Populism Talks

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Peru's razor-thin presidential election has brought Keiko Fujimori to power, reviving fears of a return to 1990s-style governance. But is the country's democracy actually down for the count? Renowned political scientist Professor Martín Tanaka (PUCP) joins host Selcuk Gultasli to explain why the electoral results were actually "much better than our worst expectations." They discuss the defeat of obstructionist populists, the true root of Peru's decay,

Here is the revised version of our interview with Professor Martín Tanaka, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/prof-...

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Peru’s 2026 presidential election represents one of the most consequential democratic tests in contemporary Latin America. The razor-thin runoff between Keiko Fujimori and Roberto Sánchez unfolded against a backdrop of escalating organized crime, allegations of electoral fraud, institutional reform, and profound public distrust in political institutions. Although the election culminated in the return of Fujimorismo to the presidency, it also exposed the enduring fragility of Peru’s democratic order and highlighted broader regional debates over populism, representation, democratic legitimacy, and state capacity. Rather than resolving Peru’s long-running political crisis, the election underscored the persistent tensions between demands for democratic accountability and growing public desires for order and security.In this timely interview, Professor Cynthia McClintock, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and Director of GWU’s Latin American and Hemispheric Studies Program, offers a nuanced assessment of Peru’s political trajectory while placing recent developments within broader comparative debates on democratic resilience in Latin America. Drawing on decades of scholarship on Peruvian politics, electoral institutions, democratization, and runoff elections, Professor McClintock argues that the 2026 contest should not be understood simply as a story of ideological polarization. Instead, she contends that "most Peruvian voters were actually not at these extremes; rather, their vote fragmented," pointing to the unprecedented presence of thirty-five presidential candidates and the collapse of the democratic center before the runoff.Throughout the interview, Professor McClintock examines why democratic legitimacy has become increasingly fragile despite Peru’s comparatively strong macroeconomic performance. She warns that declining trust in electoral institutions constitutes "a very worrisome pattern," while emphasizing that rising insecurity has fundamentally reshaped political competition. In her view, "there’s been a particularly tragic increase in extortion in Peru, which has led to this desire for the iron fist," helping explain both the electoral shift to the right and the growing appeal of right-wing populism across the region.At the same time, Professor McClintock cautions against simplistic interpretations of Peru’s political evolution. She argues that institutional reforms—including bicameralism and runoff elections—remain valuable, insisting that "institutions matter," even though "there is no magic formula for high-quality democracy." Likewise, while recognizing the continuing appeal of Fujimorismo, she stresses that Peru’s persistent fragmentation has prevented any single populist actor from fully consolidating power, making Alberto Fujimori "an exception" rather than the rule.Ultimately, Professor McClintock presents Peru as a democracy caught between meaningful progress and persistent vulnerability. Although she concludes that the country "is still vulnerable to these problems," she also reminds us that Peru has made remarkable democratic advances over recent decades. The conversation therefore offers not only an illuminating analysis of Peru’s turbulent political landscape but also broader insights into the evolving relationship between populism, democratic representation, institutional resilience, and political legitimacy across Latin America.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Professor Cynthia McClintock, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/prof-...

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Peru’s 2026 presidential election has once again exposed the deep structural weaknesses that have long characterized the country’s democratic system. The narrow runoff victory of Keiko Fujimori over Roberto Sánchez followed an extraordinarily fragmented first-round contest involving dozens of candidates and revealed not only the persistence of anti-establishment sentiment but also the continuing erosion of political representation, institutional trust, and democratic legitimacy. While Peru remains formally democratic, growing concerns over political instability, institutional capture, declining public confidence, and the normalization of illiberal political practices have raised fundamental questions about the future of democratic governance in the country.Few scholars are better positioned to assess these developments than Professor Julio Carrión, Professor of Comparative and Latin American Politics and Populism at the University of Delaware. Throughout his distinguished career, Professor Carrión has examined democratic legitimacy, populism, public opinion, political representation, and democratic accountability across Latin America, with particular attention to Peru’s enduring institutional vulnerabilities.In this wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Carrión argues that Peru’s current predicament extends far beyond electoral volatility. The election results themselves, he contends, provide “prima facie evidence of the deep crisis of political representation,” noting that the two runoff candidates together secured only 29 percent of first-round votes, forcing the overwhelming majority of Peruvians to choose between candidates they had initially rejected. For Professor Carrión, this reflects a political system marked by extreme fragmentation and weakening links between citizens and parties.The interview also explores the enduring appeal of Fujimorismo, anti-establishment politics, regional divisions, and the persistent tensions between Lima and the provinces. Yet Professor Carrión’s most sobering assessment concerns the broader state of Peruvian democracy. Repeated confrontations between presidents and Congress, institutional dysfunction, and the weakening of checks and balances have, in his view, produced not democratic resilience but democratic exhaustion. Indeed, he warns that Peru’s political trajectory has brought the country dangerously close to a systemic crisis of democratic governance.“I am very pessimistic about the prospects for Peruvian democracy,” Professor Carrión states bluntly. In his assessment, informal political coalitions have significantly weakened the rule of law, secured influence over institutions designed to provide oversight, and created conditions under which democratic erosion can continue without the dramatic ruptures that characterized earlier authoritarian episodes.At the same time, Professor Carrión offers a broader reflection on contemporary Latin American politics. He argues that the region may be entering a “post-populist” era in which populism has become normalized rather than exceptional. While democracy may not necessarily collapse outright, illiberal practices, polarization, hardball politics, and attacks on institutional constraints have increasingly become part of the political mainstream. The result, he suggests, is a political environment in which democracy survives but steadily declines in quality.The interview offers a timely and penetrating analysis of Peru’s uncertain future and raises broader questions about democratic resilience, populism, representation, and institutional decay across Latin America.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Professor Julio Carrión, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/prof-...

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In the wake of profound national trauma and shifting global alliances, Armenia's political trajectory is far more complex than a simple choice between Russia and the West. Renowned political analyst Eric Hacopian joins host Selcuk Gultasli to challenge the dominant narratives surrounding Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's government. Hacopian issues a stark warning against using authoritarian tactics to fight foreign influence, explaining why you can't use Russian methods to defeat Russian disinformation.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Armenian-American analyst Eric Hacopian, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/eric-...

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Across much of the contemporary world, democratic pessimism has become increasingly pervasive. From Latin America and Eastern Europe to South Asia and the United States, concerns about democratic backsliding, executive aggrandizement, institutional capture, and the erosion of liberal norms have fueled a growing belief that once elected leaders begin dismantling checks and balances, democratic decline becomes almost irreversible. In this climate, elections are often viewed with skepticism, particularly when incumbents manipulate institutions, tilt the playing field, and exploit state resources to entrench themselves in power.In this wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Javier Corrales challenges this prevailing narrative. As the Dwight W. Morrow Professor of Political Science at Amherst College and one of the foremost scholars of democratic backsliding, populism, and authoritarianism, Professor Corrales has spent decades examining how democracies erode and how leaders concentrate power. Yet his recent work, co-authored with Susan Stokes and published in the Journal of Democracy under the title “How Aspiring Autocrats Exit,” offers a more nuanced and cautiously optimistic perspective. Rather than focusing exclusively on how democracies die, Professor Corrales asks an equally important question: How do aspiring autocrats leave power?The answer, he argues, is more encouraging than many observers assume. While acknowledging that “there is plenty of evidence that illiberal presidents and hyper-populist presidents can undermine democracy, concentrate power, and erode liberal democracy,” Professor Corrales emphasizes that “they often do not go much farther than that, and they may even get ejected from office.” Indeed, one of the central findings of his research is that the most traditional democratic mechanism remains surprisingly resilient. As he puts it, “the most old-fashioned route is still available, which is defeating them at the polls.”This conclusion runs counter to widespread assumptions about electoral politics under conditions of democratic erosion. Professor Corrales notes that many backsliding leaders continue to maintain elections even after weakening institutional constraints. Although such contests are frequently marred by irregularities and heavily skewed in favor of incumbents, they often remain meaningful arenas of political competition. “These elections,” he observes, “are very often incredibly rigged in favor of the incumbent. But the election still happens, and there can be enough opportunities for competition.”The key challenge, according to Professor Corrales, is not merely institutional manipulation but political demoralization. Autocratizing leaders seek to convince citizens, and opposition forces that resistance is futile. Yet the comparative evidence from countries as diverse as Poland, Hungary, Brazil, Zambia, and elsewhere suggests that democratic recovery remains possible when opposition forces overcome fragmentation, mobilize new voters, and maintain faith in electoral competition.In this interview Professor Corrales discusses the resilience of elections, the importance of opposition unity, the dangers of excessive presidential popularity, the role of courts and parties in democratic survival, and the common authoritarian playbook shared by populist leaders across ideological divides. His reflections offer a timely reminder that democratic backsliding is neither predetermined nor irreversible—and that even under adverse conditions, democratic institutions can still provide pathways to political renewal.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Professor Javier Corrales, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/prof-...

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

At a time when democratic backsliding, populist mobilization, declining institutional trust, and the rise of high-performing autocracies are reshaping political life across the globe, scholars and policymakers are increasingly confronted with a fundamental question: Are contemporary democratic crises primarily the result of institutional erosion and elite manipulation, or do they stem from a deeper failure of democratic systems to deliver tangible benefits to citizens? Few scholars are better positioned to address this question than Professor Beatriz Magaloni, the Graham Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford University and one of the world’s leading authorities on democracy, authoritarianism, state capacity, and political development.Through seminal works such as Voting for Autocracy and a distinguished body of research on authoritarian resilience, electoral politics, governance, and political violence, Professor Magaloni has transformed scholarly understanding of why citizens support political regimes and how both democracies and autocracies maintain legitimacy. In recent years, her research has increasingly focused on the relationship between democratic legitimacy and state performance, arguing that democratic survival depends not only on institutions and norms but also on governments’ capacity to deliver meaningful outcomes.In this wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Magaloni challenges conventional explanations of democratic decline that focus exclusively on populist leaders or institutional weaknesses. While acknowledging that democratic support remains rooted in principles and freedoms, she argues that scholars have overlooked what she calls “the critical importance of delivery.” Across regions as diverse as Europe, Latin America, Asia, and North America, voters increasingly believe that “democracy is not delivering what they want” and express growing dissatisfaction with democratic governance.Yet Professor Magaloni rejects the notion that democracy itself is losing public legitimacy. On the contrary, she insists that “democratic backsliding is not universal” and cautions against interpreting dissatisfaction with government performance as a wholesale rejection of democratic values. Drawing on extensive survey research, she emphasizes that citizens remain strongly committed to core democratic principles, particularly civil liberties and competitive elections. “There is still commitment to democratic norms,” she argues. “What people are telling us is: please deliver better.”The interview explores why citizens increasingly support anti-establishment leaders, how authoritarian regimes cultivate loyalty through performance and selective benefits, why immigration has become a powerful driver of populist radical-right mobilization, and how democratic institutions are being challenged in both established and emerging democracies. Despite expressing concern about contemporary developments—particularly in the United States and parts of Latin America—Professor Magaloni ultimately offers a cautiously optimistic assessment of democracy’s future. Her central message is both sobering and hopeful: citizens have not abandoned democracy, but democratic governments must become far more effective at meeting citizens’ expectations if they hope to preserve public trust and democratic resilience.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Professor Beatriz Magaloni, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/prof-...

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Switzerland is frequently portrayed as the world’s most sophisticated laboratory of direct democracy—a political system in which citizens regularly decide major policy questions through referendums and popular initiatives. Yet the country’s June 2026 referendum on the Swiss People’s Party’s (SVP) proposal to cap the population at ten million revealed that even Switzerland’s celebrated democratic model is increasingly shaped by the same tensions confronting liberal democracies across Europe: migration, demographic change, economic insecurity, national identity, and the rise of the populist radical right.Although voters ultimately rejected the initiative, the campaign exposed deep divisions over immigration and the future direction of Swiss society. More importantly, it highlighted a significant shift in public debate. As Professor Georg Lutzargues in this interview, discussions about immigration are no longer driven solely by concerns over cultural identity or social cohesion. For the first time, a prominent counter-argument emerged around demographic realities and economic necessity. In his words, “all populations in European countries are aging,” and immigration was increasingly discussed as “something that is also necessary for the labor market.” As he notes, “we see a bit of a shift in this debate compared to what we have seen in previous times.”In this wide-ranging conversation with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Lutz—Director of FORS, the Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences, and Professor of Political Science at the University of Lausanne—offers a nuanced assessment of the referendum, the resilience of the SVP, and the broader relationship between direct democracy and populism. Rejecting simplistic interpretations, he argues that the referendum result represented both a setback and a success for the SVP. While the initiative failed, “45 percent of the Swiss population voted in favor of limiting the population to 10 million,” a figure substantially higher than the party’s own electoral support.The interview also explores whether direct democracy serves as a safeguard against populism or inadvertently empowers it. Professor Lutz challenges common assumptions on both sides of the debate. While acknowledging concerns about minority rights and majoritarian pressures, he argues that “the reality is much more nuanced” than many critics suggest. Direct democracy, he contends, is deeply intertwined with representative institutions and often acts as an indirect mechanism of accountability rather than a revolutionary alternative to parliamentary politics.Perhaps most importantly, Professor Lutz shifts attention away from institutional design and toward what he sees as the more pressing threats facing contemporary democracies: the fragmentation of information systems, the spread of misinformation, growing political distrust, and systematic efforts to undermine confidence in democratic institutions. In an era of polarization and populist mobilization, his reflections offer important insights into both the strengths and vulnerabilities of democratic governance in Switzerland and beyond.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Professor Georg Lutz, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/prof-...

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

For the past forty years, liberal democracy was considered the default normative answer to global governance. Today, that monopoly is over. In this episode, preeminent scholar Professor Marlene Laruelle argues that illiberalism isn't just an anti-democratic glitch—it’s an alternative worldview offering a sense of identity, moral order, and collective belonging that technocratic institutions have failed to provide. Discover why the "illiberal offer" is here to stay and how it is reshaping the global social contract.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Professor Marlene Laruelle, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/prof-...

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

Following Armenia’s historic June 2026 elections, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has secured a renewed mandate to guide the country away from Russia and toward the West. But is the West making a mistake by backing a single leader rather than building lasting institutions? Renowned South Caucasus expert Thomas de Waal (Carnegie Europe) joins host Selcuk Gultasli to break down the fragile road to peace with Azerbaijan, the strategic reality of the US-backed TRIPP corridor, and the heavy risks of highly personalized rule.Here is the revised version of our interview with Thomas de Waal, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/thoma...

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

As Armenia emerges from one of the most turbulent periods in its modern history, the country stands at the intersection of democratic resilience, geopolitical realignment, and post-war transformation. The aftermath of the 2020 war, the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, deepening estrangement from Russia, and ongoing normalization efforts with Turkey and Azerbaijan have profoundly reshaped Armenian politics and strategic thinking. Against this backdrop, the 2026 parliamentary elections have been widely interpreted as a referendum not only on Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s leadership but also on Armenia’s future place between Russia, Europe, and the wider region.In this wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Richard Giragosian—Armenian-American academic, security analyst, and Founding Director of the Regional Studies Center (RSC) in Yerevan—examines the forces driving Armenia’s remarkable political trajectory. He argues that the election result reflected far more than a geopolitical choice. It represented a mandate for democratic continuity, political stability, and the pursuit of diplomatic normalization with Armenia’s neighbors. As Giragosian notes, the vote marked Armenia’s “third consecutive genuinely free and fair vote,” underscoring the country’s democratic consolidation despite war, insecurity, and external pressure.A central theme of the conversation concerns the evolution of populism in power. Emerging from the 2018 Velvet Revolution, Pashinyan embodied a rare case of successful anti-establishment mobilization driven by nonviolent popular protest. Yet Giragosian argues that the qualities that enabled Pashinyan’s rise have not necessarily translated into effective governance. While acknowledging the historic significance of the revolution as “a rare victory of nonviolent people power,” he contends that Pashinyan remains “as impulsive as ever, as emotional, and sometimes reckless,” while public policy continues to be “overly centralized in the Prime Minister’s office.” In Giragosian’s assessment, the populist style that propelled Pashinyan to power now coexists with persistent institutional weaknesses and governance challenges.The interview’s most striking insights, however, concern Armenia’s changing relationship with Russia. According to Giragosian, the war of 2020 and the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh fundamentally altered Armenian perceptions of Moscow. Russia is no longer widely viewed as Armenia’s indispensable protector. Instead, he argues, many Armenians increasingly regard Russia as “dangerously unreliable,” adding that the conflict has led them to see Russia “as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.” This shift reflects not simply a foreign policy adjustment but a broader reassessment of Armenia’s security assumptions and strategic dependencies.The discussion also explores Armenia’s efforts to balance relations with Europe and Russia, prospects for peace with Azerbaijan, normalization with Turkey, democratic institution-building, and the emergence of a more civic and pragmatic understanding of patriotism. Yet Giragosian remains cautious about presenting Armenia as a model for others. Indeed, he suggests that Armenia may be “less of a lesson and more of an accidental exception”—a rare convergence of democratic mobilization, geopolitical opportunity, and regional recalibration. Whether that exception can endure may prove to be one of the defining questions for the future of the South Caucasus.

Here is the revised version of our interview with Richard Giragosian, edited lightly to enhance clarity, readability, and overall flow for publication: https://www.populismstudies.org/girag...