Abstract
Populism and technocracy reject vertical accountability and horizontal accountability. Populism and technocracy can combine to form ‘technocratic populism.’ The study assesses the extent to which democratic decay can be traced to the actions of technocratic populists as opposed to institutional factors, civil society, fragmentation and polarization. The main findings of this article are that technocratic populism has illiberal tendencies expressed best in its efforts at executive aggrandizement (cf. Bermeo, 2016). Without an effective bulwark against democratic erosion (cf. Bernhard, 2015), technocratic populism tends to undermine electoral competition (vertical accountability), judiciary independence, legislative oversight (horizontal accountability), and freedom of the press (diagonal accountability). The most effective checks on technocratic populist in power, this study finds, are the courts, free media, and civil society. This article highlights the mechanisms of democratic decay and democratic resilience beyond electoral politics. It indicates that a combination of institutional veto points and civil society agency is necessary to prevent democratic erosion (cf. Weyland, 2020). While active civil society can prevent democratic erosion, it cannot reverse it. Ultimately, the future of liberal democracy depends on the people’s willingness to defend it in the streets AND at the ballot box.
Highlights
Populism and technocracy have emerged as two important critiques of representative democracy (Caramani, 2017; Urbinati, 2014)
This study focuses on three aspects of technocratic populism: 1) attempts among populists in power to undermine accountability; 2) their influence on democratic decay; and 3) their failures
The article highlights how technocratic populism has undermined democratic accountability and led to democratic decay, and how courts, independent media, and civil society can be an effective bulwark against democratic decay and a source of democratic resilience (Bernhard, 2020; Weyland, 2020)
Summary
Populism and technocracy have emerged as two important critiques of representative democracy (Caramani, 2017; Urbinati, 2014). This study focuses on three aspects of technocratic populism: 1) attempts among populists in power to undermine accountability; 2) their influence on democratic decay; and 3) their failures (when the institutional guardrails and civil society successfully oppose these attempts (cf Caramani, 2017; Weyland, 2020) It builds on the literature examining the ambivalent relationship between populism and democracy (Kaltwasser, 2012, 2014; Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2014; Weyland, 2020), the negative impact of technocracy and populism on accountability (Caramani, 2017) and its deleterious influence on democracy (Ruth, 2018; Ruth-Lovell, Lührmann, & Grahn, 2019). The article highlights how technocratic populism has undermined democratic accountability and led to democratic decay, and how courts, independent media, and civil society can be an effective bulwark against democratic decay and a source of democratic resilience (Bernhard, 2020; Weyland, 2020)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call