A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Populism as a Form of Twenty First Century Fascism
This paper argues that while twenty-first-century populism shares anti-pluralist foundations with classical fascism, it constitutes a distinct phenomenon characterized by different relationships to institutional legitimacy and violence, ultimately manifesting as "hybrid authoritarian formations" that significantly accelerate democratic erosion.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
The Great Political Identity Crisis
Imagine the world of political science as a giant, bustling library where scholars try to sort the world's governments into neat shelves. For a long time, the most scary book on the shelf was labeled "Fascism." It was a story about a time in the past when countries fell apart, leaders promised to save the nation by crushing everyone who was different, and used armies of thugs to take over. But lately, a new, noisy book has appeared on the shelf called "Populism." This one is about leaders who say, "We are the pure people, and the politicians are a corrupt elite," and they are winning elections all over the world.
The big question everyone is asking is: Is this new book just a modern reprint of the scary old one? Are we seeing the return of fascism, or is it something different? To understand this, we need to know a few things. Populism is like a political costume; it's not a full outfit with its own deep philosophy, but a thin layer that leaders put on to say they represent "the real people" against "the bad guys." Fascism, on the other hand, is a full-blown, revolutionary ideology that wants to destroy the current system and rebuild the nation from scratch, often using violence. Democratic backsliding is the slow process of a country losing its freedom, like a video game character slowly losing health points, until they can't play the game anymore. People care because if we mistake a new kind of danger for an old one, we might try to fight it with the wrong weapons.
The Paper's Big Idea: Not a Clone, but a Cousin
This paper, written by Ishwor Thapa, dives into the debate to see if today's populist leaders are actually the "fascism of the twenty-first century." The author argues that while they look similar and share some scary habits, they aren't the exact same thing. Think of it like this: if classical fascism is a roaring, fire-breathing dragon that burns down the castle, modern populism is more like a clever, shape-shifting monster that sneaks into the castle, locks the doors from the inside, and convinces everyone the castle is still safe while it slowly eats away the foundations.
The paper suggests that populism is not a direct copy of old-school fascism, but it is a "functional equivalent" in many ways. It shares the same core belief that there is only one "true" group of people and that anyone who disagrees is an enemy. However, the paper finds that they differ in how they treat the rules of the game. Old fascism wanted to smash the rules and the courts entirely. Modern populism, the paper argues, prefers to keep the rules on the shelf but twist them until they don't work anymore. It's the difference between smashing a car and hot-wiring it to drive off a cliff.
What the Data Says: The Slow Leak
The author didn't just guess; they looked at a mountain of data from places like the European Values Survey and election records from across Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Here is what the numbers tell us:
- The Democracy Drop: When populist leaders take charge, the country's "democracy score" drops. The paper finds that on average, these scores fall by 10 percent compared to the normal average.
- The Accelerator Effect: This isn't a slow, steady decline. It gets worse the longer they stay in power. In the first four years, democracy scores drop by 14 percent. But if they stay for eight years, the total drop jumps to 29 percent. It's like a leak in a boat that starts small but gets bigger and faster the longer you ignore it.
- The Violence Factor: The paper also looked at whether these leaders' fans are more likely to support violence. The data shows that voters for right-wing populist parties are 2.7 percentage points more likely to justify political violence than other voters. It's a small number on a chart, but it represents a real shift in attitude.
- The "Hybrid" Monster: The paper proposes a new name for what we are seeing: "Hybrid Authoritarian Formations." This is a fancy way of saying these regimes are a mix. They keep the look of a democracy (they still hold elections, they still have courts), but they hollow out the inside so that the leaders can do whatever they want. They use the law to trap their enemies instead of just arresting them.
Why It's Not Exactly Fascism (Yet)
The paper is very careful to point out what modern populism is not.
- No Paramilitary Armies: Old fascism had squads of uniformed thugs (like the SS or the Blackshirts) who terrorized people. Modern populism doesn't usually have a formal army of violence. Instead, violence is "outsourced" to random groups, online mobs, or militia groups that aren't officially part of the government.
- They Still Hold Elections: Fascist leaders usually canceled elections because they didn't want to lose. Populist leaders love elections because they use them to claim they have the "will of the people." They might make it unfair, but they still hold the vote.
- They Play by (Twisted) Rules: Instead of tearing up the constitution, they use "lawfare." This means they use the legal system itself to get rid of opponents, pack the courts with their friends, and change the rules from the inside.
The Verdict: A New Kind of Threat
The paper concludes that calling populism "fascism" is a bit like calling a shark a "dinosaur." They are both scary predators, but they live in different eras and hunt in different ways. The author suggests that the analogy is "analytically imprecise but politically illuminating." In plain English: it's not the exact same thing, but the warning sign is the same.
The real danger isn't that we are going to see a return of the 1930s exactly as they were. The danger is that we are seeing a "hybrid" version. It's a system that looks like a democracy but acts like a dictatorship. It uses the freedom of speech to spread lies, uses the courts to block progress, and uses the idea of "the people" to shut out anyone who doesn't fit their picture.
The paper ends with a call to action. If the threat is this new, hybrid monster, we can't just fight it like we fought the old one. We need to protect the "epistemic infrastructure" of democracy—which is just a fancy way of saying we need to protect the truth, the experts, and the institutions that keep the system honest. We have to be ready to defend a democracy that is being eaten alive from the inside, not just attacked from the outside.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.