Social Europe

  • EU Forward Project
  • YouTube
  • Podcast
  • Books
  • Newsletter
  • Membership

Totalitarian Democracy: How Populist Leaders Are Undermining Democracy

Bo Rothstein 13th February 2025

Populist leaders exploit democracy to consolidate power, dismantle institutions and sideline expertise, threatening global stability.

u4219834679509d1c 2

Political scientists and others who study political systems and ideologies have long drawn a clear distinction between democratic and totalitarian states. Traditionally, democracy has been understood as fundamentally different from totalitarianism, whether in the form of fascism, absolutism, or dictatorship. The prevailing view has been that totalitarian regimes seek total control over all aspects of society, leaving no space for political opposition, an independent civil society, impartial courts, autonomous universities, free mass media or expert bodies insulated from political interference. In such systems, meritocracy in public administration is replaced by political loyalty, with appointments based on allegiance to the ruling leader or party. Centralised authority, often concentrated in a single charismatic figure, dominates all spheres of governance.

The rise of Donald Trump and a wave of similarly inclined political populists worldwide raises the question of whether the traditional dichotomy between democratic and totalitarian regimes still holds. Trump and his counterparts represent, as I see it, a new ideological model best described as totalitarian democracy. Unlike outright authoritarianism, this model does not completely eliminate representative democracy, but it fundamentally reinterprets the meaning of an electoral mandate. It asserts that winning a majority of votes grants the elected leadership an unchecked right to impose its will across all areas of public life, with little regard for constitutional limits or long-established norms of democratic governance. The notion of fair play in politics—once a guiding principle in many democracies—is disregarded in favour of an aggressive majoritarianism.

One of the most visible effects of this shift is the systematic erosion of meritocracy in public administration. Political loyalty increasingly supersedes expertise in government appointments, as elected leaders demand absolute fealty from civil servants. Independent expert bodies, long tasked with providing objective advice on issues such as healthcare, foreign policy, environmental protection and natural resource management, are sidelined or dismantled entirely. In short, the epistemic dimension of democracy is abandoned in this totalitarian conception of democracy.

Universities and schools are expected to conform to a new form of politically enforced “correctness” that aligns with the ruling party and its leadership. Fear of reprisal—whether in the form of dismissal, public vilification or loss of funding—shapes decision-making within public institutions, replacing the traditional ethos of working for the common good with subservience to the leader’s agenda. Among the leader’s closest aides, there is no room for dissent or critical discussion. Instead, total devotion and unquestioning obedience are demanded.

Jan-Werner Müller, a leading scholar in this field, describes this phenomenon as politicians seeking to “colonise” the state. A striking example of this occurred in the final months of Trump’s first term in office when he introduced “Schedule F” (Executive Order No. 13957), a measure that allowed the summary dismissal of thousands of civil servants without cause. President Joe Biden swiftly rescinded the order upon taking office, but signs indicate that it may soon return. Efforts to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and lay off well over ten thousand employees exemplify this strategy. If such measures go forward, the resulting disruption to medical aid and humanitarian assistance could lead to more deaths worldwide than the casualties caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Together with tech billionaire Elon Musk, Trump appears intent on further weakening an already fragile American public administration, stripping it of authority and expertise.

Research in this area is unusually clear: countries lacking impartial, professional and merit-based public administration are far more prone to corruption and significantly less successful in delivering human welfare. In fact, studies suggest that the strength of public administration—measured by impartiality, professionalism, and meritocracy—correlates more closely with human well-being than the mere existence of electoral democracy. When citizens assess the legitimacy of their governments, factors such as corruption control, rule of law and government effectiveness weigh more heavily than democratic rights alone. Political scientists Carl Dahlström and Victor Lapuente, in their book Organizing Leviathan: Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Making of Good Government, argue that high-quality governance emerges when elected politicians engage seriously with expert advice. This does not imply “rule by experts,” but rather “rule through experts”: democratic leaders should have the final say, but only after being confronted with the knowledge and expertise of a professional civil service.

The reason this balance is crucial is that both politicians and experts have their limitations. Politicians, driven by electoral pressures, can be short-sighted and opportunistic, disregarding inconvenient expert knowledge. Experts, conversely, may become detached from public sentiment, risking a legitimacy deficit. Good governance arises not from the dominance of one over the other but from a productive interaction between them. When policymakers must engage with independent experts, the resulting policies tend to be both effective and democratically legitimate.

The dangers of governance by political loyalists alone are stark. When leaders surround themselves exclusively with sycophants, they risk creating an “echo chamber,” in which only favourable information reaches them. This can lead to disastrous miscalculations, particularly in foreign policy and military strategy. One plausible explanation for Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine is that his inner circle systematically overestimated Russia’s military capabilities while underestimating Ukrainian resistance. A similar dynamic could play out under a second Trump presidency, where decision-making would be shaped by an entourage of opportunistic loyalists more concerned with appeasing their leader than providing objective analysis.

The emergence of totalitarian democracy presents a profound challenge to democratic governance. The erosion of institutional checks, the politicisation of public administration and the rejection of expertise in favour of loyalty threaten the very foundations of effective government. As this model gains traction, the risks extend beyond individual countries, shaping the trajectory of global politics in ways that may prove deeply destabilising.

Bo Rothstein
Bo Rothstein

Bo Rothstein is Senior Professor of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg.

Harvard University Press Advertisement

Social Europe Ad - Promoting European social policies

We need your help.

Support Social Europe for less than €5 per month and help keep our content freely accessible to everyone. Your support empowers independent publishing and drives the conversations that matter. Thank you very much!

Social Europe Membership

Click here to become a member

Most Recent Articles

09d21a9 The Future of Social Democracy: How the German SPD can Win AgainHenning Meyer
u42198346 How Trump’s Tariff Regime Fuels Global OligarchyGabriel Zucman
u421983462 041df6feef0a 3 Universities Under Siege: A Global Reckoning for Higher EducationManuel Muñiz
u4219836ab582 af42 4743 a271 a4f423d1926d 0 How Trade Unions Can Champion Solidarity in Europe’s Migration DebateNeva Löw
u421983467298feb62884 0 The Weak Strongman: How Trump’s Presidency Emboldens America’s EnemiesTimothy Snyder

Most Popular Articles

u4219834647f 0894ae7ca865 3 Europe’s Businesses Face a Quiet Takeover as US Investors CapitaliseTej Gonza and Timothée Duverger
u4219834674930082ba55 0 Portugal’s Political Earthquake: Centrist Grip Crumbles, Right AscendsEmanuel Ferreira
u421983467e58be8 81f2 4326 80f2 d452cfe9031e 1 “The Universities Are the Enemy”: Why Europe Must Act NowBartosz Rydliński
u42198346761805ea24 2 Trump’s ‘Golden Era’ Fades as European Allies Face Harsh New RealityFerenc Németh and Peter Kreko
startupsgovernment e1744799195663 Governments Are Not StartupsMariana Mazzucato
u421986cbef 2549 4e0c b6c4 b5bb01362b52 0 American SuicideJoschka Fischer
u42198346769d6584 1580 41fe 8c7d 3b9398aa5ec5 1 Why Trump Keeps Winning: The Truth No One AdmitsBo Rothstein
u421983467 a350a084 b098 4970 9834 739dc11b73a5 1 America Is About to Become the Next BrexitJ Bradford DeLong
u4219834676ba1b3a2 b4e1 4c79 960b 6770c60533fa 1 The End of the ‘West’ and Europe’s FutureGuillaume Duval
u421983462e c2ec 4dd2 90a4 b9cfb6856465 1 The Transatlantic Alliance Is Dying—What Comes Next for Europe?Frank Hoffer

S&D Group in the European Parliament advertisement

Cohesion Policy

S&D Position Paper on Cohesion Policy post-2027: a resilient future for European territorial equity”,

Cohesion Policy aims to promote harmonious development and reduce economic, social and territorial disparities between the regions of the Union, and the backwardness of the least favoured regions with a particular focus on rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition and regions suffering from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as outermost regions, regions with very low population density, islands, cross-border and mountain regions.

READ THE FULL POSITION PAPER HERE

ETUI advertisement

HESA Magazine Cover

What kind of impact is artificial intelligence (AI) having, or likely to have, on the way we work and the conditions we work under? Discover the latest issue of HesaMag, the ETUI’s health and safety magazine, which considers this question from many angles.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Eurofound advertisement

Ageing workforce
How are minimum wage levels changing in Europe?

In a new Eurofound Talks podcast episode, host Mary McCaughey speaks with Eurofound expert Carlos Vacas Soriano about recent changes to minimum wages in Europe and their implications.

Listeners can delve into the intricacies of Europe's minimum wage dynamics and the driving factors behind these shifts. The conversation also highlights the broader effects of minimum wage changes on income inequality and gender equality.

Listen to the episode for free. Also make sure to subscribe to Eurofound Talks so you don’t miss an episode!

LISTEN NOW

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Spring Issues

The Spring issue of The Progressive Post is out!


Since President Trump’s inauguration, the US – hitherto the cornerstone of Western security – is destabilising the world order it helped to build. The US security umbrella is apparently closing on Europe, Ukraine finds itself less and less protected, and the traditional defender of free trade is now shutting the door to foreign goods, sending stock markets on a rollercoaster. How will the European Union respond to this dramatic landscape change? .


Among this issue’s highlights, we discuss European defence strategies, assess how the US president's recent announcements will impact international trade and explore the risks  and opportunities that algorithms pose for workers.


READ THE MAGAZINE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

WSI Report

WSI Minimum Wage Report 2025

The trend towards significant nominal minimum wage increases is continuing this year. In view of falling inflation rates, this translates into a sizeable increase in purchasing power for minimum wage earners in most European countries. The background to this is the implementation of the European Minimum Wage Directive, which has led to a reorientation of minimum wage policy in many countries and is thus boosting the dynamics of minimum wages. Most EU countries are now following the reference values for adequate minimum wages enshrined in the directive, which are 60% of the median wage or 50 % of the average wage. However, for Germany, a structural increase is still necessary to make progress towards an adequate minimum wage.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Social Europe

Our Mission

Team

Article Submission

Advertisements

Membership

Social Europe Archives

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Miscellaneous

RSS Feed

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641