A resurgence of populism around the world is now one of the most important developments in the field of international relations. Populism stands out with anti-elite remarks, strong nationalism, and doubt over higher-level institutions, now making a stronger mark in politics worldwide. It analyzes how the increase of populism in the North has disrupted traditional multilateralism, tried to uproot the liberal international order and adjusted how countries cooperate globally. It observes that though populism greatly challenges running the world system, it also gives room to revise international institutions so they are more responsive to people’s worries.
Populism now tends to be more illiberal, nativist, and isolationist, directly opposing the common goals of global cooperation.
In the past few decades, cooperation at the international level has been supported by many treaties, alliances and mechanisms for running the world. A liberal international order has been supported by multilateral bodies such as the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), European Union (EU) and Bretton Woods institutions through common norms, rule-based systems and economic connections.
But the idea, after the Cold War, that globalization and liberal democracy would become more widespread worldwide has broken apart. Populism has changed the political situation across the United States, Europe, and Latin America and is growing in Asia and Africa. Populism was once seen as helping democracy, but now it tends to be more illiberal, nativist, and isolationist, which directly goes against the common goals of many countries.
Populism is not defined by a specific belief, but is a “thin-centered” idea that pictures politics as a fight between honest and single-minded people and corrupt and selfish elites (Mudde, 2004). Although it may be either left-wing or right-wing, populism tends to be strong around concerns such as inequality, shifts in cultural identity and feeling excluded from politics, which are made worse by globalization.
National sovereignty, opposition to immigrants and traditional culture are important to right-wing populism. Unlike the right, left-wing populism frequently disagrees with neoliberal globalization and the hoarding of wealth. In both cases, populists see international institutions as powerless leaders who might affect a nation’s identity and its right to self-rule. Because populism can easily transform to fit different societies, it strongly opposes global cooperation, which is seen by many as an elite matter that does not concern ordinary people.
The ‘America First’ doctrine reduced opportunities for multilateral engagement and weakened global environmental leadership.
Many populist governments try to destroy international organizations by claiming they are controlled by foreigners or elites. The decision by the Trump administration to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and UNESCO made it clear that America was stepping back from multilateralism. According to the “America First” doctrine, Trump chose to go it alone, which lessened opportunities for working with other countries.
Brazil’s President Bolsonaro also disagreed with international environmental treaties and threatened to leave the WHO. Repeatedly, Viktor Orbán (Hungary) and the Law and Justice Party (Poland) have butted heads with the EU over adhering to the rule of law, undermining the authority of institutions over nations.
Sources of agreement between nations include human rights, democratic rule and cooperation through UN agreements. Populism is known to break the consensus. Populist leaders damage the soft power that democratic traditions give a nation. EU members who do not keep up with its democratic standards are now endangering the EU’s inner unity. As a result, the EU’s unity within itself is damaged and its ability to shape global norms is reduced. Because populism often gives the executive more strength, criticizes the media news, and reduces the influence of the judiciary, such states may lose democratic rights and become less valued in global discussions.
Since climate change affects people everywhere, countries must pull together, yet governments focused on pleasing the general public tend to reject environmental action as both costly and an outside imposition. By pulling out of the Paris Agreement, the Trump administration disturbed world efforts to solve climate change and encouraged other regimes to doubt climate science. Populist politics such as those of Bolsonaro are shown to intensify harm to the environment and influence the whole world.
In addition, populism tends to make people believe that protecting the environment comes at the expense of the country’s economy, so they choose economic growth now rather than care for the planet in the long run.
Populist politics often damage soft power and threaten democratic consensus within international institutions like the EU.
Populist nationalism made it clear how damaging it can be for world health cooperation. Many of these leaders dismissed scientific recommendations, underplayed the seriousness of the virus, and accused others (such as China, migrants, and international organizations) of what was happening inside their nations. When wealthier, populist-leaning countries held on to most of the vaccines, it caused harm to the WHO-led COVAX initiative and worsened inequality in getting health care globally. Not only did this event lower the credibility of collaborative health leadership, but it also exemplified the way populism can easily halt joint efforts to fight the crisis.
Populism is often the result of problems caused by globalization, like factories closing, layoffs, and the breakdown of traditional working-class areas. Therefore, populist governments commonly levy tariffs, pull out of trade commitments, and stress protection of their economies.
Under a populist-nationalist leader, starting a trade war with China broke years of neoliberal economic rules. At the same time, thanks largely to opposition to globalization, Brexit interrupted the functioning of one of the best examples of regional economic links. Populists encourage pulling away from the world and these actions usually lower both national and global economic efficiency.
Although populism causes many disturbances, it also creates a chance to update the systems used in international cooperation. Populist complaints about the gap between elites and the public, little transparency, and unequal treatment with globalization are valid in today’s world.
Critics often say that the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the WTO lack democracy and show a preference for the West. Populist trends can make these institutions adopt methods that give the Global South more say in their decision-making.
It is important for global institutions to respond to problems of inequality and the division of cultures behind the rise of populism. It might call for reviewing the principles behind globalization to put fairness, employee rights and stronger regional communities first. Because global institutions are often doubted by populists, regional organizations might provide better and more acceptable ways for cooperation. ASEAN, the African Union and Latin American regional organizations can help balance between what is best for a country and for the world as a whole.
Populism’s critiques of elitism and inequality can compel reforms to make global institutions more inclusive and accountable.
Populism on the rise creates a problem and at the same time encourages nations to cooperate internationally. On one side, populism makes it difficult for countries to cooperate, weakens general expectations and reduces cooperation on climate, health and trade. Also, it leads global organizations to examine how legitimate, active and open they are.
It is important for international relations specialists to see populism as more than only irrationality, but to examine its underlying forces and popularity. Tackling the core issues behind populism allows the international community to preserve and maybe increase the positive partnerships needed for global peace and prosperity.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
