Civil society, effective responses to populist parties and democratic resilience in Europe

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical framework for studying the effectiveness of opposition to populist parties by civil society actors. Effective opposition to populist parties is the achievement of the goals of opposition without achieving perverse effects. Goals of opposition to populist parties are reducing support for populist parties; diminishing their material, organizational, and moral resources; ideological moderation; and, where relevant, curbing their ability to implement illiberal or undemocratic policies. Perverse effects, from the point of view of opponents, are increased support for populist parties boosting populist party resources; and ideological radicalization. Civil society actors can achieve these goals in three main ways: By disrupting the daily activities, civil society actors may reduce party support and organizational resources, while disruptive protests create social leverage, exploiting dependency of populist governments on political stability and consent. Civil society actors can form alliances with others, such as political parties able to use their governing resources against populist parties, or through litigation. Secondly, public critique at home and abroad, media campaigns and demonstrations may persuade others not to support populist parties and damage moral resources. Avoiding these negative consequences provides incentives for ideological moderation. Perverse effects may follow the effective mobilization of populist counter-discourses, linking opponents to elites or ‘others’ denigrated in populist discourse, boosting organizational cohesion and encouraging radicalization. The article contributes to research on ‘democratic resilience’ by identifying ‘diagonal accountability’ mechanisms, showing how these both shape incentives and work through persuasion.