Fear, Grievance, and the Other

For decades, movements combining nativism —a belief in the supremacy of narrowly defined “native-born” citizens — anti-pluralism, and populism were rare or relegated to the fringes of democratic politics. However, recent developments, including Donald Trump’s 2024 reelection in the US, the rise of the Alternative für Deutschland party in  Germany, and the electoral successes of the Fratelli d'Italia party in Italy, Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands or Fidesz in Hungary, highlight a reality of growing popular support for this style of politics. 

These political leaders and the movements that support them are labeled in myriad ways, be it as populist, authoritarian, far-right, or fascist. Still, current analytical tools often fall short to explain the combination of strategic and tactical features that they employ. Many analytical models focus narrowly on ideology, despite the fact that these movements unite disparate and inconsistent ideologues, or on regime types, framing states as either democracies or autocracies, which perpetuates a binary that does not account for authoritarian practices that continue to happen within mostly democratic states.

This paper advances the framework of authoritarian populism as an analytical tool that better describes a form of politics (not an ideology or regime type) that draws from both the authoritarian and populist playbooks. The paper also offers an overview of key concepts that illuminate the global rise, persistence, and strategies of exclusionary, nativist, and populist movements within democracies, such as populism and authoritarianism. 

A central element of the authoritarian populist approach is the cultivation of a strong sense of in-group identity rooted in fear and grievance towards an identified “other”—which in turn helps foster a profound sense of belonging, albeit one that is rooted in othering. This in-group identity filter is composed of a double lens: one that reinforces an “us” in struggle against a homogeneously threatening  “them” (often described in racial, cultural, or religious terms) and another that centers “the people” against a nebulously defined “elite”, who are often accused of prioritizing the interests of the “them.” At a time when so much frustration is directed, understandably so, at the real failures of public institutions, this mode of politics allows authoritarian populist leaders to capitalize on resentment and justify support for exclusionary and authoritarian practices, supposedly for the security and benefit of the deserving in-group. 

Many voters are drawn to authoritarian populists for their populist rhetoric — critiquing elites and a system that fails millions worldwide — rather than for their authoritarianism, which is often less visible or understood. The exercise of authoritarian power is sometimes justified as necessary and even democratic, often under the guise of majoritarianism. However, by supporting nativist and anti-pluralist actors, voters clamoring for change inadvertently enable these leaders to reshape societies toward hybrid models–neither fully democratic nor autocratic–that retain some democratic elements and freedoms but deepen hierarchies and perpetuate violence. 

Beyond just serving as a descriptive model, the framework of authoritarian populism seeks to offer insights not only into how we can understand a concerning and newly dominant force in politics today, but also how we can more effectively counter it without provoking further othering or division. It asks us to question whether we are reinforcing the authoritarian populist double lens of “elite versus the people” and “us versus them,” or if we are advancing a different lens to process reality that is predicated on belonging without othering.

Click here to read the full report