Authors: Meherab Hossain and Md. Obaidullah*

Populism and nationalism represent two discrete political ideologies; however, they may pose potential threats to democracy. Populism is a political ideology and approach characterized by the emphasis on the interests and concerns of ordinary people against established elites or perceived sources of power and privilege. Populist leaders often portray themselves as champions of the “common people” and claim to represent their grievances and desires. It is a political stance that emphasizes the idea of “the people” and often contrasts this group against “the elite”.

 Nationalism, on the other hand, is an ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests. It represents a political principal positing that there should be congruence between the political entity and the nation-state. While populism emphasizes the idea of “the people,” nationalism emphasizes the idea of the nation-state.

In what ways can populism pose a threat to democracy?

While some argue that populism is not a threat to democracy per se, others contend that it poses a serious risk to democratic institutions. Populism can become a threat to democracy by undermining formal institutions and functions, discrediting the media, and targeting specific social groups, such as immigrants or minorities. This threat arises from its potential to confer a moral legitimacy upon the state that it might otherwise lack. Consequently, it can jeopardize the defense mechanisms established to safeguard against tyranny, including freedoms, checks and balances, the rule of law, tolerance, autonomous social institutions, individual and group rights, as well as pluralism.  Populism imposes an assumption of uniformity onto the diverse fabric of reality, distorting not only factual representations but also elevating the attributes of certain social groups above those of others.

In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s populist rhetoric and policies have led to the erosion of democratic institutions, including the judiciary and the media. Populism in Turkey can be traced back to the era of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s regime, during which Atatürk’s elites, who had limited commonality with the broader society, assumed the responsibility of educating and guiding the masses. This phenomenon, often referred to as ‘regime elitism,’ has rendered Turkey susceptible to populism, which fundamentally revolves around the conflict between the elites and the general populace.

 In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s populist government has been accused of undermining the rule of law, limiting press freedom, and targeting civil society groups. He has established a repressive and progressively authoritarian state that operates under the guise of democracy.

In media discourse, he has been designated as a populist leader. Empirical analysis reveals that Hungary is currently governed by a form of political populism, characterized as conservative right-wing populism. The salient features of Hungarian political dynamics encompass the government’s claim of challenging established elites, a lack of a clearly defined political agenda, the utilization of propaganda as a prominent tool in its political communications, advocacy for the preservation of a Christian Hungary, intervention in areas traditionally considered independent from state interference such as education and jurisdiction, the implementation of mass clientelism to reward its supporters while exerting pressure on critics, and overt criticism of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Consequently, this trajectory underscores the ascendance of authoritarianism within Hungary.

How Nationalism can be threat to Democracy?

Nationalism can pose a potential threat to both democracy and international relations when it manifests in forms of discrimination, violence, and the exclusion of specific groups. The ascension of nationalism may jeopardize the established efficacy of multilateralism, which has historically been instrumental in preserving lives and averting conflicts. This can result in unilateral actions by certain nations, thereby undermining the collaborative approach to the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Nationalism can serve as a catalyst for conflict and division, fostering tendencies toward exclusivity and competition that impede the resolution of common global challenges. The ascent of economic nationalism has the potential to undermine global collaboration and policy alignment, resulting in a resurgence of nationalist economic strategies in many regions worldwide. Such strategies often prioritize individual national objectives over the collective global interest. Unrestrained nationalism can pose a threat to stability by inflaming ethnic tensions, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence and conflict.

In Europe, nationalism has historically been a significant catalyst for conflict and division, spanning from the emergence of Nazi Germany in the 1930s to more recent upsurges of nationalist movements in various countries. Nationalism tends to foster exclusivity and competition, thereby complicating efforts to address common global challenges. Under nationalist ideology, exemplified by Hitler, instances of extreme cruelty and inhumanity have been documented.

Another instance of nationalism, which presents a significant challenge to democracy, is the ascendance of Hindu extremism and nationalism in India, resulting in communal tensions. Since the Hindu nationalist BJP came into power, there has been a heightened sense of insecurity among Muslims in India, with the situation reaching unprecedented levels of concern. The government has actively employed media, television, and the film industry to propagate Islamophobia among the Hindu majority. In 2018, the Indian High Court rendered a judgment advocating for India to be declared a Hindu state, citing the country’s historical religious divisions. Nonetheless, it is crucial to emphasize that, in accordance with its constitution, India is mandated to maintain a secular state. Needless to say, the rise of Hindu nationalism under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of fueling sectarian tensions and undermining the country’s secular democracy.

Indeed, while populism and nationalism are distinct concepts, their simultaneous global rise poses a considerable threat to democracy. These ideologies frequently favor specific groups over the broader population and can corrode democratic principles. They tend to exacerbate polarization and undermine vital democratic institutions. Hence, many countries are grappling with substantial challenges to their democratic systems, which puts their stability and effectiveness at risk.

*Md. Obaidullah holds both a BSS and an MSS degree in Public Administration from the University of Barishal. He is currently employed as a Research Assistant at the Centre for Advanced Social Research in Dhaka, Bangladesh. His writing expertise spans various subjects, including Public Policy, Politics, Governance, Climate Change, and Diplomacy, on which he frequently contributes

Working towards better results on the ground and focused on the future, the UN family is undergoing a reset that will give rise to more agile, tech-savvy and impactful UN organizations.This transformation in skills and culture, encapsulated in the Secretary-General’s vision of a UN 2.0, is focused on fostering cutting-edge capabilities in data, digital, innovation, foresight and behavioural science – to deliver stronger results, better Member State support, and faster progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

During a roundtable with Member States, a group of UN leaders and experts explained the potential and strategies of UN 2.0. They highlighted early success stories, that, when replicated, will boost on-the-ground impact of a stronger, more flexible and modern UN. 

This event came before the launch of the Secretary-General’s policy brief on the issue of a UN 2.0 revamp.

At the core of UN 2.0 is the so-named ‘Quintet of Change’, a powerful combination of data, innovation, digital solutions, foresight, and behavioural science solutions.

Opening the discussion, Melissa Fleming, the Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, emphasized the need for change, highlighting that the progress towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – adopted by all UN Member States in 2015 as a blueprint for peace and prosperity – is currently not on track. 

Responding to the growing demand for reform, UN 2.0 represents a shift in how UN system organizations operate, aiming to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

Guy Ryder, the Under-Secretary-General for Policy, who brings extensive experience from his decade-long tenure leading the International Labour Organization (ILO), explained that the purpose of UN 2.0 is to equip UN organizations with the contemporary expertise required to be an effective partner for Member States in the twenty-first century.

A transformed UN leaves no one behind

Catherine Pollard, the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy, and Compliance, explained that the primary beneficiaries of UN 2.0 are the people the UN serves in its 193 member countries. “But equally important, UN 2.0 is about UN organizations themselves, because they will develop new skills, new talent, new purpose to better deliver our mandate.”

The UN continues to be a relevant player in the multilateral arena. To maintain this relevance, Ms. Pollard said, the Organization will develop employees’ skills, offer more training, attract new talents, and improve human resources policies.

Like many things in the modern world, UN 2.0 will be driven by digital solutions and cutting-edge technologies. Robert Opp, Chief Digital Officer of UNDP, the UN agency promoting international development, advocated for the potential that new technologies offer and contemplated on what the future can bring. 

“AI is the current challenge, but there will be quantum computing and other breakthroughs around the corner, what we haven’t even anticipated,” he said, adding that when the ‘Quintet of Change’ is successfully implemented across the UN system, the Organization’s agility in responding to new challenges and in helping Member States will increase dramatically. 

Data, digital innovation, foresight and behavioural science play key roles  

The UN is actively supporting Member States in their pursuit of new solutions. A network of innovation labs has been established in more than 90 countries, serving as platforms for sharing new expertise in technology, data and other areas.

One notable success story comes from Indonesia, explained Faizal Thamrin, Data Scientist at UN Global Pulse Asia-Pacific. He illustrated how his team collaborated with the Government and thousands of small and medium enterprises to prepare for the future. Additionally, the team’s data analytics skills, combined with Indonesia’s experience, helped replicate early warning systems for natural disasters across the region.

UN 2.0 extends beyond data and digital solutions. Behavioural science, a multidisciplinary field that integrates insights from psychology, economics, communications, data science, sociology, and more, plays a crucial role in the ‘Quintet of Change’. 

Claire Hobden, an ILO expert on domestic work, provided an example from Argentina’s informal sector. With support from UN colleagues, the Government was able to significantly expand social security coverage to domestic workers, such as nannies and caregivers, who are often hard to reach. 

“Through a very small intervention we  hope to be able to give more people access to social security, realizing their rights and access to decent work,” said Ms. Hobden noting the huge potential of replicating these methods, as there are 75 million such workers around the globe.

‘With new tools, we can do better’ 

In conversation with senior diplomats, Mr. Ryder emphasized that UN 2.0 is about potential of doing our job better “if we take a fresh look at some of the things we’ve been doing for a long time.”

Commenting on the journey ahead for UN colleagues, Mr. Ryder said “What you’ve done has been great. Now we have new tools. Let’s pick up those new tools, use them and maybe we can improve on what we’ve done before. It’s not saying what happened in the past was bad. It’s saying what we do in the future can be better”.

The event was co-organized by the Permanent Missions of Norway and the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations in partnership with the Executive Office of the Secretary-General.

The proposed expansion of the BRICS group has prompted alarm among some western commentators. Three of the six new states invited to join, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, are key US allies in the Middle East who will now enter an economic bloc with Washington’s geopolitical rivals. Though the White House itself played down the threat this expanded group will pose to the US, its allies’ willingness to align with China, Russia and fellow newcomer, Iran has prompted some to wonder if this signals a rejection of the West by Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, and Cairo.

At a superficial level, the alarm is justified. China was especially keen to expand BRICS, over the reluctance of India and Brazil, seeing it as a potential counterweight to the US-dominated western bloc in international affairs. Russia also used the recent BRICS summit in Johannesburg to rail against western domination of the global order, echoing Chinese President Xi Xinping’s frequent criticism of ‘US hegemony’.

Inviting Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt to join this bloc could therefore be viewed as a major coup for Beijing and Moscow. Egypt has been aligned with the US since the 1970s and is the second largest recipient of US military aid after Israel. Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s partnerships with the US date back even further and both look to Washington as their first port of call for security and purchasing arms. In addition, the UAE, like most GCC members bar Saudi Arabia, hosts key American military installations, notably the Al Dhafra air base.

However, contrary to commentator alarm and Chinese hopes, the decision to join BRICS by these three Middle Eastern players is not a rejection of the west. They are asserting their independence from the US, but not joining China and Russia in an anti-western alliance. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt still see the US as a key ally, especially in the security field. But the world has moved on, and they recognise that the ‘unipolar order’ of 30 years ago has given way to an era of multipolarity.

In the final years of the Cold War and in its aftermath, theses states came to accept that firmly aligning with the US was in their interests. As recently as the ‘War on Terror’ of the 2000s, US President George W. Bush clearly asserted, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” In such a US-dominated world order, when Washington was flexing its military muscle in multiple Middle East arenas, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Cairo recognised the logic of sitting firmly in America’s camp.

But this is no longer the case. At a global level, Washington overstretched during the War on Terror, while Russia became more military assertive, and China’s power grew. At the regional level, the US remains present but less dominant in the Middle East. In the past decade regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and, to a lesser extent, Egypt, have filled the post-US vacuum, acting increasingly independent of the US when they feel their interests are threatened.  Meanwhile China and Russia have also taken advantage of lighter US involvement to enhance their presence in the region.

Over the past few years, the Middle East’s regional players have been adapting to this new reality. They still see the US as a key security ally but assert their right to pursue their interests even if they clash with Washington’s. Part of this is a recognition that they must work closely with other global powers like China and Russia. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have all joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and all three refused to join western sanctions on Russia after the Ukraine invasion. Yet none saw this as rejecting the US or the West, but rather balancing several important relationships at once.

If all three states opt to join BRICS, it should therefore be seen within this context. It is the continuation of their adaptation to the multipolar reality, rather than taking sides in the growing confrontation between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Cairo are learning to make the most of the end of unipolarity, walking a careful line between the global ‘great’ powers to maximise gains for themselves.

Some western commentators may lament the passing of an era when Washington could take these Middle Eastern powers for granted, but the world has moved on. The expansion of BRICS, however, should not cause the alarm it has. It hasn’t created the multi-polar global order, that happened years ago, but rather reflects the current reality. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will remain close allies of the West, much in the same way as other BRICS states South Africa, India and Brazil remain close to Washington. But by joining the bloc they will be confirming what Middle East observers have known for some time: the era of US hegemony is long past and the region’s players, including its close allies, are now doing things their own way.