How Non-Majoritarian Institutions Make Silent Majorities Vocal: A Political Explanation of Authoritarian Populism

Michael Zürn

doi:10.1017/s1537592721001043

Abstract

Why did we witness such a strong growth of anti-liberal forces twenty-five years after the triumph of liberalism? The answer is twofold. First, authoritarian populism has not sneaked into a given political space but is co-constitutive of a new cleavage in most modern societies. Authoritarian populists speak to the issues of this cleavage. Second, the rise of this new cleavage and authoritarian populists cannot be reduced to one of the two well-known explanations, namely the economic insecurity perspective and cultural backlash perspective. This current paper develops a political explanation that integrates struggles over policies with a focus on endogenous dynamics of political institutions in and beyond democracies. In this account, it is the historical compromise between labor and capital that has triggered a dynamic in which the rise of so-called non-majoritarian institutions (NMIs)—such as central banks, constitutional courts, and international organizations (IOs)—have locked in liberal policies in most consolidated democracies. This explanation brings together the party cartelization thesis with the observation that NMIs are a major target of contemporary populism. The explanatory model is probed by translating it into descriptive propositions and by showing step by step how the sequence unfolded in electoral democracies.

Highlights

Why did we witness such a strong growth of anti-liberal forces twenty-five years after the triumph of liberalism? The answer is twofold
It is the taming of the old class cleavage and the ensuing relative shift between majoritarian institutions (MIs) and non-majoritarian institutions (NMIs) that leads—against the background of globalization—to the new cleavage, with authoritarian populists taking one side and liberal cosmopolitans—including large parts of the elites—the other
The appeal to the silent majority becomes highly attractive to a significant share of the population in both consolidated and precarious democracies

Summary

Introduction

Why did we witness such a strong growth of anti-liberal forces twenty-five years after the triumph of liberalism? The answer is twofold. Balancing and legitimacy seeking is one micro-mechanism connecting the decline of trust in MIs with the rise of NMIs. This includes a dose of “blame shifting.” There was an increased need to find institutions that can be made responsible for those decisions that are the outcome of compromise and moderation within the political realm but are not necessarily very popular with the party members and voters.

Results

Conclusion