The election of Donald Trump as US president made it abundantly clear that the rise of authoritarian populists is no longer a fringe phenomenon. Whereas for many decades populists were located (and contained) in the marginal ends of politics, today populist politicians – some of which with authoritarian tendencies – are dominant political forces in many countries all over the world. From Austria to Venezuela and from Italy to India, populist parties and ideas have risen from the margins and entered mainstream politics. This book asks how populists, particularly in their authoritarian variant, have been able to rise to power so suddenly and – to many observers – unexpectedly. After establishing the link between populism and authoritarianism, it addresses the underlying societal trends that have enabled the rise of populism in its authoritarian variant, and advances a fundamental theory that both captures and explains this phenomenon.
The book is divided into four parts, which complement each other very well. The introductory chapters establish the theoretical foundation of the book, outlining the concepts of authoritarianism and populism, and advancing the cultural backlash theory. Subsequently the books expand on the various building blocks of the backlash theory: the ‘demand side’ factors, meaning the cultural, economic, and societal changes against which populists react; and the ‘supply side’ factors, i.e. party competition and electoral rules. The authors also elaborate on the concrete situations leading to Trump's presidency and Brexit. The concluding chapters elaborate on the consequences of authoritarian populism for liberal democracy, which are deemed rather calamitous. Given how the greatest innovation of this book lies in its advancement of the cultural backlash theory of authoritarian populism, this review will focus on those chapters.
Before discussing the theory itself, however, it needs to be clarified how authoritarianism and populism are understood, as well as the link between the two. The authors define populism ‘minimally’ as a rhetorical style that claims that political power lies with the people rather than the elite; thereby considering the ‘voice of the people’ superior to expert/elite judgment, and dismissing the elites as arrogant, incompetent, corrupt and immoral. Authoritarianism is then understood as a set of cultural values that stress conformity to group traditions, collective security over individual liberties, and loyalty to the group and its leaders. The populist rhetoric, so the authors claim, has a tendency to undermine democratic and pluralist checks and balances, thereby opening the door to ‘soft’ authoritarian values. Authoritarian populism is then to be understood as a way of doing politics whereby a strong leader is pushed forward in order to defend ‘the people’.
The cultural backlash theory itself is introduced in the first chapter, and developed into more detail in the second chapter. This theory claims that the rise of authoritarian populism is the consequence of a conservative reaction against the cultural ‘silent revolution’ of socially liberal attitudes. This silent revolution is understood as a cultural shift towards liberal values and norms brought about by structural changes in the fabric of our society, such as demographic shifts, higher levels of education, urbanization and migration. Against this silent revolution and provoked by concrete events such as economic crises, migration, and increasing diversity, socially conservative people are softened to the ideas of authoritarianism. Put differently, they desire a strong leader that can protect their way of living against these perceived threats – and that is where populism comes in. Enabled by specific political and institutional contexts, such as electoral rules and party competition, populists win these citizens’ trust and votes by claiming to represent their ‘forgotten’ way of living and promising to protect it against the perceived threats.
Yet, although this theory sounds very clear and even obvious, there is a certain obscurity about definitions and theoretical assumptions that remains largely unresolved in the book. Particularly the authors’ definition of populism in relation to authoritarianism is at times unclear. For one, while populism is indeed a very contested concept that is often said to have as many definitions as there are several authors writing on it, there has been somewhat of a convergence around Cas Mudde's definition of populism as a thin-centred ideology that divides society in two homogeneous groups: the pure people and a corrupt elite. As such, Mudde understands populism as more than a rhetorical style, but also as an ideology with a clear (if thin) vision of society.
This distinction between populism purely as a way of communicating or as a genuine ideology remains somewhat unclear in the book. On the one hand, the authors state quite clearly that they consider populism a ‘rhetorical style of communication’, while on the other hand they also state that it issues significant claims about the functioning of society and the allocation of political power. This begs the question that if populism issues political claims and narratives, why then is it not an ideology, and how does it relate to authoritarian ideology? And if it is a way of communicating, should it not be defined by the communication techniques used rather than the political claims made? Indeed, claiming that ‘the only legitimate democratic authority flows directly from the people’ (p. 66) seems to be a rather strong ideological claim, rather than a mere rhetorical argument. Moreover, the authors measure populist attitudes through people's trust in politics, which opens up yet another way of looking at populism that remains largely undiscussed.
Additionally, the link between populism and authoritarianism is at times somewhat ambiguous. By stressing populism is a rhetorical style, the authors try to separate populism from authoritarianism – the latter is the content, the former is the form. However, throughout the book authoritarian populism is treated as an ideology in itself, which is at odds with the definitions put forward in the beginning of the book. This also shows in that the focus of the book shifts back and forth between populism and authoritarianism, making one wonder whether what this book is about. Its main argument is that populist discourses make authoritarian leaders appealing to a growing and significant part of the population, so is this book really about the rise of populism or about how authoritarians gain power through populism (and should it then not be called ‘populist authoritarianism’)?
Nonetheless, even though these theoretical and conceptual questions can at times confuse the reader, this book is a must-read for anyone interesting in and trying to make sense of recent political and electoral developments in Europe and the US. Overall, there is a coherent build-up in the book, with each different chapter taking the reader to the next logical step in the story the authors are trying to tell. The theory is innovative, putting the feeling of many scholars that there is a link between authoritarianism and populism into a comprehensive theoretical frame. Although some of its conceptualization can be clarified even further, the theory makes sense and feels very well structured. Moreover, with ample concrete examples, anecdotes and accessibly described data, the books read almost like a novel.
