Populism Without Power

Populism is often portrayed as a disruptive force capable of reshaping political systems and challenging entrenched elites. In the UK, parties such as Reform UK are frequently described as emblematic of this trend. Yet despite rising visibility and growing popular support, their political impact remains limited. This raises an important question: can populism meaningfully challenge existing power structures without access to institutional power?

One difficulty in answering this question lies in the concept of populism itself. As scholars such as Paul Taggart have argued, populism is a “thin” and highly contested concept, lacking a single ideological core and instead operating as a flexible political style or logic (Taggart, 2000). Similarly, Francisco Panizza describes populism less as a coherent doctrine and more as a way of framing politics around moral antagonism and democratic crisis (Panizza, 2005). What unites most definitions, however, is the construction of politics as a struggle between “the people” and a self-serving elite.

Cas Mudde offers one of the most widely used definitions, describing populism as an ideology that views society as divided between the “pure people” and the “corrupt elite,” and argues that politics should express the general will of the people (Mudde, 2004). Reform UK clearly fits this model in rhetorical terms, presenting itself as the authentic voice of ordinary voters against political, media, and economic elites. Its messaging draws heavily on narratives of betrayal, exclusion, and democratic failure.

Yet populism’s rhetorical strength has not translated into institutional power. The UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system significantly limits the ability of outsider parties to convert votes into parliamentary representation, reinforcing the dominance of established parties (UK Electoral Commission). Despite polling gains and media attention, Reform UK has struggled to influence legislation, shape policy outcomes, or gain access to decision-making arenas where real power resides.

This gap between visibility and power reveals a core limitation of contemporary populism in the UK. While populist actors can influence public discourse, they remain structurally marginal. Research on protest and populist parties suggests that without coalition-building capacity or institutional access, such movements often become vehicles for symbolic opposition rather than agents of systemic change (LSE British Politics and Policy).

Economic inequality further complicates this dynamic. Populist rhetoric frequently draws support from communities experiencing economic insecurity and political disillusionment. However, without mechanisms to address structural inequality, populism risks amplifying frustration rather than resolving it. Studies on democracy and inequality in the UK show that political disengagement is closely tied to unequal access to power and representation (IPPR). Populism may articulate these grievances, but articulation alone does not redistribute power.

The societal consequences of populism without power are significant. While populist movements such as Reform UK give voice to genuine grievances, their inability to translate rhetoric into institutional change can deepen public frustration rather than alleviate it. Supporters may feel politically recognised but materially ignored, reinforcing perceptions that democratic participation has little tangible impact. This risk accelerating political disengagement, particularly among communities already marginalised by economic inequality and regional underinvestment.

Moreover, sustained populist mobilisation without policy outcomes can intensify social polarisation. By framing politics as a moral struggle between “the people” and a corrupt elite, populism can harden social identities and undermine trust in democratic institutions, media, and expertise. When these narratives persist without meaningful reform, they may normalise anger as a permanent feature of political life rather than a catalyst for change.

In this sense, populism without power does not merely fail to transform political systems; it can reshape society in more subtle ways, fostering cynicism, division, and a politics of permanent dissatisfaction. The danger is not that populism overthrows democracy, but that it contributes to a hollowing-out of democratic trust by raising expectations that institutions are structurally unable or unwilling to meet.

Beyond institutional constraints, populism without power has tangible effects on everyday political life. When populist movements mobilise large segments of society but fail to secure policy influence, this can deepen feelings of political futility among voters. Citizens may become more sceptical of elections, less trusting of representative institutions, and increasingly disengaged from formal democratic processes.

In the UK context, this has been reflected in declining turnout in local elections, rising distrust in political elites, and the normalisation of anti-establishment rhetoric in public debate. Rather than empowering marginalised communities, populism without institutional leverage risks reinforcing a cycle in which social grievances are voiced but left unaddressed, contributing to long-term democratic fatigue and erosion of civic trust.

Populism without power therefore exposes the limits of anti-elite politics within rigid institutional systems. Without access to governance, populism risks becoming performative rather than transformative. The UK case demonstrates that challenging political elites requires not only popular mobilisation, but also the capacity to operate within or reshape the institutions where power is exercised.

Bibliography

Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x

Taggart, P. (2000). Populism.

https://www.mheducation.co.uk/populism-9780335200460-emea-group

Panizza, F. (2005). Populism and the Mirror of Democracy.

https://www.versobooks.com/products/375-populism-and-the-mirror-of-democracy

LSE British Politics and Policy (2023). Populism, protest parties and political influence in the UK.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/populism-protest-parties-uk/

UK Electoral Commission. Elections and voting systems in the UK.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections-and-referendums

IPPR (2023). Democracy, inequality and political disengagement in the UK.

https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/democracy-and-inequality