump’s policies—such as protectionism or tax reforms—exacerbate or mitigate this trend globally?
Professor Thiemo Fetzer: When we look at discontent, oftentimes it can be attributed not necessarily to people being materially worse off. I mean, if we zoom out, we are actually in a situation where the world has never been richer than before. People are well-off, and we no longer experience the type of abject poverty that existed in the past. Even in Europe, despite the rise of populism, we have seen a gradual but consistent rise in living standards.
The big challenge with populism is that it is very successful in channeling narratives around discontent. This connects to my past research on austerity in the UK, where we saw the withdrawal of the state from many public functions. There was a wave of technological optimism, similar to what we see now with AI, suggesting that automation could make public services more efficient and reduce the financial burden on the economy.
However, all of this happened amid structural changes in consumption patterns due to the rise of the Internet, which accelerated economic transformation. Many people perceived these changes as a decline in their lived environment and a disruption of the status quo.
Across people’s life cycles, older individuals tend to feel more insecure with rapid change. In the UK, for instance, two key pro-populist voting blocs—particularly strong supporters of Brexit—were older people and those expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo. Populism often unites an unlikely coalition of voters, including those who oppose any type of change.
For example, when the high street declines visibly, when shops disappear, or when routine habits are disrupted, older individuals may struggle to adapt to these changes. We lack strong lifelong learning institutions to help older people adjust to a rapidly evolving world. In this context, simplistic populist messages that blame outsiders—such as immigrants, foreign competitors, or geopolitical rivals like China—become an easy and appealing narrative.
However, we know from hard data that in the communities where populism thrives, there are often no significant immigrant populations. This highlights a disconnect between actual demographic data and perceptions, showing that populist narratives shape public opinion more than lived experiences.
A major missing link in this discussion is the role of the media. I studied this in the context of what I call the media multiplier—a phenomenon that has intensified with the rise of social media and the decline of traditional media. Many older populations, who may not be digitally literate, struggle to differentiate between reliable information and disinformation.
This changing media landscape has been weaponized by geopolitical adversaries to influence public sentiment. As a result, populist grievances are more rooted in perception than in actual lived experiences, yet populists excel at exploiting these narratives.
Looking back at austerity, we can see its role in hollowing out state functions. In the UK, for instance, we saw cuts to youth programs, a visible decline in police presence, and reductions in public services. While these changes may have been made rationally, their perceived impact was significant.
Even if crime rates did not rise dramatically, people felt less safe because they were told they were less safe. Isolated violent incidents—such as terror attacks—further reinforce perceptions of chaos and loss of control, which populists exploit to advocate for border closures and nationalistic policies.
If this trend escalates, we are not far from restricting the flow of information, similar to what we see with China’s Great Firewall. This would directly contradict the foundational principles of Western liberal democracy.
It is crucial to recognize that accelerated structural change has visible and tangible consequences, particularly in societies unaccustomed to rapid transformation. In many developing countries, social and economic shifts happen much faster than in Europe.
Our political and governance institutions, however, have not adapted to this new pace of change. While some nations have moved from extreme poverty to relative wealth in a single generation, Western institutions have struggled to keep up with global transformations. This creates a major point of friction that populists exploit.
We have people who resist any type of change because it happens so quickly that they struggle to process it. At the same time, our political systems—particularly democratic ones—face the constant challenge of power struggles and the difficulty of explaining complex relationships to the average person. As a result, these complexities are often oversimplified into digestible narratives. This is precisely where populists excel—by reducing intricate issues into simplistic, emotionally charged messages. This, I believe, is one of the major challenges we face today. In many ways, populism is a phenomenon driven by information overload—a reaction to the overwhelming complexity of the modern world.
The AfD’s Success and the Geopolitical Fragmentation of Europe
Co-chairpersons of the populist right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla at a meeting in Berlin, Germany on July 4, 2023. Photo: Shutterstock.
How much role did economic grievances play in the strong showing of AfD in German elections last Sunday?
Professor Thiemo Fetzer: The country has been in recession for the last two or three years. However, if we consider the scale of the economic challenge and the shock caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the country has actually performed quite well in the grand scheme of things. It has cushioned these shocks reasonably well, though in a manner that might be irritating to global partners. This is why I suggest that Putin has weaponized a potential hypocrisy—because with the invasion, Europe, while championing global climate action and striving to build coalitions for sustainability, simultaneously expanded energy subsidies for hydrocarbons to help households and businesses absorb the shock.
Setting that aside, both the country and the continent have managed remarkably well in handling this multi-dimensional crisis. From a comparative advantage perspective, there has been a loss of access to cheap energy, which poses a major challenge for the industrial sector. On the other hand, the security shock and the broader disruption of the international security order have further complicated the situation.
To me, it was entirely predictable that a second Trump presidency could begin to question the foundational pillars of Europe’s security and the international division of labor. That’s why I highlighted this more than three years ago. However, in light of and despite that shock, Europe has, on average, managed quite well. That said, the AfD has been highly effective in channeling this narrative, questioning why Europe should position itself as a global leader in climate action and why the EU should advocate for a rules-based free trade system governed by law rather than force. In the broader context, Europe has performed well, and individual member states have managed to navigate these challenges effectively.
The major contradiction and risk at this moment is that individual European countries are being systematically picked apart, one by one, by geopolitical adversaries. It even appears that, in some ways, the US may be playing a role in this dynamic.
However, given the broader context, I remain cautiously optimistic, as this is truly a make-or-break moment for Germany within Europe and for Europe as a whole. To me, it has never made sense—though these numbers are hypothetical, they are probably not far from reality—for Portugal to maintain an independent air force with just four F-35s and a handful of tanks, when in reality, landing troops on the coast would already be a major challenge.
Now, there is a unique opportunity arising from the geopolitical pressure Europe is facing, both from the war in Ukraine and the uncertainty surrounding its security partnerships. This pressure could serve as a catalyst for Europe to build a common, integrated defense capability, something that has been attempted in the past but never fully realized. In this sense, we could be witnessing the emergence of a stronger European statehood.
Since this is happening within a highly challenging security landscape, it will inevitably drive shifts in industrial policy, sovereignty debates, and strategic planning. Europe must not only develop its defense capabilities with international partners beyond the EU, but also focus on building efficient and sustainable supply chains within Europe itself to ensure long-term resilience.
I am beginning to see emerging partnerships in this context, particularly in the Middle East, which holds strategic significance for Europe. The recent Suez Canal blockade, even though accidental, underscored the region’s critical role. Additionally, Turkey could become a key partner in this evolving dynamic. I also believe this shift could potentially bring the UK closer to Europe again, as it has a vested interest in participating in the expanding European defense cooperation. However, the US appears to be actively trying to pull the UK away from deeper European integration in this regard.
This, to me, defines the broader geopolitical context in which the AfD has been able to thrive. The party has successfully tapped into simplistic narratives that resonate with public sentiment, yet the solutions it proposes are entirely incompatible with the actual challenges that Europe faces. And for that, it’s really important.
Again, populist parties tend to make a country seem bigger than it is. The UK experienced this with populism, attempting to reinvigorate the idea of the old empire. However, when the UK then tries to reestablish ties with its former empire—whether with India or Pakistan—these are now emerging powers and significant players in the global division of labor. The Indians respond, “Well, UK, okay, that’s interesting, but you’re a tiny, tiny country in the grand scheme of things.” This reality applies to each individual EU member state. That is why it is crucial for the broader public to reflect on this: if Germany wants to chart a path that is optimal and beneficial for itself within Europe and the world, it is entirely dependent on working in conjunction and in very close partnership with others.
But again, this is a make-or-break moment, a make-or-break situation. Geopolitical adversaries—whether China, Russia, the UK, or even the US—all have an interest in a divided Europe, and to some extent, we are already seeing this play out. This is where Europe must step up and build a form of sovereignty. To me, this begins with establishing a European fiscal capacity, which is a necessary condition to ensure that many of the founding pillars of the European Union, originally intended to drive European integration, are no longer exploited as tools by adversaries. Key areas that require urgent reform include privacy regulation, the incompleteness of tax frameworks, the lack of integration in national tax systems, and information sharing—all of which must be addressed.
I do think that figures like Enrico Letta and the Draghi report have made it clear that the solutions are obvious. The real question now is whether a pan-European movement or a pan-European critical mass can be built to actually implement these solutions. However, this remains extremely challenging and difficult because economic interest groups within each individual nation-state benefit from maintaining exclusive contracting relationships within their own national jurisdictions. This has been the biggest obstacle to service sector integration and, ultimately, could become the very mechanism of its own downfall. If this continues, it could lead to countries becoming increasingly inward-looking, which in turn could result in the unraveling of the European project itself.
Cultural Backlash vs. Economic Factors in Populism
For right-wing populists in the Western world, “the others” primarily include immigrants but also extend to “welfare scroungers,” regional minorities, individuals with “non-traditional” lifestyles, communists, and others. Photo: Shutterstock.
Many scholars argue that cultural backlash, rather than economic factors, drives populism. How does your research challenge or complement this perspective?
Professor Thiemo Fetzer: Culture is a tricky thing. If we look at the data, the immigration topic is a salient and important one to consider here. Societies in Europe—the whole idea of European freedom of movement—is built on creating an integrated European labor market, fostering the emergence of a European identity and a European culture. This is particularly relevant for smaller countries because, geopolitically and globally, they are relatively insignificant in terms of projecting force or influence. It is much more difficult for them to do so, which makes this context particularly important.
To me, the cultural dimension is a very vague concept—it often serves as a catch-all excuse when the underlying economic or societal mechanisms cannot be precisely identified. Earlier, I alluded to this challenge in the context of immigration. The biggest backlash to immigration comes from communities that have no actual experience with immigration. This highlights how perceptions of different social groups—such as immigrants—are often entirely detached from real lived experience. That, to me, is the big challenge. If one wants to call that culture, so be it.
But consider the food system. One of the biggest successes in terms of food is what is commonly known as the Turkish kebab. My sister lives in a small town in the Swabian Alps in southern Germany, and one of the most successful businesses in her town is the local kebab shop. However, the type of kebab you find in Germany does not actually exist in Turkey. It is a product of cultural integration, a fusion that emerged through the blending of different influences.
This illustrates why perceptions, lived experiences, and the extent to which they are grounded in hard evidence are the most critical battlegrounds of all. I believe that media systems, which facilitate the spread of narratives and stories about “the other” or the unknown, play a crucial role here. This is where we, as societies, must take responsibility for investing in the absorptive capacity of our communities—engaging with different cultures, reaching out, and ensuring that the shaping of stereotypes is not left solely in the hands of those who control media reach and influence.
This is one of the major dividing lines emerging between the US under Trump and Europe, particularly in discussions about how to regulate social media and make it function more effectively. Of course, this is a highly complex and controversial topic.
To put it simply, what we often call culture is largely built on stereotypes, rather than lived experience. The vast majority of individuals who advocate for re-migration or the separation of communities do so based on narratives rather than firsthand interactions. This is a key battleground, but it requires investment in a society’s absorptive capacity and clear mandates for those who migrate—to share and participate in the evolving way of life. Culture is not static; it evolves over time and requires investment from both the receiving and the sending sides.
Germany, in particular, has made significant historical mistakes in this context. Turkish guest workers were regarded merely as temporary guests, with the expectation that they would eventually return home. Similarly, in the early 1990s, many Bosnian refugees arrived, yet little effort was made to facilitate their integration. The same applied to ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union—despite having been entirely socialized in Russia or the Soviet Union, they were presumed to require no language or cultural integration, solely because they possessed German lineage or passports. This was a fundamental fallacy. In more recent years, Germany has invested significantly in improving integration and absorptive capacity, but this primarily benefits medium and large cities, while rural areas remain largely untouched by these efforts.
The same mechanisms that apply to immigration also apply to economic migration trends—entrepreneurial, risk-taking individuals are typically the ones who migrate, while those who prefer stability and familiarity tend to remain in their communities. For individuals in rural areas with limited direct exposure to migrants, the lack of firsthand contact can reinforce perceptions shaped entirely by media narratives rather than real-life experiences.
This is the generational challenge facing every European country. That is why, to me, the term culture is not particularly helpful in these discussions. It often serves as a placeholder for a lack of understanding, when, in reality, there are concrete ways to foster economic integration and investment in assimilation.
Big cities provide excellent examples of how successful integration can work. The real challenge is how to extend these benefits to smaller communities. One potential solution is remote work, which allows individuals to experience the advantages of cultural and economic agglomeration—typically found in diverse urban environments—without the need for physical relocation.
Ultimately, this could help shape a shared future. After all, what we consider German culture today did not exist 200 years ago. Germany was a collection of hundreds of small states and communities, yet over time, a German identity emerged. The same process is now unfolding at the European level, and some even argue that this mechanism should extend to a global level, fostering shared prosperity and understanding in an increasingly interconnected world.
And lastly, Professor Fetzer, the liberal world order, founded on interdependence after the collapse of communism, was once seen as the inevitable future, with Francis Fukuyama declaring the “end of history” and the triumph of liberalism. With the resurgence of neo-mercantilist and protectionist policies, can we now say that history is reasserting itself and that the liberal order has become a relic of the past?
Professor Thiemo Fetzer: What’s implicit in this question is a consideration of the role of the state. Mercantilism, in one interpretation, is based on the idea that the state has a mandate to shape economic development in one way or another. In contrast, the extreme form of liberalism—libertarianism—argues that the state should not exist at all, with everything being guided solely by market forces.
A lot of the tensions we see today, at least from my perspective, revolve around charting a more sustainable future for the planet. We are now realizing that our way of life, particularly in the Global North, imposes negative externalities on communities elsewhere—through global warming, environmental degradation, and the resulting instability. Climate change is already inducing population movements, particularly in Africa, where nomadic communities are struggling to find water for their herds. As they are forced into cities, this disrupts existing societal equilibria, often leading to conflict and instability. Unfortunately, these changes are happening very fast, making adaptation even more difficult.
If we accept this premise, then we must reconfigure how our economies function. This requires a role for the state or supranational institutions to shape incentives and engineer a systemic transition toward a more sustainable equilibrium. Achieving this demands the deployment of a broad economic policy toolkit, often referred to as industrial policy.
Energy Transitions and the Battle Over Industrial Policy
Aerial drone view of a hybrid solar and wind farm in Bannister, NSW, Australia, featuring large wind turbines in the background generating renewable clean energy on a sunny day. Photo: Steve Tritton.
Germany actually pioneered aspects of this transition in the early 2000s, introducing high subsidies for solar and wind energy production. Crucially, these subsidies were designed in a non-discriminatory way, making them compatible with global rules-based trade under WTO regulations. As a result, German subsidies played a key role in creating today’s renewable energy giants in China.
At some level, I find it difficult to view this as a negative development, because it offers a realistic pathway for systemic transition. It presents the possibility of maintaining, or even improving, high living standards, while socializing the benefits of natural resources—such as renewable energy. In the long run, the cost of energy could converge toward the cost of capital, since solar panels and wind farms require minimal ongoing expenses once installed. The world has vast amounts of barren land that could be used for energy production, allowing us to harvest the abundance of the planet. But achieving this required a shift in policy, which, unsurprisingly, faced resistance from economic interest groups.
Traditionally, many would blame oil-rich countries in the Middle East—such as Saudi Arabia or the UAE—for opposing energy transitions. However, in reality, some of the strongest resistance came from hydrocarbon producers with much higher production costs, particularly in the US and other regions.
In the Middle East, the cost of producing a barrel of crude oil is around $10, allowing these countries to continue profiting massively even as global energy markets shift. However, in the US shale industry, production is far more expensive and comes with major externalities, such as methane leakage, which are not properly priced into the system.
For these higher-cost producers, the energy transition poses a major financial threat. The biggest opponents of the transition—originally driven by forward-looking industrial policies in Europe (particularly Germany) and later seized upon by China—were actually mid-tier hydrocarbon producers in Africa, Latin America, and especially the US, where high capital costs create risks of stranded assets.
In contrast, producers in the Middle East are likely to be the last oil suppliers standing, as their low production costs allow them to outcompete higher-cost producers. To me, this transition in the energy system was strategically initiated through industrial policy. However, it was repeatedly disrupted, largely by hydrocarbon interests from mid-cost producers—most notably, those in the US.
This is not an unreasonable conclusion, given the structural nature of the US energy sector. In most countries, oil extraction is a public revenue source or controlled by a state monopoly. However, in the US, landowners hold subsurface mineral rights, a unique legal framework that allows private individuals to profit from oil production. As a result, many small landholders have deeply invested in non-renewable energy and have a strong financial interest in maintaining the status quo. This explains why hydrocarbon interests wield such strong political influence in the US. Meanwhile, oil-rich nations in the Middle East are likely content to let American hydrocarbon interests do the lobbying for them, ensuring continued hydrocarbon production and market stability.
The Future of the Liberal World Order
Stepping back to the broader question—is this the end of history? If we compare liberal economic orders to industrial policy-driven models, we must recognize that hydrocarbon-based industrial policy has always existed. It has simply functioned through market-based mechanisms, where economic interests buy political influence within democratic systems. For this reason, I find it difficult to frame the debate as a binary choice between liberal and non-liberal orders. The key issue is how to engineer a global energy transition in a way that is mutually beneficial, rather than disruptive. This requires strategic global institutional design to create a coalition for action. The goal should be to phase out hydrocarbons in a controlled manner, avoiding economic collapse while simultaneously scaling up renewable alternatives.
To me, industrial policy has always been present in one form or another. The real question is whether this policy should be led by individual nation-states, by regional blocs with shared objectives, or by a truly global framework. What worries me most today is that some key global players are turning their backs on multilateral cooperation, largely because their democratic systems have been captured by powerful special interest groups—particularly hydrocarbon lobbies. This is not merely a debate about liberal versus non-liberal governance. Rather, it underscores the critical need for public intervention to counterbalance vested interests and ensure that policy decisions serve the long-term global good.
In an interview with the ECPS, Professor Dan Hough warns that mainstream parties must engage with voters’ real concerns or risk further legitimizing the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). “Ignoring the AfD hasn’t worked, and simply adopting their rhetoric hasn’t either,” Professor Hough explains. Instead, he urges democratic parties to develop credible policies that address the economic and social anxieties fueling AfD support. He highlights how discontent—particularly in Eastern Germany—extends beyond migration, with deeper dissatisfaction driving voters toward populist alternatives. As the AfD continues to shape public debate, Professor Hough argues that mainstream parties must lead with solutions rather than reactionary responses. “The discourse must be smart, and the outcomes must be meaningful.”
In an in-depth interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Dan Hough, a leading expert on corruption and populist politics from the University of Sussex, offers critical insights into the Alternative for Germany (AfD)’s electoral gains and the broader implications for German democracy. As the AfD nearly doubled its vote share in Sunday elections compared to the 2021 elections, mainstream parties now face urgent questions about how to respond to the party’s growing appeal. Professor Hough warns that ignoring the AfD has not weakened it—nor has engagement through policy imitation. Instead, he argues that mainstream parties must confront the real grievances driving voter discontent. “The challenge is to find a language that acknowledges the problems the AfD highlights while offering solutions,” he says. “If they fail to do so, the AfD will continue to benefit, pointing to government inadequacies in dealing with these issues on its own terms.”
While the AfD has thrived on anti-elite and anti-immigration rhetoric, Professor Hough emphasizes that its rise is rooted in broader dissatisfaction with Germany’s political establishment. He points to Eastern Germany, where frustration over decades of economic disparity, social change, and political disillusionment has fueled the party’s success. “Migration is an important issue, but the deeper wells of dissatisfaction run much deeper,” Professor Hough explains. He highlights how, in many cases, AfD voters are not driven purely by far-right ideology but rather by a sense of being ignored by the political mainstream. This is why simply branding AfD supporters as anti-democratic is counterproductive—it alienates them further and pushes them deeper into the party’s ranks.
Professor Hough warns that if mainstream parties continue to avoid these tough discussions—or adopt reactionary rhetoric to compete with the far-right—they risk further legitimizing the AfD. Drawing comparisons to Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ), he notes how engaging with populist forces without a clear alternative vision can backfire, as seen in Austria, where the FPÖ has outperformed the AfD. “Ignoring the AfD has not worked. Engaging with them, as Austria has done with the FPÖ, has also not worked. So what do we do?” he asks. Instead of reactive politics, he argues, mainstream parties must lead the debate and provide credible policy responses that resonate with voters before the AfD defines the terms of the discourse.
As the interview unfolds, Hough delves into the role of corruption narratives in populist movements, the paradox of “anti-corruption populism,” and the risks of democratic backsliding if far-right parties continue to reshape public debate. Ultimately, he underscores that Germany’s best defense against the AfD is not exclusion, but better governance and tangible solutions to the concerns that fuel its rise.
Professor Hough stresses that mainstream parties must acknowledge the grievances the AfD exploits while providing meaningful solutions. “The discourse has to be smart, and the policy outcomes have to be meaningful. If that happens, the AfD’s rise does not have to be unstoppable.” His analysis offers a crucial perspective on the evolving landscape of German and European politics.
Professor Dan Hough, a leading expert on corruption and populist politics from the University of Sussex.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Dan Hough with some edits.
Ignoring the AfD Has Failed—Mainstream Parties Must Find a New Strategy
Professor Hough, thank you so much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: How do you assess the far-right AfD’s performance in the German elections, where the party nearly doubled its vote share compared to the 2021 elections? What factors do you think contributed most to this surge?
Professor Dan Hough: I thought their performance was expected. I was predicting around 20%, and that’s what they got. So, in the end, the result was not a surprise. We’ve known for a few years that the AfD was going to do well, and they did. The only question was around the details—would they get more or less than 20% and how would they choose to frame that outcome?
In truth, the more pressing issue for German politics was the performance of the smaller parties because whether they entered Parliament was going to have a much larger impact on the government. And, of course, the German government, like many others around the world, faces significant challenges. So, ensuring that Germany has a functioning government moving forward was crucial, and the AfD has no real role to play in that. For me, the focus was actually not so much on the AfD but rather on the smaller parties and the 5% hurdle.
Do you believe the endorsements of the AfD by Elon Musk and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance had any measurable impact on the election results? Or were their influences more symbolic than substantive?
Professor Dan Hough: I’m not sure about their influence—we don’t know. We haven’t yet analyzed the data in great detail, but the AfD’s performance was exactly as expected, even before Donald Trump won the election and before Elon Musk took on whatever role he now officially believes he holds in American politics. So, there’s no real evidence that they had any impact. Their endorsements were certainly noted and welcomed by the hardcore AfD supporters, but in terms of influencing the overall results, I would need to see evidence demonstrating that they had any effect at all.
You have argued that immigration and refugee policy has become a key battleground for European center-right parties as they compete with center-left and liberal parties. Given that immigration is also a central theme for far-right parties, to what extent do center-right parties risk legitimizing the far right by adopting similar rhetoric and policy positions?
Professor Dan Hough: The challenge that mainstream democratic parties face is that there is no easy answer to questions about who should be allowed to enter a country, under what circumstances, and how they should be treated. I mean, a country like Germany, which has land borders with nine other states and has taken in a couple of million refugees over the last 10 years, will always face challenges in integrating and processing newcomers.
So, there isn’t a single “right” answer for the CDU to come up with here. Whatever they do, there will be a significant number of people who are unhappy with it—whether those on the left advocating for a more liberal stance or those on the right pushing for a more restrictive one.
What we do know is that ignoring the AfD has not worked at all. The AfD has risen to 20%. However, engaging with the AfD—if we look at Austria, where the Freedom Party (FPÖ) has been heavily engaged by the center-right over the past 20 years—has also not worked. The FPÖ receives even more votes than the AfD does. So, what do we do? If you engage with the AfD, they seem to grow stronger. If you ignore them, they also seem to grow stronger. Somewhere in between, there has to be another option or set of options.
Friedrich Merz is treading a path where he refuses to talk to the AfD but seeks to engage with potential AfD voters. Now, if I were a political strategist, I’m not sure I would necessarily recommend that approach, but I understand why he is trying to take the sting out of the migration issue. We know that when Germans worry less about migration, they are less likely to vote for the AfD. So, this issue requires a policy response that makes sense and is perceived as effective by the public because it is a highly salient issue today.
That’s the challenge—coming up with answers that actually help manage the issue in practice. The other thing about the AfD is that while migration is a key driver of their support, a lot of it also stems from dissatisfaction, particularly in Eastern Germany. This dissatisfaction is linked to the multiple crises that people there have endured over the last 30 years since the collapse of the GDR. So, while migration is a major issue, the deeper wells of dissatisfaction run even deeper, extending beyond just the debate over who should come to Germany and under what circumstances.
Populist Anti-Corruption: A Weaponized Narrative Rather Than a Solution
European Parliamentary election posters of the FPÖ in Vienna, Austria, on May 15, 2024. Photo: Shutterstock.
The AfD has positioned itself as an anti-elite, anti-corruption party while being embroiled in its own corruption controversies. How does this contradiction affect voter perceptions? How do you explain the relationship between corruption and the rise of far-right movements? What do the German case and the German elections on Sunday tell us about this relationship?
Professor Dan Hough: You’re assuming that people are logical and rational and that if something happens, they will respond in a logical manner. There are plenty of lessons from Austria, a country that is arguably a couple of decades ahead of Germany in dealing with a populist party. We know that some of the scandals the FPÖ has been involved in are truly ridiculous. The Ibiza scandal, for instance, is one that people might want to look into—a truly crazy scandal. But it didn’t really affect the FPÖ in Austria at all, because the main drivers of FPÖ support are general dissatisfaction.
The dissatisfaction of people stems from a government they see as unimpressive and policies they believe are not working. The AfD functions as a vessel for their unhappiness. As long as that dissatisfaction exists, the AfD will be able to get away with much more than people in polite society might imagine. It’s not too different from Donald Trump. Trump says some truly remarkable—let’s put it that way—things. But at this point, it’s factored in. People have gotten used to it, and he can say increasingly outrageous things without changing the opinions of those who either support or loathe him.
The AfD finds itself in a similar position. It’s already factored in that things will not always be logical with them, but they still represent, for enough people, a means to send a strong message to the mainstream elites.
You have written extensively on the role of citizens in anti-corruption efforts. How does corruption—whether real or perceived—fuel support for populist movements, particularly in Europe? How do populist parties, like the AfD, exploit corruption grievances to mobilize support?
Professor Dan Hough: Yeah, and there’s a lot to be said there. Populist parties, of course, like having a dichotomy. They like talking about the elites—how the elites look after themselves but not the people. They thrive on this divide and have a real disdain for the complexities of politics, such as compromise, bargains, and deals. They are not interested in that. For them, there are the good guys—the people—and the bad guys—the elites.
Now, this framework fits very easily onto the issue of corruption: elites look after themselves, they corrupt the political process, and the people are the ones who suffer. So, it’s no surprise that the far right frequently talks about corrupt practices. However, when it comes to actual anti-corruption policies, their stance is much harder to pin down. What they generally end up saying is, “Give us power, and we’ll sort it out,” which, of course, is not really an anti-corruption policy at all.
Many of the things the AfD discusses regarding corruption are not particularly detailed. In fact, they don’t use the word “corruption” as frequently as one might expect. Instead, they heavily rely on the German words for dissatisfaction and disdain. For those who speak German, that is one of their key themes. They argue that the elites have no respect for ordinary people. In this way, they tap into a corruption discourse without being particularly explicit about what they would actually do to fix it—other than saying, “Vote for us, and we will take care of it.”
Citizen-Led Anti-Corruption: A Complex Reality vs. Populist Simplifications
In your work, you discuss the limitations of citizen-led anti-corruption efforts. How do populist parties frame corruption differently compared to traditional anti-corruption movements? How effective are citizen-centered approaches to anti-corruption in countering populist narratives that thrive on corruption scandals?
Professor Dan Hough: Citizen-centered approaches are quite new, and they take very different forms in different parts of the world. In some places, there are websites like ipaidabribe.com in India, where individuals can report instances of bribery they have experienced. However, in countries like the United Kingdom or Germany, such platforms are not really necessary. I have never had to pay a bribe in the United Kingdom, and bribery is not part of the everyday fabric of life here. But, of course, corruption exists in other forms.
The type of citizen-led approach varies depending on the nature of the corruption problem. For example, in the United Kingdom, there are websites where people can see exactly how much politicians earn and how much they receive in donations—down to the last pence—allowing the public to judge whether it is appropriate or corrupt. Because the state functions reasonably well, this data can be collected and made publicly available. Citizens can then decide whether, for instance, Boris Johnson receiving millions of pounds for lecture tours is appropriate or not.
Citizen-led approaches are most successful when they are not isolated. An effective anti-corruption infrastructure requires institutions that can take prosecutions forward and a legal system where the rule of law actually means something—which, in many places, it does not, as it is applied very inconsistently. Without this broader institutional support, citizen-led approaches struggle to make an impact.
Now, all of this is too complex for the far right, which tends to focus on a much simpler narrative. Their arguments center on an undefined elite that supposedly looks after itself at the expense of ordinary people. They use the word corruption as a blunt weapon against that elite, arguing that these people have disdain for the general public. Their message is: Vote for us, and we will change that relationship.
However, the details of how this change would be implemented are rarely well thought out or explained. They do not really propose meaningful citizen-led approaches to anti-corruption. Instead, they talk a lot about direct democracy, which fits into their populist narrative of giving power back to the people—but in practice, not many far-right parties ever reach a position where they can actually implement such measures. As a result, their promises remain quite vague.
Populist leaders often portray themselves as fighters against a corrupt elite. However, many populist leaders claim to fight corruption while simultaneously dismantling institutional checks and balances. How do you assess the paradox of ‘anti-corruption populism’? Based on your research, do such narratives result in actual anti-corruption measures, or are they primarily rhetorical tools?
Professor Dan Hough: They’re not just rhetorical tools; they’re practical tools. But they’re not practical tools to fight corruption. They’re practical tools to empower those who push them forward. Many of the mechanisms that I would call backsliding—which we have seen populist regimes enact—are not really about anything other than dismantling processes that they see as working against them. Instead, they seek to create new processes that do not work against them.
Viktor Orbán is a great example of this in Hungary. His government creates what they argue are institutions that work for the good of the people. However, people like me would argue that these institutions also seem to work really well for him. And that is ultimately where they end up. So, I wouldn’t say this is about anti-corruption at all. It is about empowering those who push these narratives.
Perceived Corruption Outweighs Reality, Fueling Populist Support
AfD demo with slogan Stop Islamization and counter demonstration of the Left in Luetten Klein in Rostock, Germany on May 14, 2018. AfD, Alternative for Germany, is a right wing political party in Germany. Photo: Shutterstock.
Your research suggests that corruption can be a mobilizing grievance, but also that frequent exposure to it can lead to apathy. How does this paradox play out in the context of Germany and the rise of the AfD? To what extent do mainstream parties’ failures in tackling corruption contribute to the rise of far-right parties like the AfD?
Professor Dan Hough: I don’t think the corruption narrative is really that helpful in explaining the rise of the AfD, and it might be a bit odd for me to say that, given that I work in a corruption research center. But for me, anyway, the rise of the AfD is about other things. It’s about dissatisfaction. It’s about disaffection. It’s about people being unhappy with their lot—and often, these grievances are not entirely reasonable. But at the same time, the AfD is very good at speaking to their unhappiness and addressing the feeling that they are not at one with how Germany works.
Now, corruption in any meaningful sense is not really part of that. In a broad sense, there is the argument that elites corrupt the process, they look after themselves, they don’t look after you, but I don’t think corruption in an everyday sense in Germany is a driving force behind this. I believe there are better variables to examine when trying to explain the AfD’s rise.
One of your studies discusses how citizens’ direct experiences with bribery influence their willingness to protest. In Germany, where large-scale bribery is relatively rare, what factors do you think drive the populist anti-corruption discourse?
Professor Dan Hough: Bribery is really rare in Germany, as it is in the UK. But if you ask people whether they think much of it exists, they’ll tell you yes. You often find people saying, “Yeah, there’s a lot of corruption in Germany. Oh, I’ve never experienced it, but there’s a lot of corruption.” So there’s a paradox between what they experience and what they perceive, and this paradox can be really significant and quite obvious when you talk to individuals about it.
I don’t think corruption, in any meaningful sense, is a major theme in German politics. There are simply too many bigger issues dominating the landscape at the moment—whether it be Ukraine, the climate crisis, or the ineffectual government that Germany has just replaced. The anti-corruption narratives tend to appeal more to people who study the subject—people like me, who are interested in the details. I don’t think many Germans are losing sleep over corruption challenges. It’s simply not the primary way they frame the problems they experience.
Ironically, Germany, like many other states, does have corruption problems. They exist, but they’re not visible in everyday life. For example, contracts may be awarded to companies that perhaps shouldn’t receive them, but most people don’t know about that. They don’t read the fine print buried on page 17 of a heavyweight newspaper to find it out. That sort of corruption remains beyond their immediate awareness, and understandably so—they have their own lives to lead.
So, I think the anti-corruption narrative in Germany is rather stilted. It doesn’t have the same dynamic as in other places because there are simply more pressing concerns on people’s minds.
The AfD Exploits Corruption Narratives to Undermine Trust in Democracy
Posters and demonstrators at a protest against the AfD party in Munich on January 21, 2024. Photo: Shutterstock.
In the recent elections, the AfD nearly doubled its support. Unlike in some Southern or Eastern European contexts, Germany has relatively robust anti-corruption institutions. Why do you think the AfD still manages to frame corruption as a central issue?
Professor Dan Hough: I’m not sure it does. It talks about corruption, but what it really doing is finding a way to explain that your problems, your worries, your concerns—those guys over there in Berlin don’t care.
So, it frames corruption as one part of a much bigger narrative about the political process not working for you, and that’s dangerous. Because if that political process isn’t working, they may suggest alternatives that look a bit more like Orban’s model. And it wouldn’t be in Germany’s interest to go down that route.
It’s worth remembering that 80% of people in Germany last week said they would never, under any circumstances, consider voting for the AfD. So yes, they got 20% of the vote, and many people—including myself—find that deeply disconcerting. But it’s important to keep the context in mind: the majority of Germans have no time for the AfD and don’t buy the snake oil they try to sell.
Mainstream parties often struggle with countering populist claims about corruption. Based on your work, what strategies should democratic institutions adopt to maintain trust while effectively combating corruption?
Professor Dan Hough: Getting corruption right takes time and patience. It took Britain about 300 years to go from being very corrupt to being less corrupt. Denmark and Sweden, which followed what the literature calls a Big Bang approach, took 15 years to implement sweeping institutional changes in the 19th century. That’s 15 years—three electoral cycles—and even then, the reforms didn’t work perfectly overnight. It’s now over a century later that we see Denmark and Sweden as frontrunners in anti-corruption efforts.
So, if you’re looking for quick solutions, you’re going to struggle because changing institutional processes takes time. In truth, the best anti-corruption policy is simply to govern well: give people a little bit more of what they want—whether that’s economic security, safety, or the sense that their voices are being heard.
That takes time, but it’s the most effective method. You can establish new anti-corruption commissions or pass stricter laws, and while those might catch some corrupt actors, for most ordinary people, better governance is the real solution. And that’s something I hope Friedrich Merz understands—he’s not going to solve these problems in a month.
Anti-Corruption Policies Can Backfire When Populists Manipulate Institutions
Is there empirical evidence showing that stronger anti-corruption policies lead to a decline in support for Populist parties? Or do such policies risk being weaponized by Populists themselves.
Professor Dan Hough: Oh, they certainly can be. Poland is a really good example. In 2006, a strong anti-corruption commission was introduced, and the populist government used it to go after its enemies. The irony was that many of these so-called enemies had hardly been in power at all, yet they were accused of abusing their positions in government—an almost surreal situation given that many of them had never held office. So, there is a real danger that anti-corruption institutions can be hijacked, and we see this happening all over the world.
Now, Germany is not really in that position. If you asked Germans what their anti-corruption institutions were, I’m not sure many of them would know. But certainly, there is always a risk that populists could use such institutions for their own ends. The best example of this is Donald Trump—he has attempted to use institutions to serve his own interests.
That’s why democracy is not about any one particular institution; it’s about a network, a mosaic of institutions that work together, sometimes constraining each other, sometimes supporting each other. The real challenge is getting that mosaic right—because when it is strong, it becomes much harder for populists to dismantle it and push their agenda through.
With rising political fragmentation in Germany, do you think anti-corruption efforts will become more partisan, and if so, what are the risks of this for democratic accountability?
Professor Dan Hough: Well, partisanship is always an issue, right? And in many ways, I don’t have a problem with that. Parties represent interests, they represent people, and they try to bring those interests into the political process. Corruption is no different in that regard. But I don’t see anti-corruption being a particularly salient issue in German politics over the next legislative cycle at all. There will be issues linked to potentially corrupt practices, but much more of the focus will be on money—where to find the funds to invest in infrastructure, support Ukraine, and finance other priorities like the climate transition and the Energiewende (shift to sustainable energy). All of this revolves around the kind of daily politics we’re used to—debates about money, influence, and competing interests. The corruption narrative is not at the center of that discussion, and I don’t see the next government having much time to devote to it either. That may be good or bad, but given Germany’s financial challenges, I think it’s inevitable.
The AfD’s Strength Lies in Channeling Dissatisfaction, Not Policy Solutions
Looking ahead, do you see the AfD’s anti-corruption narrative evolving further, and if so, how might this impact broader European trends in populism and governance?
Professor Dan Hough: They may evolve. They like using the word “corruption” because it’s a concept people generally think they understand, although I would sometimes disagree with those understandings.
I think the AfD will use the corruption narrative whenever they can because it helps them point the finger at the government and gain political attention. Whether that will have any meaningful effect, I don’t know. Populist right-wing parties have always talked about corruption, but I’m not sure they’ve always truly benefited from it. It has been one small part of their toolkit.
Austria is a really good example for Germans to look at. The success of the FPÖ has come from highlighting Austrian dissatisfaction with mainstream parties. That’s what it has done—it has provided a vehicle for people to express discontent, even if the party itself isn’t particularly good at explaining what exactly they oppose.
That is where the AfD’s strength lies—as a vehicle for protest and dissatisfaction. They have been very effective at using social media to amplify their message and reach a generation that mainstream politicians are struggling to engage.
Despite ongoing controversies, including investigations into AfD figures for extremism, the party continues to attract voters, as evidenced by Sunday’s election results. To what extent has the AfD succeeded in mainstreaming far-right discourse in German politics, and what implications does this have for the broader political landscape?
Professor Dan Hough: One thing they have done is change the way Germans talk about migration. German politicians really didn’t want to talk about migration until about 15 years ago. It was an issue they all agreed to handle in a very sober, technical way, but that, of course, changed—probably about 20 years ago, but absolutely and definitively in 2015, when over a million asylum seekers arrived in Germany from North Africa and the Middle East.
The AfD has been very effective in introducing language into public discourse that wasn’t there before. This presents a real challenge for all mainstream parties, as they now find themselves engaging in debates they previously avoided. Euroscepticism is another example—criticisms of the EU in Germany weren’t really a thing until relatively recently, and now they are. The AfD has played a role in that shift. It’s not the only reason it has happened, but it has contributed.
This presents a challenge. Mainstream parties must find a language that acknowledges the problems the AfD highlights while offering solutions. If they fail to do so, the AfD will continue to benefit, pointing to government inadequacies in dealing with these issues on its own terms.
Populism Thrives on Dissatisfaction—Only Effective Governance Can Counter It
Photo: Shutterstock.
And lastly, with the AfD’s rise, are we seeing an erosion of public trust in Germany’s democratic institutions, or is this simply a reflection of broader European trends in far-right politics?
Professor Dan Hough: Well, it can be both. I mean, Germany has now become a bit more normal. Most countries have a far-right party polling around 20%. This is nothing new—France, the Netherlands, and several other countries have faced similar challenges. Many countries have had far-right parties operating like the AfD for a long time. So, in that sense, Germany is simply aligning with a broader European trend.
However, Germany has a unique history, and most Germans are not particularly happy with this “return to normality.” Moving forward, the AfD is in a position to build on its current success. In the next election, four years from now, it is highly unlikely that the AfD will be anywhere near government, which means they will continue to play the role of opposition—complaining and criticizing. If the German government fails to make progress in solving or at least appearing to address the major issues of the day, the AfD could perform even better next time. That is the real challenge.
Of course, populism is not just present on the far right. Die Linke had a strong election on the populist left, and another party, the Alliance, narrowly missed entering Parliament. So, there is about 13% of the electorate on the left that also leans populist. There is a lot of populism in German politics right now, and the only way to counter it is through effective governance—delivering policies that improve people’s lives.
Simply labeling populist voters as anti-democratic is not going to work. In fact, it will likely backfire, further alienating them and making them more likely to vote against mainstream parties in the future. That is not difficult to understand—if someone insults me, I am hardly going to turn around and agree with them. Human nature does not work that way. The discourse has to be smart, and the policy outcomes have to be meaningful. If that happens, the AfD’s rise does not have to be unstoppable.
How significant is the role of social media and digital platforms in fueling democratic deconsolidation, and are these platforms more influential than traditional media?
