Thread by @ConUnit_UCL

There have been claims that Boris Johnson's administration displays populist, or even authoritarian, tendencies (e.g. @chakrabortty below)

But what does this mean, and is it justified?

A quick analysis, based on the academic literature.

⬇️THREAD⬇️

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

The core definition of populism is that it "considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, 'the pure people' vs 'the corrupt elite'." (@CasMudde)

The people's will is united, but an elite aims to stymie it.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

The Brexit referendum (notwithstanding the 52/48 outcome) has increased claims about a united people.

E.g. this in Johnson's speech to the Conservative conference:

"what people want, what leavers want, what remainers want, what the whole world wants... [is to] get Brexit done"

Side note: for a recent analysis of the whole "will of the people" concept see this book by our @uclspp colleague @albertpweale

ucl.ac.uk/european-insti…

The populist idea that the people are united serves to delegitimate opponents.

As Jan-Werner Müller say "Populists, as principled anti-pluralists, cannot accept anything like a legitimate opposition"

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

This leads to the questioning of political institutions that present obstacles to the populist.

As Nadia Urbinati says, once in power, populists "go on... attacking the checks and balances and independent institutions that limit [their] power"

annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.114…

The most obvious resonance here is with Boris Johnson's proposed 5-week prorogation of parliament, ultimately deemed to be unlawful by the Supreme Court.

constitution-unit.com/2019/09/03/thi…

When parliament was reinstated, ministers questioned its legitimacy, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox claiming that "This Parliament is a dead Parliament... It has no moral right to sit"

Meg Russell has commented on dangers of such rhetoric for public trust:
constitution-unit.com/2019/11/05/why…

This discrediting of opponents explains the link identified by many scholars between populism and a risk of descent into authoritarianism

As @chakrabortty noted, this is explored in the recent book "How Democracies Die", by Steven Levitsky and @dziblatt

blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/produ…

Levitsky and @dziblatt set out four "key indicators of authoritarian behaviour".

1. "Weak commitment to democratic rules of the game".

On this, many would cite proroguing parliament. Or briefing that you might refuse to leave office if an opponent wins.

mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…

2. "Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents", which can include "baselessly suggesting that their rivals are... working in alliance with a foreign government"

On which, some might point claims like these about @PhilipHammondUK & @DominicGrieve1

thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/10…

3. "Readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including media", e.g. through "threatening to take legal or other punitive action against critics".

Thankfully the UK has been largely free of such problems. But those concerned would point to this:

buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/bo…

Clearly the UK is a very long way away from authoritarianism. But it's important not to be complacent about the robustness of our democracy.

In stating their criteria, Levitsky and Ziblatt warn that "a politician who meets even one of this criteria is cause for concern".