Democracy And Populism

Abstract

The present work examines the phenomenon of populism and its multifaceted relationship with democracy. This subject remains insufficiently analyzed within contemporary Georgian academic discourse; populism is typically treated through a superficial lens, predominantly perceived as a manipulative and cynical style of political activity. Our objective is to provide a profound conceptualization of populism and to delineate its position and significance within the modern political landscape. Numerous definitions of populism exist. For the purposes of this study, and considering the characteristics shared by a scholarly consensus, we define populism as a form of "reactive ideology," a worldview, and a discursive practice. It encompasses both a normative/value-oriented component (governance in accordance with the "will of the people") and a distinct style of political action (the opposition of the marginalized and ignored "people" against a privileged "elite"). In analyzing populism, it is expedient to distinguish between two primary forms: "populism from above" and "populism from below." "Populism from above" is understood as a manipulative worldview and discourse imposed by authoritarian leaders, utilized as a tool to delegitimize and combat political opponents. "Populism from below" refers to those grassroots sentiments that foster reactive, negative attitudes toward the established reality. This is not merely the product of manipulation; rather, it is rooted in acute socio-economic hardship, cultural alienation, and the systemic marginalization of the masses within the globalist and neoliberal order. This produces a narrative that the ruling elite disregards the "people," leading the elite to be perceived as an existential enemy of the "pure people" (in the academic sense). The discontent that catalyzes populism is fundamentally grounded in a perceived sense of injustice. Consequently, the struggle is directed toward the rectification of injustice and the establishment of fairness. Therefore, populism consistently transcends narrow ideological frameworks and acquires a normative dimension rooted in a specific conception of justice. It can be concordant with both left-wing and right-wing political orientations. The extensive expansion and intensive deepening of populism are often orchestrated "from above" by populist leaders. This involves the leader or a dominant group blaming rivals for maintaining the status quo toward which the public harbors deep-seated dissatisfaction. What is the relationship between democracy and populism? Democracy possesses an inherent predisposition toward populism, as it derives its ultimate legitimacy from "the people." The necessity of popular support for power underscores the status of the people as the primary and final authority in decision-making. Democracy, first and foremost, is an issue of power. Our position is that democracy must be defined not only by dry procedures but by the quality and depth of participation. It is a substantive process wherein citizens exercise genuine, continuous influence over politics, rather than participating only once every four years. Furthermore, democracy should be viewed as a theory of power and the balance of forces, rather than strictly as a normative theory of human rights. The contemporary political crisis confirms that reducing democracy solely to competitive elections (the minimalist conception) is a fatal error. When democracy is distilled into a mere act of voting, a "representational gap" emerges between the citizenry and the authorities—elections take place, but real governance is conducted without the participation of the people. Populism possesses democratic potential when it focuses on "economic injustice" and participation in power. Such populism contends that "the game is rigged" in favor of elite factions, large corporations, and billionaires. It does not assault democracy itself but calls for its extension from the political sphere into the economic realm. Conversely, populism obstructs democracy when it emphasizes exclusively the will of the majority, fosters irreconcilable hostility toward minorities, and seeks the dismantling of institutions. The leader promises the people the destruction of "bureaucratic barriers" (such as the judiciary, law, and media). Pluralism and the diversity of interests are perceived as obstacles, and the leader seeks to enforce unity through various instruments of dominance. Two of the most acute factors defining the crisis of modern democracy are participation and representation. On the one hand, democracy requires the guaranteed participation of the demos in decision-making; on the other hand, it is clear that for the vast majority of decisions (especially those made at a national level by the entire demos), this is logistically impossible. To resolve this dilemma, we propose the concept of " Multi-level Democracy"—a synthesis of participatory and representative principles realized across various autonomous but interconnected levels of decision-making. Overcoming the destructive forms of populism is only possible by restoring the tiers (steps) of democracy. True sovereignty lies not in the "strong hand" of a leader, but in the substantive participation of the citizen. Multi-level Democracy shifts political debate from abstract ideological warfare to practical, tangible, and local issues. The survival of democracy hinges on integrating the progressive impulse of populism (the desire for participation) into a Multi-level system. We require a framework where the citizen is an active participant in decision-making at micro-institutional levels (local communities, professional spaces, etc.), ensuring both the principle of participation and the development of an informed electorate at the national level. This pathway may protect democracy from both elite oligarchy and the chaotic plebiscitarianism of the masses.