The Two Faces of Elections: The Democracy vs. Populism Paradox

After a record number of voters went to the polls in 2024, elections in 2025 are testing whether democracy can still deliver – or be dismantled from within.

Elections are a foundation of democracy. Yet increasingly, they are being co-opted by those intent on undermining democracy itself.

Populists have weaponised elections to gain power and dismantle institutional safeguards, often governing for their base and not the wider citizenry. Examples from Poland, Slovakia and the US show how electoral integrity either serves as a democratic bulwark or is hollowed out to enable autocratic consolidation.

Electoral observation, both international and national, protects democracy and outlines strategies for democratic actors to counter populism, improve governance and contribute to rebuilding public trust. The survival of democracies relies on offering a compelling and effective alternative to populism that convinces citizens, helps win elections and governs responsibly.

#The paradox of elections

Elections, once the cornerstone of democracy, are increasingly being manipulated by autocrats across the globe to gain or retain power and dismantle the very institutions they are meant to uphold.

What makes the 2024-25 electoral cycle particularly alarming is the boldness and sophistication of such manipulation. From targeted interference via social media, as seen in the 2024 Romanian presidential election, to increasingly brazen illiberal practices in countries once considered stable democracies, the warning signs are no longer subtle – they are flashing red.

Although elections are a path to democracy, they are not democracy itself. Autocrats have learned to exploit democratic processes while eroding their essence. The real challenge for democrats is not merely winning elections in an era of polarisation and disinformation – but governing transparently, inclusively and accountably to sustain public trust.

In an age of ‘attention politics’, the sheer volume of information – much of it misleading or false – can obscure rather than enhance accountability. While digital platforms promise openness, their algorithms often reward outrage and disinformation, amplifying what grabs attention rather than what informs. Autocrats have become skilled at manipulating this dynamic to distort public debate.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and rarely has this warning felt more urgent than today. To understand this paradox in action, we examine three cases – Poland, Slovakia, and the US – showing how populists exploit elections and how civic activism can fight back.

#The populist playbook: Winning through division

Populists worldwide have learned to win elections not by bridging divides, but by deepening them. Their campaigns turn grievances – economic, cultural or social – into powerful narratives of betrayal by elites. Framing politics as a battle of ‘us vs. them’ allows populists to create permanent polarisation.

In uncertain times, voters are more receptive to easy answers. Populists like Donald Trump, Robert Fico and Viktor Orbán tell citizens the system is rigged and only they can fix it. They turn complexity into conflict: the corrupt elite versus the virtuous, forgotten ‘real people’.

In the US, Trump has tapped into deep-rooted mistrust of state-level institutions, channelling frustration with globalisation into resentment towards an imagined ‘deep state’ and liberal elites. In Slovakia, Fico employed a similar playbook, blaming foreign influence and liberal elites for the country’s problems, portraying them as threats to national sovereignty. In both cases, public frustration was redirected into mistrust of democracy’s foundations – free media, civil society and the rule of law.

This message resonates strongly in economically struggling regions, where mistrust of elites and scepticism toward progressive reforms is easily mobilised. In both cases, populists transform diffuse public grievances into targeted mistrust – legitimising their own claims to power while eroding the credibility of democratic institutions.

This pattern is not limited to a few countries – it is a part of a broader global strategy. From Europe to the Americas, populist leaders are following a shared playbook: gaining power through elections, then weakening the institutions meant to keep them in check.

#Elections on the edge: Poland, Slovakia and the United States

In Poland, the road to populism is instructive. It gained momentum following the 2008 global economic crisis, and it was harnessed by political movements such as Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law and Justice, PiS). They were able to take popular disgruntlement with the speed of economic and political transformation, especially in rural areas, coupled with frustration over a lack of visibility in the impact of EU funds and perceived misuse by political elites.

Disinformation campaigns targeting conservative voters in Poland leveraged the country’s religiosity, using channels like Radio Maryja to spread populist messages at the grassroots level.

These campaigns combined pro-life rhetoric with narratives attacking Polish EU MEPs for allegedly exploiting the system and earning lavish salaries, far beyond the average Pole’s reality. Coupled with assaults on independent media and the judiciary, this strategy laid the foundation for a populist victory in the 2015 elections, securing control of both the parliament and the presidency.

After winning power through elections, the PiS government moved to weaken the institutions it viewed as hostile, starting with the judiciary. It appointed loyal judges to the Constitutional Tribunal, triggering the ‘Polish Constitutional Court Crisis’. Laws passed in 2015 were condemned by the EU for ‘threatening the rule of law,’ with further crises following over the Supreme Court in 2017 and the judicial disciplinary panel in 2019. They also again conflated the positions of Minister of Justice and General Prosecutor in one person in 2015, undermining judicial independence and impartiality.

The PiS government also targeted independent media, taking direct control of public broadcaster TVP by replacing senior management and placing appointments under government oversight. This shifted public broadcasting in favour of the ruling party. State-owned companies began buying up private media outlets, and in 2021, PiS introduced legislation limiting foreign TV ownership – widely seen as an attempt to silence TVN, Poland’s largest independent broadcaster.

The PiS government then focused on election administration, undermining the independence of the National Election Commission (NEC) by altering its composition. It ignored NEC’s calls for redistricting, leaving urban areas under-represented and rural areas that favoured them over-represented.

In 2023, despite these efforts to tilt the system in their favour, PiS lost as they were unable to form a government, underscoring parliamentary resilience.

This marked a significant example of how opposition forces can counter populism through institutional resilience and civic mobilisation. Civil society led extensive voter education campaigns, boosting turnout to a record 74.4% – the highest since the 1989 roundtable elections. The opposition also galvanised women voters in response to regressive abortion laws. These landmark elections showed that even in the face of institutional manipulation, democratic engagement and inclusive outreach can prevail. Unfortunately, this momentum has been somewhat lost due to a lack of international interest and funding.

Slovakia offers a sobering contrast. Just two weeks before Poland’s elections, Slovakia’s vote produced the opposite result: Robert Fico returned to power using the very elections he had previously discredited.

The 2023 Slovak elections marked a sharp turn toward illiberal governance. Fico and his far-right allies capitalised on public frustration with the Matovič-led government (2020–2023), economic hardship and accusations that pro-Western leaders were warmongers. Fico’s campaign portrayed the vote as a battle for national survival, shifting focus from policy to identity. Drawing on tactics seen earlier in the US, Fico and his allies spread doubt about election integrity via viral social media posts. By May 2023, according to Globsec Trends, more than half of Slovaks believed elections could be manipulated.

Since taking office, Fico has mirrored authoritarian tactics from Hungary and Poland – seeking control over the public broadcaster, attempting to introduce a ‘foreign agents’ law and uniquely dismantling Slovakia’s Special Prosecutor’s Office. Attacks on NGO funding, the 2% tax mechanism (which allows taxpayers to allocate a portion of their income tax to NGOs) and cultural institutions have been paired with legal pressure, smear campaigns and increasingly gendered disinformation, particularly against women in public life.

The result is performative governance: spectacle over substance, division over dialogue. Yet, civic resistance persists, from youth, journalists and NGOs, despite the narrowing space. Slovakia’s case shows how populists exploit elections to return to power and erode democracy from within.

While Slovakia illustrates how populists regain power by undermining trust through disinformation and identity politics, the US offers a cautionary tale about what happens when even long-established institutions are relentlessly tested. Trump’s first term exposed vulnerabilities in US democratic norms; his 2025 return has accelerated institutional erosion.

False narratives about a ‘stolen’ 2020 election and the 6 January attack dominated public discourse in the lead-up to 2024, despite repeated court rulings disproving them.

This led to a focus by populists on the courts and narratives that they were skewed, politicised and against the populist cause. The ‘deep state’ narrative painted government institutions as enemies of the people, while Biden’s administration was framed as corrupt and responsible for uncontrolled immigration.

Following the 2025 inauguration, Trump issued a wave of executive orders (139 as of 24 April 2024, compared to the 3.3 per month average from presidents in the 2000s) that sought to bypass Congress, making executive authority the default tool of governance.

In many ways, it echoed the 1933 Enabling Act passed by the National Socialists that allowed the government to circumvent parliamentary oversight, effectively sidelining one of the three branches of power. Similarly, executive authority has now rapidly become the norm, marginalising one of the core branches of democratic governance.

Whether sidelined institutions can reassert their role remains uncertain. But the trajectory is clear: when populists weaponise electoral victories, they don’t just challenge democracy – they attempt to dismantle it from within.

These cases underscore a critical truth: when electoral rules are weak, politicised or selectively applied, democracy is at risk. That’s why protecting electoral integrity is essential.

#Why election integrity is democracy’s last line of defence

Electoral integrity is essential to preserving elections as a cornerstone of democracy. It rests on principles such as equal participation, fair competition, clear and transparent rules and professional conduct of election management bodies (EMBs).

They are grounded in international agreements such as the UN’s UDHRs (art. 21, 29), the ICCPR (art. 25) and General Comment 25. Regionally, key standards come from the OSCE’s 1990 Copenhagen Document and the EU’s ECHR (art. 3).

International election observation organisations – such as OSCE/ODIHR, the EU, the NDI and the Carter Centre – use these standards to assess whether elections are conducted democratically. As such, election observation is a key tool in international relations for determining whether or not elections uphold democratic standards or are being subverted – often by populist or authoritarian actors. Observation reports document violations, including the misuse of administrative resources, flawed or selectively applied legislation, lack of media freedom, restrictions on campaigning, and violations of fundamental rights to association, assembly and expression.

Where safeguards are weak, elections become vulnerable to media capture, voter suppression, disinformation and undue financial influence – conditions that have enabled populist victories and authoritarian takeover.

Conversely, countries like Canada, Germany and the UK – where electoral integrity mechanisms are strong – have resisted such erosion. These include transparent voter registration processes, effective regulation of disinformation campaigns and oversight of campaign finance.

Strengthening the visibility and impact of observation reports is key to informing citizens and international actors about whether elections meet democratic standards – or are being subverted for authoritarian or populist ends.

#Election observation in an age of illiberalism: Democracy’s lifeline

Election observation is democracy’s early warning system. Independent observers – both international and national – enhance public trust and accountability by signalling that elections are being scrutinised. Observation also engages citizens, especially young people, by fostering civic awareness and leadership.

Globally, observation has exposed manipulation and triggered reforms. In Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, reports of election fraud led to a court-ordered re-run. In Kenya, Georgia and Serbia, observer findings have helped to push forward electoral reforms and strengthen institutions. These missions don’t just report violations – they create pressure for change.

Yet observers face growing threats. Restrictive laws, disinformation and smear campaigns are being used to discredit or block access. Autocratic regimes like Russia, Venezuela or Zimbabwe paint observers as foreign meddlers while rigging elections behind closed doors.

The politicisation of monitoring, physical threats and cybersecurity risks has put this work under siege. As the Venice Commission’s 2024 report affirms, election observers are human rights defenders. They need legal protection, access and security to continue holding power to account.

#Strengthening democracy in an age of populism

Building democratic resilience against populist erosion demands a bold and multifaceted response – anchored in trust-building, effective communication and civic empowerment – at both national and international levels.

This includes both political will and public support. Democratic actors must improve how they communicate not just their goals, but the real-life impacts of democratic governance. This includes explaining how decisions are made, how public funds are spent and how people’s lives are improved through democratic means.

Especially online, where populists dominate with emotional narratives, democratic actors must offer clear, compelling stories of progress, participation and justice. Initiatives like transparency dashboards or open government platforms, such as those used in Vienna, Tallinn or Barcelona, could be replicated more widely to help citizens track whether policies are being delivered.

Delivering results is critical. Broken promises fuel cynicism, which populists exploit. Governments have to prioritise transparency in how promises are fulfilled and consider tools like citizens’ budgets, participatory planning, or citizen assemblies to reconnect with voters.

Safeguarding trust also means actively defending electoral integrity. EMBs should be independent, well-funded and shielded from political pressure. Public audits, real-time transparency tools, and inclusive voter outreach are all proven methods to build trust.

Strong, independent institutions are the backbone of any democracy. Civic education should not just focus on voting, but also on how parliament, courts and media operate, and why their independence matters. Germany’s ‘Demokratie Leben!’ and Finland’s government-backed media literacy offer valuable models.

When citizens do not see the value of democratic checks and balances, autocrats more easily justify weakening them. That is why investment in civic education, starting in schools and extending to adult learners, is not optional.

Disinformation remains a central threat to democratic elections and public trust. Countermeasures should go beyond content moderation to include proactive monitoring, labelling and pre-bunking strategies.

Democracies should adopt multi-layered responses: digital literacy in schools, fact-checking networks like Africa Check or FactCheck Georgia, and legal reforms to mandate transparency in political advertising. Emerging AI tools can also support real-time verification and narrative tracking.

Citizens have to become more resilient in the face of ‘attention-grabbing’ disinformation. Campaigns like ‘Think Before You Share‘ by Media Smarts or ‘Volebná kalkulačka‘ by MEMO 98 offer scalable models for community-based learning.

Global solidarity is no longer a luxury – it is a necessity. As authoritarian tactics increasingly transcend borders, democracies must do the same.

From government-affiliated GONGOs to troll farms and foreign-controlled media, antidemocratic tactics are increasingly global. Democracies should invest in shared knowledge hubs, rapid response mechanisms and joint funding for civic watchdogs and investigative media.

Mechanisms like the European Democracy Action Plan or the Summit for Democracy can help, but they should be made more action-oriented, with real commitments, funding and follow-up.

#Democracy worth fighting for

Elections are the heartbeat of democracy – but they alone cannot keep it alive. Around the world, populist leaders have learned to use elections not to serve the people, but to consolidate power and weaken democratic checks and balances. Winning power is only the beginning. What matters is how that power is used, and whether it strengthens or dismantles democratic institutions.

For elections to truly support democracy, they must be built on integrity, transparency and public trust. That means going beyond campaign promises to deliver real results for all citizens, not just for the loyal few. It also means governing inclusively and protecting institutions, such as the courts and the media, fighting disinformation, and ensuring citizens can tell the truth from manipulation.

Democracy cannot survive on tradition or hope alone – it has to prove, every day, that it works. That it listens. That it delivers. This will only happen if democratic leaders communicate with clarity, act with integrity, and lead with courage.

In a time of growing autocracy, the coalition of the willing must stand together. Democratic leaders must not only win elections – they have to prove they deserve to. And we, as citizens, need to step up too, by expecting more from our leaders and holding them to account. Democracy’s resilience lies not only in the ballot box but in the daily work of making elections truly democratic.

We see this in a few recent examples. Following the 2024 parliamentary elections in the UK, the transfer of power between the outgoing Conservative government and the newly elected Labour government proceeded peacefully, demonstrating that key democratic institutions remain intact and effective. In Germany, the February 2025 elections revealed deep divisions, with the CDU/CSU narrowly winning and the far-right AfD surging to second place, particularly due to strong support in the east. While the rise of extremism and Germany’s political fragility raise serious concerns globally, the new government presents a real opportunity to restore stability and provide leadership in turbulent times.

In Canada, at the end of April, the Liberal Party, led by Mark Carney, won a highly contested federal election. This was widely seen as a citizens’ response to the Trump administration and its increasingly authoritarian threats. The election, thus, became a vote over who could do the better job of protecting Canada, with the Liberals looking to deepen ties with the EU and countries worldwide. Perhaps more importantly, the election was seen as possibly signalling a downturn for populists globally.

Citizens everywhere must stay vigilant – because elections can either defend democracy or be instrumentalised to undermine it. Around the world, public trust in elections has been shaken. But trust can be rebuilt. It takes more than procedures and promises; it takes leadership that delivers, institutions that are solid and citizens who care enough to speak up, show up, and stand up.

Democracy has never been a given – it has always been hard-won. In that ongoing fight, election observation remains a crucial tool: exposing manipulation, restoring trust and reminding leaders that the world is watching.

About authors

Dr Beata Martin-Rozumiłowicz is an electoral expert with nearly three decades of experience globally. She has been a DCO on various EU EOMs, IFES’ Europe/Eurasia Director, and headed OSCE/ODIHR’s Election Department.

Rasťo Kužel is a media and election expert with over 26 years of international experience. He leads MEMO 98, a media-monitoring organisation providing analysis and technical assistance to OSCE and other international bodies. His work focuses on disinformation, AI, and electoral integrity, including co-authoring key guides for IFES, UNESCO, and the Council of Europe.

The long-read was published by Visegrad Insight on 5 June 2025.