Populist (de)legitimation of international organizations

Abstract

Abstract The rise of populists to power in many states around the world has caused concern among defenders of multilateralism and the so-called liberal international order. Due to their frequent attacks on established international organizations (IOs), populists are often falsely portrayed as unilateralists. Our article addresses the apparent contradiction that populist leaders delegitimate certain IOs but actively legitimate others, and examines on what grounds they do so. We study speeches by three populist leaders from different continents: Viktor Orbán, Hugo Chávez and Rodrigo Duterte. The analysis shows that their (de)legitimation of IOs relies on representational claims, which critically interrogate on whose authority IOs speak, in whose interest they act, who they are made up of and what they stand for. Using the representational frames of popular sovereignty and popular identity, the three leaders have subverted conventional liberal arguments that legitimate IOs with regard to their performance or procedures. Based on these insights, we argue that instead of criticizing populists for being unilateralists (which they rarely are), stakeholders of established IOs should meet the populist challenge by engaging in more fundamental debates over the very purpose and mandate of IOs.