By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

When discussing democracy, the words of former American President Abraham Lincoln "the government of the people, by the people and for the people" come to everyone’s mind. Similarly, Winston Churchill’s rational observation reminds us that democracy may be flawed; it surpasses all other forms of governance attempted throughout history. The true essence of democracy lies in the will of the people. But sadly, its implementation varies widely.

Every society is diverse and unique in itself. It has assorted needs and aspirations. It requires governance tailored to its unique needs, though certain universal principles must anchor the democratic system. Hence, it can be concluded that democracy is far from a one-size-fits-all system. Democracy is not just the will of the people; it is more than that. It safeguards the freedom of speech and association. Likewise, it upholds the rule of law and protects the rights of all, including minorities. Periodic elections give fresh oxygen to democracy, as they enable citizens to retain the one they like and disown the one they dislike. However, an election alone cannot guarantee democratic governance. It should be supported by robust checks and balances to prevent the elected politicians from misusing their power or even drifting to authoritarianism.  Separation of power among legislative, executive and judicial branches with independent media and civil society as a vigilant watchdog fosters democracy.

However, over the decades, the concerns about the growing declining status of democracy have intensified raising eyebrows of the people across the globe. The immediate past president of the United States, Joe Biden, attempted to reaffirm America’s self-proclaimed role as champion of democratic values. He initiated the summit for democracy, sending the message that America has been upholding the core values and ethos of democracy. However, many perceive it as a strategic effort to counter China’s growing influence and highlight democratic governance. In response, China published a white paper titled China: Democracy That Works. The objective of the initiation was to disseminate the information that China wholeheartedly upholds the values of democracy, asserting its governance model aligns with democratic principles.

While leaders across the globe have demonstrated autocratic tendencies, they hesitate to refuse to embrace democracy. Countries like North Korea exemplify this paradox. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is one of the most isolated and repressive regimes. It has been ruled by a single family for over 70 years. It conducts periodic elections where citizens cast votes by secret ballot. But sadly these elections are just a façade and symbolic offerings, with only one candidate on the ballot.

After the Cold War, there was speculation that democracy would flourish, offering the best of governance. But this did not happen. Instead, many nations adopted diverse democratic systems, some of which have deviated from the democratic fundamentals, posing a threat to democracy. At present, the greatest threat to democracy is the rise of populism.

In political science, populism is the idea that society is separated into two groups at odds with one another – “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite”. According to Cas Mudde, the author of Populism: A very short introduction. Historically, populism emerged as a movement to advocate for the cause of the masses against corrupt elites. But it is disheartening to see that populism in its modern form has triggered division rather than unity, challenging the democratic values and principles.

Populist leaders are often seen exploiting religion, nationality and cultural identity to manipulate emotions and garner support. They create a narrative and play with the sentiments of the people to catapult to power. But such rhetoric lacks substantive vision and, as a result, triggers societal fragmentation.

South Asia offers a pervasive example in which populism is often interlinked with nationalism and religion, shaping the political discourse through identity politics that only cultivate the seed of societal fragmentation. Populist leaders exploit religious sentiments and nationalist rhetoric to consolidate their power. This is evident in India’s Hindu nationalist politics and Islamist-driven narratives in Pakistan and recent political turmoil resulting from student agitation in Bangladesh. Of course, these strategies help to mobilise public support. But they perpetuate polarization and marginalise the minorities.

While in power, these populist leaders tend to demonstrate autocratic tendencies, concentrating power and authority. They manipulate the laws and bring institutions under their purview to remain in power infinitely. Their approach weakens the democratic institution, attacking judiciaries, free media and civil society and marginalising the dissenting voices. To say populism risks undermining the democratic structures it claims to uphold. This is evident in recent regime changes across the regions.

A fundamental difference between democracy and populism lies in their approach to pluralism. Democracy offers space for freedom of expression and protection of minority rights, embracing diversity as its cornerstone of governance. On the other hand, populism advocates for the cause of the majority. It neglects the protection of minority rights, viewing it as an obstacle to fulfilling the mandate of the majority.

This is not to say that populism is inherently harmful. It is not. When strategically managed, it can drive reform within a democracy, paying heed to the neglected issues and challenging the corrupt elites. It can also strengthen democratic participation, fostering collaborative governance. But when unchecked, populism risks undermining the concentrating power, sidelining the dissenting voices and marginalising the political rivals. Further, it can threaten the core values and principles of democracy when left unchecked.

This reminds us of the saying of Mahatma Gandhi: “The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without; it should come from within.” It is for us to decide whether we will offer the space for the rise of populism threatening the core values and principles of democracy.