There are some three dozen ‘major’ European populist parties, winning at least 10 % in national elections in 2000-2019. Many now serve governing roles. Populist parties can provide a ‘corrective’ to liberal democracy by highlighting popular grievances and lack of elite responsiveness. However, they often challenge key liberal democratic principles. Not surprisingly, European publics lack clarity on what - if anything - ought to be done about populism. Citizens and policymakers need more theoretically- and empirically-grounded knowledge to understand which Initiatives opposing Populism (IoPs) work, without producing perverse effects, and without undermining valued qualities of liberal democracy. This project aims to contribute to the creation of such knowledge. It does so by evaluating the effectiveness of national and supranational responses to Danish People’s Party; Sweden Democrats; Alternative for Germany; Fidesz and Jobbik (Hungary); Law and Justice Party (Poland), League and the Five Star Moement (Italy) and Vox and Podemos (Spain) and by applying normative political theories to the challenges populists pose.

The main research questions, which address various challenges for Europe, are: 

• How can the undemocratic and illiberal actions of populist parties be effectively curbed?
• Can they be curbed without acting in illegitimate ways?

We employ the ‘most broadly used’ definition of populism today (Mudde 2017: 28; cf. Rovira et al. 2017), although the term and its implications for liberal democracy are disputed. That is, we define populism as a moralistic imagination of politics, a way of perceiving the political world which opposes a morally pure and fully unified, but ultimately fictional, people to small minorities who are put outside the authentic people (Müller 2014: 485). The ‘small minorities’ are characteristically a ‘corrupt’ elite, who maliciously ignore the interests of ‘common people’, but may also include ‘outsiders’ such as ethnic minorities and immigrants. Typically, populist parties do not oppose the democracy component of liberal democracy. Indeed, they embrace majoritarianism and self-determination by a sovereign people. However, the concept of a ‘morally pure and unified’ people that ought to rule clashes with liberal elements, particularly institutions designed to safeguard pluralism. In fact, populists in government often undermine liberal institutions, e.g. judicial independence, press freedom, and political opposition (Müller 2014: 489).

The interdependent levels of government in the EU make populist parties a European challenge. Populist parties and governments exert influence on other European countries through the European institutions and challenge basic European values and agreements. By dismantling liberal institutions domestically, they undermine individual (democratic) rights of citizens, impacting the democratic preconditions of not only domestic but also European politics. The illiberal aspects of populist policies are hence both a domestic and a European concern calling for democratic defence measures at both levels.

The project’s focus is ‘Initiatives opposing Populism’ (IoPs), their effects and legitimacy, in relation to the populist parties named above. IoPs can be deployed by public authorities, parties and civil society at multiple territorial levels – local, national and supranational (EU and European Court of Human Rights) - against selected populist parties. These include prosecution for racism, hate-speech, abuse of office, judicial review, political ostracism, cordon sanitaire – or its opposite, collaboration with populists in governing – suspension from the EU Council, EU infringement proceedings, ECtHR cases, EU budget sanctions, direct action by national and transnational NGOs, democracy promotion and civic education.

Examples of state, trans- and supranational IoPs

The project will investigate responses to populist parties in Europe in a uniquely integrated fashion. As the above table shows, the project will firstly, not only study legal measures against populism, as is usually the case, but also political and cultural ones. Secondly, it will analyse not only domestic measures but also measures taken by trans- and supranational actors in Europe, which are usually examined separately. And thirdly, it will throughout combine empirical research with normative democratic theory, systematically linking empirical problems to broader discussions on democratic values and legitimacy. As such, the project will break new ground in the field.

Module I will ask whether national measures of democratic self-defence effectively moderate the influence, ideas or appeal of populist parties, looking at left and right-wing populists in seven countries: Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Italy and Spain. The measures studied include legal (e.g. prosecution for hate speech or racism), political (e.g. cordon sanitaire) and cultural types (e.g. civic education programs). 

Module II will consist of mapping the strategies of democratic self-defence that exist at a supranational and transnational level and analysing their effectiveness in conjunction with national measures. These include, for example, jurisprudence of supranational courts (ECtHR and EU), transnational anti-populist civil society movements, and mechanisms of social and political pressure.

Module III will tackle the normative questions that arise in connection to each of the measures examined in the previous two Modules. These questions include, for example, whether party bans are legitimate from a democratic standpoint, if exclusion from parliamentary debates, political coalitions or public deliberation are compatible with liberal values, whether liberal institutions can promote specific values among the citizenry and civil society organisations and if and when the EU has the legitimacy to intervene in member-states’ domestic political affairs. 

In sum, the project will generate significant knowledge about the theory and practice of democratic self-defence in contemporary Europe. As such, it will inform public, policy-specific and academic debates on how to deal with contemporary threats to liberal democracy.

Final Program, Conference on ‘Populism and Democratic Defence in Europe’

Roskilde, 27-28 May 2024

Location: Building 25, Teorirum (25.1-035) 

Here you find publications from project members. The publications are relevant for the project but not necessarily financed by the project.

Angela Bourne, Roskilde University

Bourne, A (2018) Democratic Dilemmas: Why Democracies Ban Political Parties (Routledge)  

Bourne, A and Rijpkema, B (eds) (2022) Special issue: Militant Democracy, populism and illiberalism: new challenges, European Constitutional Law Review,

Bourne, A (2022) From Militant Democracy to Normal Politics? How European Democracies Respond to Populist Parties, European Constitutional Law Review, 1-23.

 Bourne, A and Veugelers, J (2021) ‘Militant Democracy and Successors to Authoritarian Ruling Parties in Post-1945 West Germany and Italy’, Democratization, available online.

Morska-Bonkiewicz, A and Bourne, A (2020) ‘The impact of the past on contemporary responses to political extremism: The cases of Poland and Spain’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 28, 4, 464-476.

de Leeuw, S and Bourne A, (2019) Explaining Citizen Attitudes to Strategies of ‘Democratic Defence’ in Europe: A resource in response to contemporary challenges to liberal democracy, International Journal of Public Opinion Research,32:4, 694-710.

Bénédicte Laumond, University of Wroclaw and Université de Versailles

Laumond, B., 2022. Addressing the paradox of tolerance in liberal democracies: why do France and Germany respond differently to right-wing radicalism?. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, pp.1-18.

Laumond, B., 2020. Policy responses to the radical right in France and Germany: Public actors, policy frames, and decision-making. Routledge.

Laumond, B., 2020. La régulation du radicalisme de droite: une comparaison franco-allemande. Raisons politiques, (2), pp.109-122.

Laumond, B., 2020. La méthode expérimentale du jeu de cartes pour étudier les représentations pénales ordinaires en Allemagne et en France. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 147(1-2), pp.169-199.

Laumond, B., 2015. Police et surveillance de l'extrême droite en Allemagne. Police et surveillance de l'extrême droite en Allemagne, pp.1-149.

Laumond, B., 2020. Punitivité comparée. Les cadrages ordinaires des violences de genre en Allemagne et en France. Deviance et Societe, 44(3), pp.347-382.

Laumond, B., 2020. Des passeurs en quête de prévention contre l’extrémisme de droite. Revue francaise de science politique, 70(5), pp.617-637.

Anthoula Malkopoulou, Lund and Uppsala Universities 

Stone, P, Malkopoulou, A. Allotted chambers as defenders of democracy Constellations. 2022; 29: 296– 309. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12580

Malkopoulou, A. (2021). Greece: A Procedural Defence of Democracy against the Golden Dawn. European Constitutional Law Review, 17(2), 177-201. doi:10.1017/S1574019621000146

Malkopoulou, Anthoula (2020) What militant democrats and technocrats share, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, DOI: 10.1080/13698230.2020.1782047

Malkopoulou, Anthoula (2020) Hermann Heller on politics: discipline, sphere and activity, History of European Ideas, 46:4, 393-404, DOI: 10.1080/01916599.2020.1738773

Malkopoulou, A. Kirshner, A., Eds. (2019). Militant Democracy and its Critics, Edinburgh University Press.

Malkopoulou, A. and L. Norman (2018). Three Models of Democratic Self-Defence: Militant Democracy and its Alternatives, Political Studies. Vol.66, Issue 2, 442–458.

Malkopoulou, A. (2017). Ostracism and Democratic Self-defense in Athens, Constellations. Vol. 24, Issue 4, 623–36.

Aleksandra Moroska-Bonkiewicz, University of Wroclaw

Moroska-Bonkiewicz, A. and Bourne, A., 2020. The impact of the past on contemporary responses to political extremism: the cases of Poland and Spain. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 28(4), pp.464-476.

Patrick Nitzschner, Lund University

Nitzschner, P. Beyond ‘contemporary relevance’: Reading critical theory today. Contemporary Political Theory 21 (Suppl 2), 49–54 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00480-2

Tore Vincents Olsen, Aarhus University

Olsen, TV 2022 ‘Ejection for Democracy Protection: On the Expulsion of EU Member States’, Res Publica, doi.org/10.1007/s11158-022-09566-z

Olsen, TV  2022, 'Citizens’ Actions against Non-liberal-democratic Parties', European Constitutional Law Review. 1-22, doi:10.1017/S1574019622000232

Olsen, TV 2022, 'Why and how should the EU defend its values?', Res Publica. doi.org/10.1007/s11158-022-09560-5 

Olsen, TV 2022, 'The elitist defence of democracy against populists using education and money', Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. DOI: 10.1080/13698230.2022.2077014

Olsen, TV (2021) ‘Defending Democracy Politically’ Acta Politica 57, 798–817  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-021-00224-5

Olsen, TV 2019, The EU defending liberal democracy in a liberal democratic way. in A Malkopoulou & A Kirshner (eds), Militant Democracy and its Critics. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.