Progressives must act fast, make change visible, and perform powerfully — or watch populists fill the void.
For UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and other leaders confronting right-wing populist headwinds, the challenge is not only to govern competently, but to do so in ways that make reform visible, fast, and politically meaningful to persuadable voters. Otherwise, with voters in many countries beginning to doubt that public policy can actually improve their lives, populism will keep gaining ground, fed by the idea that progressive politics amounts to technocratic talk with no results.
Democratic governments of all political stripes are almost universally failing to recognize this new terrain of political legitimacy. Too many policy programs are built on assumptions from a bygone era: that a consensus can be built gradually, that behavioural change (like the shift to preventive health systems) will be politically rewarded, that evidence-based policymaking can overcome “alternative facts.”
This failure reflects a political choice. After all, fiscal rules are almost always broken for war. Hence, in March, incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, before he even took office, convinced the Bundestag to loosen the country’s constitutional “debt brake” to allow for €500 billion ($589 billion) in off-budget infrastructure investments, and to exclude defence spending above 1% of GDP from the government borrowing limit.
To be sure, defence has long been a powerful tool to galvanize citizens. But it is a go-to issue for populists, who rely on nostalgia for a mythical past when the nation was supposedly strong and united. For those who genuinely want to lead the nation, such rhetoric won’t work. Whether he intended it or not, Starmer’s recent speech echoing the nationalist and racially charged “rivers of blood” speech of Enoch Powell, a British Tory of the 1960s and 1970s, will only alienate many of his voters. Such language inevitably rings hollow in a country as deeply multicultural as today’s United Kingdom.
The choice for progressives is whether to focus on building more housing and other “stuff,” or to reimagine the political and institutional machinery that provides for such goods. The first option may bring some wins in the short term, but only the second one can deliver a lasting transformation that voters will not soon forget.
Besides, too many governments lack the capacity to deliver even short-term wins. Reform plans tend to be overly bureaucratic, and old technocratic habits have dulled the current generation’s political instincts. While plans often read well in manifestos, they fail to shift public perceptions or deliver outcomes that ordinary voters will feel and appreciate.
To develop the organizational muscles to deliver meaningful results fast, progressive governments must invest in creative, agile bureaucracies that know how to get things done. The situation demands not only more ambition, but also a sharper sense of how reforms will be received in a political ecosystem defined by short attention spans and deep institutional distrust. Policies need to be thought through both strategically (for the long term) and tactically (short term).
That means focusing on local settings, where legitimacy is rooted. Cities are not only ideal testing grounds. They also are where many elections are won, where social and economic divides are most visible, and where inclusive, experimental governance can make a direct, tangible difference. Rather than pursuing national reforms that will take a decade or more to implement, progressive leaders should craft local policies to deliver results (from green jobs and affordable housing to preventive health care) within a single mayoral term.
Governments can learn from their digital and design teams. The UK’s Government Digital Service and New York City’s Civic Service Design Studio have shown how cross-disciplinary teams working outside traditional silos can create new channels for citizen engagement, streamline public services, and change the bureaucracy from within. These efforts are effective not only practically, but also politically, offering proof that governments can learn, adapt, and deliver. This – not Elon Musk wielding a chainsaw – is what government efficiency really looks like.
The climate agenda underscores the need for public-sector agility. Although climate-risk messaging is strong and based firmly in science, it has failed to jump-start the necessary reforms at scale. Clearly, the green transition must be treated not only as an environmental issue, but as a defence strategy – as the only path for achieving durable economic and territorial security. The UK’s new industrial strategy, the first of its kind in almost a decade, is a step in this direction.
But individual policy programs are tactical. Democratic governments also need new foundations for how to think about the economy, statecraft, and value creation over time. That means moving beyond the narrow metrics of cost-benefit analysis or GDP growth.
These metrics reflect a linear logic that no longer applies. Our policy tools must reflect the nonlinear, adaptive, and deeply interconnected character of the problems we face, whether they be climate collapse, rising inequality, or technological disruption. Public finance, for example, should be seen not as a constraint but as a tool for shaping innovation and investment. Outcomes-oriented budgets – not fiscal conservatism – should be a government’s default position.
Such a broad intellectual shift must be institutionalized across the public sector, including through expert communities that can inform policy from within the government to ensure delivery. Governments will need to build this capacity as a core function of statecraft, not as an add-on.
Make no mistake: the populist far right has not only moved fast; it has built a powerful, well-organized movement that has achieved outsize influence, especially through control of the media narrative. To confront this, democratic-minded governments need to distinguish between the populists’ illusion of speed (all the “efficiency” propaganda) and the reality of what it takes to govern and build lasting capacity.
The right often champions static efficiency – doing the same things faster or cheaper. But what we need is dynamic efficiency: the ability to adapt, learn, and transform systems to meet complex, evolving challenges.
Reform can no longer be treated as a technical process, because politics inevitably involves theater. Progressives must put on a performance with a purpose. The reform process needs rituals, symbols, and stories grounded in everyday experiences, not Excel spreadsheets.
The far right has understood this, to devastating effect. While the West’s democratic governments should not mimic their populist opponents, they do need to meet them on the emotional and cultural terrain where politics is ultimately decided. The future of democratic governance depends on it.
Mariana Mazzucato is professor in the economics of innovation and public value at University College London, founding director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose and a co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water.