Populism: giving the people a voice?

This session is part of Battle of Ideas Berlin 2026.

‘Populism is a fundamental political stance that stands in radical opposition to the ruling political and social elites and claims to recognise and represent the “true” will of the people’, states the glossary of the Federal Agency for Civic Education in Germany.

For many commentators, populism lies at the heart of everything that is wrong with our current society. It is seen as a threat to democracy, the rule of law and minority rights – eroding trust in the mainstream media and in science, and fueling the denial of global warming.

But a point to the contrary can also be made: populism has revitalised democracy and public debate. It is true that recent years have seen markedly higher voter turnout than in the decades preceding the populist surge. Public debate has also opened up on crucial issues such as migration, energy policy, climate change, housing and the cost of living. Citizens, so the defenders of populism argue, should have a voice and be taken seriously.

Populism clearly draws on something that goes back many years: a growing dissatisfaction with established politics and a sense that important concerns are being ignored or even dismissed. Is populism being criticised simply for exposing issues that established politics would rather avoid?

Others, however, argue that populists, far from offering solutions, are simply adept at exploiting discontent. The language they use – projecting a clear-cut divide between common sense and a political establishment portrayed as detached, self-serving or corrupt – is as effective as it is divisive. Far from moving society forward, it turns political disagreement into a moral struggle between ‘us’ and ‘them’, leaving a deeply divided society unable to tackle the challenges confronting it.

The danger, according to populism’s critics, lies not simply in polarisation but in the claim that populist parties represent the people exclusively. Once a movement presents itself as the authentic voice of the people, does criticism of that movement risk being cast as criticism of the people themselves? Critics of the AfD often point to incendiary, racist or historically revisionist comments by party spokespersons or members. How can a movement that claims to speak for the people ally itself with individuals or groups that more moderate followers would reject? Or is this critique itself part of a delegitimising narrative advanced by legacy parties and anti-populist NGOs?

Is populism democracy’s enemy, or does it express something central to the democratic spirit? Does it give citizens a voice, or merely claim to speak for ‘the people’? And when does challenging an unresponsive political establishment begin to narrow the space for legitimate political disagreement?