The rise of populist politics across the globe has introduced a significant shift in the approach many nations take towards international cooperation, particularly concerning multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). This article aims to explore the intricate relationship between populist ideologies and the increasing trend of withdrawing from or weakening commitments to these crucial agreements in the domains of climate, environment, and health. By examining the core tenets of populism, its historical and contemporary manifestations, and specific examples such as the Trump administration’s actions, a clearer understanding of the motivations, consequences, and future implications of this phenomenon can be achieved.
What is Populist Politics Anyway? A Simple Explanation
Populist politics, at its heart, revolves around a fundamental division within society. This division separates “the pure people” from “the corrupt elite,” and in this framework, political action is seen as the expression of the general will of the people. This core idea, often presented in a simplified “us versus them” narrative, forms the bedrock of populist movements. It’s not merely about differing policy preferences; rather, it establishes a moralistic boundary between those who are considered to represent the genuine interests of the nation and those who are perceived as self-serving and detached from the needs of ordinary citizens.
Beyond this central dichotomy, populism often asserts that the “true people” of a country are in conflict with “outsiders,” a category that frequently includes not only the aforementioned establishment elites but also various other groups deemed to be a threat or not part of the authentic national identity. Furthermore, a key characteristic of populism is the belief that nothing should constrain the will of these “true people,” suggesting a preference for direct expressions of popular sovereignty over the checks and balances inherent in representative democracy. While often associated with right-wing movements in contemporary discourse, it is important to recognize that populism itself is not confined to a single point on the political spectrum and can incorporate elements from both the left and the right. Its “thin-centred” nature allows it to attach itself to various host ideologies, such as nationalism or socialism, adopting their specific policy goals while framing them through the populist lens of “the people” versus “the elite”.
Key Traits and Recurring Themes in Populism
Several recurring themes and traits consistently appear in the study of populist politics. A strong anti-establishment sentiment and opposition to a perceived “elite” are almost always present, with populist leaders positioning themselves as the voice of the “common people”. This often involves a direct appeal to the populace, bypassing traditional political parties, established media outlets, and other mediating institutions. Different forms of populism exist, including cultural populism, which often pits native populations against immigrants and minorities; socio-economic populism, which focuses on the conflict between the working class and big business; and anti-establishment populism, which targets political elites as the primary adversaries of the people. Right-wing populism, in particular, frequently exhibits themes such as opposition to immigration (especially from Muslim-majority countries), Euroscepticism, skepticism towards environmental action, a strong emphasis on national identity (neo-nationalism), and a preference for protectionist economic policies. It is also notable that some populist movements define the “nation” in exclusionary ways, potentially leading to the marginalization of vulnerable groups and an erosion of democratic norms designed to protect minority rights. The moralistic foundation of populism, portraying “the people” as inherently good and the “elite” as corrupt, further solidifies this antagonistic worldview.
A Look Back: Populist Movements Throughout History
Populism is not a novel phenomenon of the 21st century; its roots can be traced back to the mid-nineteenth century, with notable early manifestations in countries like Russia and the United States. In the US, the late 19th century witnessed the rise of the Populist Movement, driven by the grievances of farmers against powerful economic entities such as banks, corporations, and railroad companies. This agrarian movement advocated for significant reforms, including the regulation of railroad rates, an expansionary monetary policy to ease debt burdens, the implementation of a graduated income tax to redistribute wealth, and the direct election of Senators to increase popular representation. Interestingly, many of the reforms championed by the Populist Party were eventually adopted into law, demonstrating the potential for populist movements to influence policy and address the concerns of ordinary citizens. Earlier in American history, Andrew Jackson’s presidency in the 1830s was also characterized by a populist sentiment, with Jackson being hailed as the “People’s President” for his opposition to established institutions like the Second Bank of the United States.
While present in earlier periods, populism experienced a resurgence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In Europe, it remained largely on the periphery of mainstream politics until the 1990s, after which it began to gain significant traction. Today, populist leaders and movements can be found across the globe, spanning both the left and right of the political spectrum. Examples range from left-leaning figures like Bernie Sanders in the US to right-leaning leaders such as Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary, as well as numerous populist parties gaining prominence in European nations. Notably, some contemporary populist leaders, including Trump, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, have been described as employing “authoritarian populism.” This style is often characterized by a strong emphasis on nativism, opposition to pluralism, and, in some cases, the use of conspiracy theories and the scapegoating of marginalized groups to consolidate power. The fact that populism has now gained power in established democracies like the United States, Italy, and India underscores its significant influence in the current political landscape. This contemporary form of populism often revolves around charismatic leaders who claim to directly represent the will of the people, further solidifying the “people versus elite” narrative.
When Nations Turn Inward: Populism and the Retreat from Global Cooperation
The core tenets of populist ideologies often stand in direct contrast to the principles that underpin international cooperation, particularly concerning multilateral environmental agreements. Populism’s inherent emphasis on nationalism, popular sovereignty, and a deep-seated skepticism towards established elites frequently leads to a wary or even hostile view of international institutions and agreements. Populist leaders often portray international law and the institutions that govern it as tools wielded by a “globalized elite” for their own benefit, at the expense of ordinary citizens. This narrative resonates strongly with their anti-establishment base, fueling opposition to MEAs that are perceived as being crafted by and for these elites.
Furthermore, populist ideology typically prioritizes domestic concerns and inward-looking policies, with the primary goal of protecting national interests. This focus often clashes with the outward-looking nature of international law, which necessitates compromise and cooperation between sovereign states. Populist leaders may view the concessions required in international negotiations as a betrayal of national sovereignty or the interests of their “true people,” leading them to regard international law as an illegitimate intervention in their nation’s affairs. In many instances, populist leaders strategically disengage from international institutions to reinforce their image as a revisionist force, one that is committed to restoring the popular will against a global order they claim is dominated by transnational elites.
Why Populist Leaders Are Often Wary of MEAs
Populist leaders, particularly those on the right of the political spectrum, often express wariness towards multilateral environmental agreements for a variety of reasons. Climate policies, which frequently involve taxes, regulations, or perceived intrusions into the daily lives and freedoms of citizens, are often met with opposition. Populist movements tend to frame political debates as a conflict between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite,” and climate advocates are frequently cast as part of this elite, pushing agendas that are seen as disconnected from the immediate needs and priorities of ordinary people. This framing fosters skepticism among populist supporters, who may view climate policies as economically harmful or as part of a broader “elite” agenda.
Moreover, populist leaders often attribute their nation’s problems to foreign influences and international institutions. This can extend to MEAs, which may be portrayed as detrimental to national well-being or as imposing unfair burdens on their country. Some analysts suggest that populist governments might seek to diminish the influence of established elites within international organizations and potentially create opportunities for their own constituents to gain access and influence. Ultimately, a populist leader’s approach to MEAs can be highly tactical. Disengagement, or even the threat of it, can serve as a means to navigate the inherent tension between the radical promises made to their base and the pragmatic realities of international relations. By criticizing or obstructing international agreements, populist leaders can maintain their revisionist image and demonstrate their commitment to prioritizing national interests, even while potentially engaging with these agreements on a more selective basis when deemed necessary.
Case Study: The Trump Administration and the Erosion of Environmental Commitments
The administration of Donald Trump provides a stark example of how populist politics can lead to a significant retreat from global environmental and health commitments.
Exiting the Paris Agreement: A Symbolic Move
One of the most prominent actions of the Trump administration was the decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change, a move announced both in 2017 during his first term and again in 2025 shortly after his second inauguration. The stated reasons for this withdrawal consistently revolved around the agreement being “unfair” and “one-sided,” with the administration arguing that it would place the United States at a permanent economic disadvantage while other large polluting nations like China and India would not be required to take significant action until 2030. This action was a clear fulfillment of Trump’s “America First” policy and resonated strongly with his populist base, who often viewed international climate agreements with suspicion. The formal process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement takes one year following the submission of notification to the United Nations. Despite the immediate announcement and the symbolic weight of the decision, it was met with widespread opposition from Democrats, environmental organizations, scientists, and international allies who viewed it as a significant setback for global efforts to combat climate change. The withdrawal positioned the United States as an outlier on the global stage, joining a very small number of nations not party to the agreement. The consequences of this move are far-reaching, potentially including the ceding of US leadership in the burgeoning clean energy sector, damage to America’s international standing, a weakening of global ambition to address climate change, and potential harm to US farmers and manufacturers who could face trade disadvantages as other nations prioritize products with lower carbon footprints.
Rolling Back Domestic Environmental Regulations
The Trump administration’s retreat from environmental commitments extended beyond international agreements to include a significant dismantling of domestic environmental regulations. Across various sectors, the administration sought to roll back rules concerning emissions limits for power plants and vehicles, clean water protections, and air quality standards. The stated motivations for these actions included a desire to “unleash American energy,” lower the cost of living for Americans, and reduce what were described as burdensome regulations on businesses. By the end of Trump’s first term, his administration had rolled back an estimated 98 environmental rules and regulations. These efforts included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offering exemptions to coal-fired power plants and other industrial polluters from requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals , and the shuttering of EPA environmental justice offices, which had a disproportionate impact on communities already heavily burdened by pollution. Some analysts suggested that the administration’s ultimate goal was to fundamentally alter the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases in the United States by reconsidering the 2009 “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act. Many of these regulatory rollbacks faced significant legal challenges from environmental groups and state governments.
Withdrawal from the World Health Organization: Consequences for Global Health
In another significant move away from multilateral cooperation, the Trump administration also initiated the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). The stated reasons for this decision centered on the WHO’s alleged “mishandling” of the COVID-19 pandemic that originated in Wuhan, China, as well as claims that the organization demanded “unfairly onerous payments” from the United States. As the largest financial contributor to the WHO, the US withdrawal had significant financial implications for the organization and its numerous global health programs. Public health experts and scientists expressed serious concerns about the potential consequences of this action, including a weakening of global health leadership, compromised pandemic preparedness and response capabilities, reduced international information sharing on disease outbreaks, and harm to various global health initiatives aimed at combating infectious diseases and improving health outcomes worldwide. Following the US lead, Argentina also announced its intention to withdraw from the WHO, suggesting a potential ripple effect that could further undermine the organization’s capacity.
Beyond One Nation: Other Instances of Populist Disengagement from MEAs
The Trump administration’s actions were not isolated incidents. The global rise of populist movements has coincided with other instances of nations turning inward and questioning or withdrawing from multilateral environmental agreements. The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union (Brexit), driven in part by populist sentiments emphasizing national sovereignty, represents another significant instance of disengagement from a major international framework. Furthermore, populist leaders and parties have gained prominence in countries like Hungary, Poland, Italy, and Brazil, often expressing skepticism towards international cooperation and prioritizing national interests. The Hungarian government under Viktor Orbán, for example, has also frequently criticized and obstructed international institutions, even withdrawing from UNESCO. These trends suggest a broader pattern of populist movements challenging the established post-Cold War order and its emphasis on multilateralism.
Unpacking the “Why”: Motivations Behind Populist MEA Withdrawals
Several key motivations appear to drive populist leaders towards withdrawing from or weakening their commitments to multilateral environmental agreements.
Prioritizing National Sovereignty and Interests
A central theme is the prioritization of national sovereignty and the belief that international agreements can infringe upon a nation’s ability to act in its own best interests. Populist leaders often frame MEAs as ceding national control to international bodies, arguing that their primary responsibility is to their own citizens and that national interests should always come first.
Fueling Anti-Establishment Sentiment
Withdrawing from MEAs can be a powerful symbolic act that reinforces a populist leader’s anti-establishment credentials. By rejecting agreements that are often seen as products of international cooperation and supported by the political establishment, populist leaders can demonstrate their commitment to disrupting the status quo and aligning themselves with those who feel left behind or ignored by traditional politics.
Economic Arguments and Perceived Unfair Burdens
Economic arguments frequently play a significant role in justifying populist withdrawals from MEAs, particularly environmental agreements. Populist leaders often contend that these agreements place unfair economic burdens on their nation, hindering economic growth, competitiveness, and job creation. They may argue that the costs of compliance outweigh the benefits, especially if they perceive that other nations are not shouldering an equal share of the responsibility.
The Real-World Impact: Consequences of Weakening Global Environmental and Health Agreements
The weakening of global environmental and health agreements due to populist actions carries significant consequences across various domains.
Environmental Setbacks: Increased Pollution and Resource Depletion
Withdrawal from environmental MEAs like the Paris Agreement and the rollback of domestic environmental regulations can lead to significant environmental setbacks. Without the commitments and cooperative frameworks provided by these agreements, nations may be less inclined to pursue ambitious climate goals or enforce stringent environmental standards, potentially resulting in increased pollution, accelerated climate change, and the unsustainable depletion of natural resources.
Public Health Risks: Undermining Global Disease Prevention and Response
Disengagement from health-related MEAs, such as the WHO, poses substantial risks to global public health security. International cooperation through organizations like the WHO is crucial for the early detection, prevention, and coordinated response to disease outbreaks and pandemics. Withdrawal weakens this global network, potentially leaving nations less prepared to face future health crises and undermining efforts to combat existing global health challenges.
The Strain on International Relations and Trust
Populist withdrawals from MEAs can also strain international relations and erode trust among nations. Unilateral actions, especially by major global players, can be perceived as a rejection of multilateralism and can lead other countries to question the reliability and stability of international partnerships, potentially undermining the broader liberal international order.
The Voluntary Route: Is It a Viable Solution?
In light of the challenges facing legally binding multilateral environmental agreements, there has been a growing trend towards exploring voluntary MEAs, also referred to as self-regulation or “soft law” agreements that establish non-legally binding principles. These voluntary approaches offer potential advantages such as greater flexibility for participating nations and industries, potentially lower costs for emitters, and the encouragement of innovation in pollution abatement and sustainable practices. They can also provide a way to address environmental issues in sectors or for pollutants where there may be a lack of political will to enact formal, legally binding regulations. Furthermore, in developing countries where enforcing mandatory regulations can be challenging, voluntary agreements might offer a more feasible pathway for initial engagement on environmental issues.
However, relying solely on voluntary multilateral environmental agreements also presents significant limitations. A key concern is the lack of accountability and the absence of legally enforceable penalties for non-compliance. This can lead to the problem of “free-riding,” where some nations or entities may benefit from the efforts of others without making significant contributions themselves. Critics also argue that the focus on voluntary agreements can divert limited resources away from the crucial task of building strong and effective regulatory institutions. Evidence suggests that voluntary agreements are often ineffective in mitigating environmental degradation and climate change unless they are supported by the credible threat of future mandatory regulations and enforcement. The case of the Basel Convention Ban on the trade of hazardous waste, a voluntary agreement, illustrates the potential ineffectiveness of such approaches in achieving their intended goals. Therefore, while voluntary agreements may play a role in certain contexts, they are unlikely to be a sufficient substitute for legally binding MEAs in addressing the complex and urgent global environmental and health challenges.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Global Environmental Action in an Age of Populism
The continued rise of populist politics across the globe presents a significant challenge to the future of international cooperation on environmental and health issues. The inherent tension between populist nationalism and the need for multilateral action to address shared global problems suggests a potentially difficult path forward. Some analysts warn that this trend could lead to a further dismantling of international agreements and a weakening of global governance structures designed to tackle these critical issues. Furthermore, as nations transition towards a low-carbon economy, there is a potential for a “climate populism” backlash if the economic and social disruptions of this transition are not managed equitably, potentially slowing down the adoption of necessary climate policies. The distrust of scientific expertise and the spread of misinformation within some populist movements could also undermine evidence-based policymaking at the international level, hindering effective responses to environmental and health crises. There are also concerns that populist regimes may become increasingly authoritarian over time, which could further impact their willingness to engage in meaningful international cooperation.
Despite these concerning trends, there are also reasons for cautious optimism. Strategies exist to potentially counter populist opposition to environmental action by focusing on local and tangible benefits, appealing to nationalist sentiments through themes like energy independence, and building collaborations with local communities and organizations. Some argue that the underlying momentum towards sustainability and clean energy transitions may be stronger than the political headwinds created by populist movements. Importantly, many nations around the world remain committed to international agreements like the Paris Agreement, indicating that global cooperation on climate change will likely continue, even if some major players step back. Historical examples, such as the success of the Montreal Protocol in addressing ozone depletion, demonstrate that effective international environmental cooperation is indeed possible. Some scholars even suggest that a different form of populism, one focused on climate justice and challenging elite domination in the name of the people, could offer a pathway towards more inclusive and effective climate action.
Conclusion: The Urgency of Collaborative Action
The rise of populist politics presents a complex and evolving challenge to global environmental and health cooperation. While the inward focus and skepticism towards international agreements exhibited by many populist leaders pose significant risks, the urgency of addressing climate change, environmental degradation, and global health threats necessitates continued collaborative action. Finding ways to bridge the divide between nationalist sentiments and the imperative for multilateral solutions will be crucial in navigating this new era and ensuring a sustainable and healthy future for all.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the core principle of populist politics?
The core principle of populist politics is the division of society into two antagonistic groups: “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite,” with political action viewed as the expression of the general will of the people.
Why do populist leaders often criticize international organizations?
Populist leaders often criticize international organizations because they are perceived as tools of a global elite that undermine national sovereignty and do not serve the interests of the “true people”.
What were the main reasons behind the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the WHO?
The main reasons for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement included the perception that it was “unfair” to the US economy and did not sufficiently hold other major emitters accountable. The withdrawal from the WHO was primarily attributed to the organization’s alleged “mishandling” of the COVID-19 pandemic and the claim that the US was required to make “unfairly onerous payments”.
What are the key limitations of relying solely on voluntary environmental agreements?
The key limitations of relying solely on voluntary environmental agreements include the lack of legal accountability and penalties for non-compliance, the potential for “free-riding,” and the questionable effectiveness of these agreements without the backing of mandatory regulations and enforcement mechanisms.
What are the potential future consequences of the rise of populist politics for global environmental and health issues?
Potential future consequences include the weakening of multilateral cooperation, the dismantling of international agreements, a slower adoption of climate policies due to “climate populism,” and hindered responses to global health crises due to a rejection of science and international collaboration. Sources used in the report
