𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝔻𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕠𝕗 ℙ𝕠𝕡𝕦𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕥 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤

ℙ𝕠𝕡𝕦𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕥 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕝𝕚𝕜𝕖 𝕋𝕣𝕦𝕞𝕡'𝕤 𝕚𝕞𝕞𝕚𝕘𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕥 𝕕𝕖𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕫𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕖𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕤' 𝕄ā𝕠𝕣𝕚/𝕚𝕞𝕞𝕚𝕘𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕥 𝕤𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕖𝕘𝕠𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕕𝕖 𝕕𝕖𝕞𝕠𝕔𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕪, 𝕕𝕚𝕧𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕤𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕙𝕒𝕣𝕞 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤—𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕒𝕝𝕝 𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕝𝕪 𝕥𝕠𝕩𝕚𝕔.

𝗘

xtreme right-wing political leaders were promising populist policies to court voters, positioning themselves as saviors of the "common folk" against entrenched elites. 

Leaders like U.S. President Donald Trump and Aotearoa's New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and ACT's David Seymour along with Orbán's Hungary and Bolsonaro's Brazil exemplified this surge, blending nationalist fervor with anti-establishment rhetoric.

While it taps into real frustrations over inequality and globalization, its downsides are profound, eroding democracy, stalling economies, and fracturing societies.

Empirical evidence reveals a pattern of short-term gains yielding long-term harm. 

At its core, populism undermines democratic institutions.

Populist governments often attack independent judiciaries, free media, and electoral bodies, framing them as elite conspiracies. 

This leads to "democratic backsliding," where power concentrates in the hands of a single leader or party. 

Studies show populist regimes are four times more likely to weaken democratic norms, staying in power longer while suppressing dissent.

In illiberal variants, populism restricts rights of minorities—racial, ethnic, or political—under the guise of majority will, fostering authoritarianism. 

The result? A hollowed-out democracy that prioritizes loyalty over accountability, trivializing assaults on pluralism.

Economically, populism delivers false promises. Leaders peddle simplistic fixes like trade wars or subsidies, ignoring structural reforms. 

Research indicates populist rule correlates with GDP growth lagging national and global averages by over 10% after a decade, driven by cronyism, corruption, and policy reversals. 

Protectionist tariffs, hailed as job-savers, inflate costs and stifle innovation, while fiscal populism—printing money or hiking spending—fuels inflation without addressing root inequalities. 

Venezuela under Chávez exemplifies this: initial oil-fueled handouts masked institutional decay, culminating in hyperinflation and collapse. 

Socially, populism exacerbates divisions. By scapegoating immigrants, experts, or "globalists," it amplifies polarization, breeding conspiracism and distrust. 

This "us vs. them" rhetoric worsens ethnic and gender inequalities, rejecting evidence on issues like climate change or human rights. 

A stark comparison emerges between Donald Trump's demonization of illegal immigrants—labeling them as criminals with "bad genes" or societal "drains"—and Winston Peters' New Zealand First and David Seymours ACT tactics, which decried an "Asian invasion" and warned of "Third World immigrants" overwhelming the nation. 

Trump's rhetoric deepened partisan rifts, with 78% of his Populist Right base viewing undocumented migrants as harmful to communities, compared to far lower Democratic support for mass deportations, fueling a stark ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats on immigration policy. 

𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝔻𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕠𝕗 ℙ𝕠𝕡𝕦𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕥 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤#nzpol #NZPolitics #Trump @NZMAGAMike #POTUS
Click link to read: https://t.co/zdnszrwJbK pic.twitter.com/J8gVVIC31U

— 𝔅𝔯𝔲𝔠𝔢 𝔄𝔩𝔭𝔦𝔫𝔢 (@alpine_bruce) October 21, 2025

Similarly, Peters and Seymours anti-immigration appeals, combined with opposition to Māori rights—such as blocking indigenous wards and decrying Treaty settlements as a "malignant cancer"—have accelerated social fractures along ethnic lines, alienating Māori and validating prejudices in a nation once lauded for indigenous inclusion. 

These strategies, while energizing disaffected voters, erode trust and cohesion, harming the very groups they claim to protect. 

Critics argue populism isn't inherently bad, sometimes boosting representation for the marginalized. 

Yet, when it veers illiberal—portraying the leader as the pure embodiment of the people—it poses existential threats. 

Liberal democracy's checks, like rule of law and minority protections, counter elite capture but are anathema to populists who see them as barriers. 

To counter this, societies must invest in education, media literacy, and inclusive policies that address grievances without demagoguery. 

Strengthening institutions can channel populist energy constructively. 

Without such safeguards, populism risks not just degrading democracy but unraveling the social fabric it pretends to mend. 

In an era of rising discontent, ignoring these downsides invites peril. 

It's not populist politics that are inherently bad for politics or economies, but rather the form exemplified by Donald Trump, Winston Peters and David Seymour—marked by divisive scapegoating and institutional disdain—that proves toxic to both.

𝐎𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝔅𝔯𝔲𝔠𝔢 𝔄𝔩𝔭𝔦𝔫𝔢

.