Populism is possible only in democracies, where there is open competition for voters’ support. And, one might say, populism—in the form of dictatorship, as a rule—is the logical outcome of unlimited democracy. Its victory is brought about by the system itself.
Let me explain. Ukrainians, who in the second round of presidential elections find their most popular candidates to be Yanukovych and Tymoshenko, look like a society of clinical idiots. In fact, this is not quite so. However, democracy, by postulating the rule of the majority, endows power upon the minority—just the most active among the rest. The procedure of our presidential elections easily demonstrates this. Suppose a populist candidate is supported by 20% of voters. But each of the other candidates commands less support. As a result, this candidate will make it to the second round and, most likely, win the election with the bare support of just 20% of voters. Populists are simply the most numerous minority. As a result, the entire country looks like idiots, and the remaining 80% suffer from idiotic policies.
It should be said that democracy is particularly susceptible to the influence of populism. As soon as populists win, they immediately begin to modify the system for themselves, and these changes are then practically impossible to undo. The classic example here is universal suffrage. In the 19th century, democracy was voting by donors. During elections, they decided where the state would spend their money. Universal suffrage meant that today elections are voting by recipients. They decide how much they can demand from the state, which, let us recall, does not produce wealth itself, but only redistributes it. This is a direct road to disaster.