Populist leaders across the EU, those in backsliding Member States such as Poland and Hungary in particular, like to champion themselves as true representatives of the people. They pit the principle of genuine democratic choice against the demands of rule of law, which may be defined as protection against abuses of majority rule. In academic discourse and popular polemics, their arguments are most often repudiated with normative claims about democratic exigencies of checks and balances and separation of powers. Few voices question whether populists in office represent actual majorities. I plan to examine the way in which some populist governments that win elections undermine the rule of law not only to advance their visions of an illiberal state, but to neutralise the risk of losing another ballot. Across five different aspects of the electoral process — campaign (rhetoric), media (coverage), complaints and appeals (judiciary), political financing, and election system/administration (reform) — I plan to examine how these regimes lay the foundations for ‘electoral capture’. While their initial tinkering need not necessarily produce immediately dramatic results, cumulative changes remove important safeguards for democratic elections. Consequently, by extinguishing the rule of law, backsliding regimes undermine the very essence of democracy, or the democratic choice.
Stefan Szwed is Research Associate at the Centre for International Studies (CIS) at the Department of Politics and International Relations (DPIR), University of Oxford. His research interests include European foreign policies, conceptions of power in international institutions, and democratic transitions.
This Fellow Talk is a closed event.
