Populist leaders exploit democracy to consolidate power, dismantle institutions and sideline expertise, threatening global stability.
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 is Senior Professor of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg.