Populism: Testing the resilience of two great democracies

“We will make America great again… We will take our country back …The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer… I alone can fix it.” Former President Donald Trump slogans illustrate his populist appeal to Americans feeling alienated.

Across the globe, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, employs similar populist rhetoric, emphasizing national security and accusing critics of elitist conspiracies: ” We are guarding Israel, and we will continue to guard Israel against all threats—terrorist, diplomatic, and otherwise… The left and the media are a single entity. They recruit all their friends, all their people. They brainwash.”

Both leaders owe much of their political survival and power to their successful populist tactics to polarize societies and solidify their bases. They portray themselves as indispensable saviors, delegitimizing opponents while promising to restore power to “the people.”

Understanding populism

Populism pits “ordinary people” against the so called “corrupt elites,” by simplifying societal complexities into an emotional us vs. them narrative and appealing to widespread frustrations. Populist leaders often promise easy fixes to deep-rooted problems, and foster division. The populist leader, usually a charismatic character, positions him/herself as a champion of “the people” against the corrupt elites.

Three forms of Populism:

• Left-wing populism: focuses on economic inequality and critiques of capitalism (e.g., Bernie Sanders).
• Right-wing populism: focuses on nationalism and identity (e.g., Trump).
• Authoritarian populism: strongman rule with limited regard for democratic norms (e.g., Viktor Orbán and Netanyahu – in the making).

Populism often gains traction during crises by promising to return the power to the people. Its dangers lie in eroding institutions and fostering polarization.

Populism’s historical roots range from the US 19^th century Populist Party to 21^st century leaders like Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro. Its modern resurgence underscores systemic failures (e.g., Venezuela), making it vital for democracies to address inequality and rebuild trust to minimize the potential appeal of populist leaders.

Why has modern populism resurfaced?

Modern populism has gained momentum due to a mix of factors:

1. Economic inequality and globalization

Stagnant wages and growing wealth gaps have fueled frustration. Global trade and outsourcing have led to job losses in certain industries, while benefiting urban centers and high-skilled workers, thus creating divisions that populists exploit by blaming elites or foreign competition.

2. Political discontent

Alienation from traditional politics – seen as disconnected or corrupt – drives support for “outsider” figures like Donald Trump, who claim to represent the people and appeal to those feeling ignored by the establishment.

3. Security threats

Existential threats like Iran, terrorism, and world anti-Israel biases resonates deeply with Israeli voters. Netanyahu positioned himself as a strong, indispensable protector of Israel who prioritizes security and sovereignty above all.

4. Global and regional trends

Issues like illegal immigration crises energize nationalist populism, with leaders leveraging anxieties to galvanize support.

5. Cultural trends

Radical ideas stemming from “woke culture” often reinforce the perception that elites impose a code of behavior, reshape values, and rewrite cultural narratives that form the foundation of people’s identities. This perception can provoke resistance and fuel support for populist movements, which position themselves as defenders of traditional values and the voice of “the people” against such perceived elite-driven agendas.

6. Technological change and social media

Social media amplifies divisive rhetoric, boosting emotional populist narratives. Populist leaders frame mainstream media as biased, presenting themselves as authentic voices for the people.

These dynamics have created fertile ground for populists to flourish worldwide.

Why is populism dangerous?

Populism, while addressing real frustrations, can have significant negative impacts, such as:

Undermining democratic institutions by oversimplification: Populists oversimplify complex problems, eroding trust in policy making and in checks and balances. For example, Netanyahu portrays the judicial “reforms” as a straightforward solution to “restore balance” between branches of government. He portrays the judiciary as an overreaching, elitist institution disconnected from the will of the people, while downplaying its essential role in preserving checks and balances in a functioning democracy.

Erosion of checks and balances: Populists weaken courts, media, and other watchdogs, as part of a corrupt “elite”. In Netanyahu’s case, his proposed judicial reforms would have limited the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down government legislation or policies that are unreasonable (e.g., nominating an unqualified person to a senior public position). By proposing measures to give the Knesset (parliament) more power over judicial appointments and override judicial decisions with a simple majority vote, Netanyahu has sought to diminish the judiciary’s independence. This would centralize authority within the executive branch, weaken judicial oversight, and risk undermining the democratic principle of separation of powers essential for maintaining accountability in governance.

Polarization: Populists brand their opponents as enemies. In Israel, Netanyahu’s critics are dismissed as left-wing, traitors, Israel-haters and the corrupt elite, while he portrays legal investigations and corruption charges against him as a biased “witch hunt” by elites. He has blamed the army, intelligence, secret service, and media for Israel’s recent crises, intensifying divisions. These tactics have created unprecedented polarization, making constructive dialogue and national unity increasingly difficult. In the United States, Trump has called Mexican migrants criminals and rapists during his first presidential run, called the “Media” the “Enemy of the People”, and refused to concede the 2020 election claiming widespread voter fraud following his loss which led to a dangerous divisive narrative.

Corruption and nepotism: Populists favor loyalty over merit, enabling cronyism. In Israel, senior appointments often go to Netanyahu’s allies rather than to qualified individuals.

Power centralization: Populist leaders erode opposition and consolidate authority. Netanyahu’s consolidation of power within his coalition’s alliances with extreme-right factions demonstrate this.

Disregard for minority rights: Populism redefines democracy as granting absolute power to the majority, often at the expense of protecting minority rights. This undermines one of the justice system’s key roles in a liberal democracy: safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all citizens, including minority groups.

Economic instability: Populist policies tend to destabilize economies by making unrealistic promises and undermining international cooperation. They often prioritize short-term benefits over long-term economic planning and foster anti-global trade rhetoric. In Israel, Netanyahu’s economic policies, particularly regarding the ultra-Orthodox (Haredim) community – e.g., increased subsidies for their religious school, without requiring them to participate in the workforce or perform military service – strengthen his political alliances, while perpetuating low workforce participation rates among Haredi men, and reducing economic productivity.

Shared Characteristics of Trump and Netanyahu’s Populism

Both leaders have successfully leveraged populist rhetoric to consolidate political support:

1. “Us vs. Them” dynamics: Both Trump and Netanyahu frame their political struggles as a binary conflict between “the people” and the “corrupt elite” or “system.” This divisive narrative polarizes their respective societies.
2. Anti-institutional rhetoric: They delegitimize judicial, media, and governmental institutions, claiming these entities are biased or hostile to their leadership.
3. Strongman leadership: They portray themselves as indispensable to their nation’s survival, invoking national identity and existential threats as justification for consolidating power.
4. Appeal to core grievances of constituents: Both leaders excel in addressing the grievances of specific demographics. Netanyahu appeals to fears over national security and cultural identity in Israel, while Trump focuses on economic discontent and cultural conservatism in the United States.
5. Media manipulation: Both have capitalized on alternative media channels to bypass critical coverage while discrediting mainstream outlets.
6. Alignment with right-wing / religious parties to solidify their political coalitions.
7. Legal challenges: Both leaders, Netanyahu and Trump, are currently facing significant legal challenges that have become central to their political narratives, with each claiming the accusations against them are politically motivated attacks on the people and their mandates.
8. Credibility: Both leaders are often characterized by their willingness to do whatever it takes to protect their interests and maintain political power, regardless of the truth or ethical considerations. Truth, integrity, and decency often take a backseat when it comes to securing their hold on power. Trump’s repeated claims about “fake news” and Netanyahu’s portrayal of legal challenges as a “witch hunt” serve as examples of how they manipulate narratives to further their political agendas.

The Danger of Populism to Democracies

The resilience of democracy in both the United States and Israel against populism depends on their institutional frameworks, political cultures, and how well democratic norms are upheld. Each country faces its own unique challenges and strengths when dealing with populist threats.

In the US, a strong system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches has helped curb populist leaders like Donald Trump when they sought to expand executive authority beyond legal limits. Additionally, the country’s federal structure and long-standing constitutional protections offer further safeguards. By contrast, Israel’s democratic system relies entirely on the court system and the Attorney General (acting as Legal Adviser) to serve as a counterweight to the majority coalition. Netanyahu aims to dilute the power of these two safeguards which, if successful, will leave Israel with no checks and balances. Moreover, Israel’s parliamentary coalition system is inherently more susceptible to manipulation by populist factions within its governing alliances, where small minority groups can exert significant, disproportionate power, sometimes pushing policies that challenge democratic norms. This vulnerability is amplified under Netanyahu’s leadership, where coalition partners have advanced agendas that critics argue undermine Israel’s democratic framework.

Given Israel’s limited system of institutional checks and balances, the liberal segment of its population has played a critical role in compensating for this gap, especially before October 7. During that time, these citizens actively engaged in shaping the discourse about Israel’s democratic future. Their efforts demonstrated remarkable passion, resilience, and creativity, allowing them to mount an effective resistance to Netanyahu’s populist judicial reforms. This grassroots activism became a vital counterbalance, reinforcing democratic norms in the absence of strong institutional safeguards. However, since October 7, traumatized Israeli public has been struggling to keep the same level of commitment to the protest movement.

A potential indicator of Israel’s declining status as a full democracy on the global stage is the recent arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. These warrants, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity, mark the first instance of such high-ranking officials from a democracy being targeted by the ICC. This unprecedented move suggests a possible lack of confidence in Israel’s current democratic institutions to address these allegations internally. Had the ICC trusted Israel’s judicial system to operate effectively and impartially, the outcome might have been different.

Both Israel and the United States have strong media and civil society traditions, which play a crucial role in pushing back against populism. However, Netanyahu’s coalition has been seeking to limit access to independent journalism, favoring supportive outlets like Channel 14, and significantly curtailing press conferences and interviews.

Mitigation of populism risks

Populism thrives in environments where dissatisfaction with traditional politics, economic inequality, and cultural shifts create a divide between the “elite” and “the people.” Its rise is fueled by real grievances—economic pain, security concerns, cultural anxiety, and frustration with out-of-touch elites. People are drawn to populism because it directly addresses issues that traditional politics often ignore or fail to resolve.

Photo: Mandel-Ngan-AFP-via-Getty-Images-via-JTA.jpg

The future of populism depends on how well traditional political systems can address these underlying problems. To counter populism, several strategies could be effective:

1. Strengthening Institutions: Protecting the independence of courts, legislatures, and media is critical.
2. Addressing root causes: Tackling economic inequality, political corruption, and cultural marginalization can reduce populism’s appeal.
3. Civic engagement: Educating citizens about democratic values and fostering critical thinking and informed decision-making can build resilience against misinformation.
4. Fostering unity: Encouraging inclusive narratives and cross-cultural dialogues can help heal societal divisions.

Final Thoughts

While populism can serve as a wake-up call for elites to address genuine public grievances, its dangers lie in its potential to erode democratic norms, deepen societal divides, and prioritize power over accountability and effective governance. To mitigate these risks, it is crucial to address the root causes of populist movements – such as inequality, corruption, and radical changes in cultural norms – while ensuring that democratic values and institutions remain strong and protected.