Democracy Versus Populism: The Rising Tide Reshaping Asia -

Sadaf Ara

From the bustling streets of Manila to the megacities of India, Asia’s political landscape is undergoing a profound transformation. The rise of populism has emerged not as a peripheral phenomenon but as a central challenge to democratic norms and institutions.
This tension between democracy and populism represents one of the defining political struggles of our era in Asia. While Western democracies have experienced their own populist surges, Asia’s experience carries distinct characteristics shaped by diverse political traditions, economic trajectories, and social structures. At a recent Oxford Union debate, scholars examined whether populism is destroying democracy in Asia or represents its necessary evolution. The arguments revealed the complexity of this transformation.
Populism has found fertile ground in the gap between democratic promises and lived realities. Across the region, leaders have mobilized support by portraying themselves as champions of the “common people” against entrenched elites. They speak to citizens who feel excluded by globalization, marginalized by political dynasties, or threatened by rapid social change. As argued at Oxford, populism often emerges where traditional parties fail to deliver economic opportunity, curb corruption, or represent popular concerns about identity and sovereignty.
The rise of populist leaders across Asia illustrates this dynamic clearly. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte won office by promising a ruthless crackdown on crime, appealing to citizens frustrated with elite impunity. Despite widespread condemnation of extrajudicial killings, he maintained support by framing his actions as protecting ordinary Filipinos. In India, Narendra Modi and the BJP combined populism with Hindu nationalism and development rhetoric. Modi’s narrative as an outsider resonated strongly, though his tenure has coincided with declining press freedom and increased pressure on minorities.
Pakistan’s experience is particularly revealing. Imran Khan rose to power in 2018 promising a “Naya Pakistan” free from the dynastic politics of the Bhutto and Sharifs. His anticorruption rhetoric energized youth and the urban middle class. However, his government faced allegations of media suppression and political victimization of opponents, highlighting how populist claims of representing the “real people” can coexist with the marginalization of dissent.
Elsewhere, similar patterns are visible. Indonesia’s Joko Widodo initially projected a reformist image but later presided over democratic backsliding and the rise of religious populism. Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad returned to power on a populist platform, demonstrating the enduring appeal of strongman leadership. In Myanmar, Buddhist nationalist populism created the ideological conditions for violence against the Rohingya minority, while political leaders avoided confronting majority sentiment. The Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos Jr. shows how populism can persist across generations through digital narratives and historical revisionism.
Across Asia, populist governments have weakened checks and balances, undermined judicial independence, and restricted press freedom, often justifying such actions through electoral mandates. This reflects a narrow understanding of democracy as majoritarian rule rather than a system grounded in rights, institutions, and the rule of law. Journalists face intimidation, opposition figures confront politicized investigations, and courts often defer to executive authority.
Yet the counterargument cannot be ignored. In many Asian countries, democratic institutions long served elite interests while corruption flourished and inequality deepened. Populist governments have sometimes expanded welfare provision, delivered infrastructure to neglected regions, and challenged entrenched elites. These outcomes complicate claims that populism is inherently anti-democratic.
Economic factors remain central. Despite impressive growth rates, wealth distribution across Asia is deeply uneven. Economic insecurity, rising inequality, and unmet expectations fuel resentment that populists exploit through promises of economic nationalism and sovereignty. Populism also frequently intersects with religious and cultural identity politics, threatening pluralism by defining citizenship along majoritarian lines, as seen in Hindu, Buddhist, and religious populist movements across the region.
Pakistan’s predicament encapsulates these tensions. When populist leaders weaken civilian institutions while accommodating nondemocratic power structures, democratic fragility deepens. The use of social media to bypass traditional channels mirrors global populist trends but also accelerates polarization and disinformation.
Addressing populism requires more than defending existing institutions. Democratic leaders must confront the grievances that fuel populist support by delivering inclusion, accountability, and economic opportunity. Independent courts, a free press, and a robust civil society are not obstacles to democracy but its foundations.
Asia’s democratic future remains uncertain. The Oxford Union’s narrow vote that populism is harming Asian democracy reflects this ambiguity. The choices made by citizens, leaders, and institutions will determine whether Asia moves toward inclusive democracy or majoritarian systems that legitimize exclusion. The outcome will shape not only the region’s future but also the global trajectory of democracy.

The writer is student of Fsc in islamia college university Peshawar