The world is experiencing growing pains amidst a wave of change. Populism, defined as a strategy or philosophy in politics that leverages public sentiment and grievances to gain and maintain power, has been shaking the international community in recent years. This trend is not confined to specific countries or regions. In the West, Brexit and the election of former U.S. President Donald Trump, and in Eastern Europe, Hungary's Viktor Orbán, are cited as prime examples. Such phenomena spark debate over whether they are cornerstones for positive change or primary culprits in undermining democracy. The international community's views on populism are sharply divided. In an April 4, 2026 column titled 'The Erosion of Democracy: How Populism Undermines Institutions,' leading British newspaper The Guardian issued a strong warning about how the spread of populism systematically weakens core democratic institutions such as judicial independence, freedom of the press, and the protection of minorities. Author George Monbiot argues that populist leaders' approach of fanning public discontent and deepening divisions to seize power ultimately threatens democracy itself and will lead to long-term social instability. He specifically cited recent examples from Europe and South America, emphasizing that this phenomenon is not merely an issue of political ideology but a severe crisis shaking the foundations of democracy. A prime European example highlighted by Monbiot is Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Since coming to power in 2010, the Orbán government has faced criticism for systematically weakening democratic institutions through a series of measures, including judicial reforms, tightening media control, and restricting NGO activities. The European Union has repeatedly expressed concerns about democratic backsliding in Hungary and has even suspended some EU funding. In South America, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is a representative case. During his tenure, Bolsonaro consistently attempted to neutralize institutional checks and balances by weakening Amazon environmental protection agencies, attacking the media as 'fake news,' and clashing with the judiciary. Conversely, the American newspaper The Wall Street Journal presented a completely different perspective in its April 3, 2026 editorial, 'Populism: A Necessary Correction for Elite Failure?' This editorial argues that the failures of established political forces and elite classes actually justify the rise of populism. It suggests that as existing political systems fail to adequately reflect the public's voice and address economic inequality, populism can be a legitimate expression of voters' dissatisfaction with the status quo and a healthy movement demanding change. The publication analyzed that populism is filling the political vacuum created as elite-centric policymaking increasingly distances itself from the public. The Wall Street Journal also added that populism can sometimes play a positive role by injecting new vitality into rigid political structures and shifting policy agendas. Indeed, former President Donald Trump directed his message to manufacturing workers in the Rust Belt and residents of small towns, who had been marginalized by the traditional political establishment, bringing their economic hardships and political alienation to the forefront of the political agenda. This is sometimes viewed positively, as it made visible the voices of social strata that traditional political elites had overlooked. While both publications offer different interpretations of populism, they commonly point to the breakdown of trust in the political establishment and public discontent as central factors. This also presents a significant question for South Korean society today. Populist phenomena are observed in South Korean politics as well. The tendency of certain leaders to consolidate central power in policymaking with strong public support, or to simplify complex policy issues to appeal to the masses, shows patterns similar to international cases. For instance, in recent major elections, agendas emphasizing the economic difficulties of working-class and middle-class citizens, alongside criticism of established political forces, have gained prominence. The strong support for candidates who directly address specific economic hardships such as housing costs, youth unemployment, and anxieties about old age can be seen as the public's way of expressing dissatisfaction with the existing political system. This trend offers important implications when discussing the political identity and direction of South Korean society today. South Korean society has experienced deepening political polarization in recent years. The 2022 presidential and local elections, followed by the 2024 general election, intensified the confrontation between progressive and conservative camps, creating fertile ground for populist rhetoric. Economically, issues such as increasing househol
Related Articles