This brings rise to the following questions: Is there a correlation between the rise of populist leaders and increased efforts to erase women’s liberties? Or is the opposite true, that populist leaders actually advance the rights of women in their pursuit of power? Is there a correlation between these two variables at all?

The answer to this question is complex. 

Although largely omitted as the driver of such intense, contested, and diverse campaigns, weaponizing issues of gender is a necessary aspect of populism. Simply put, populism is intertwined with gender. For scholars of democratic erosion, the manifestation of this idea is especially worrisome, as populist leaders of warring ideologies utilize gender as a tool to commit what is known as “stealth authoritarianism,” — a process by which leaders mask repressive, anti-democratic practices under the guise of law (Valor). 

How is gender connected to populism? 

First, to acquire the public support that gives populists political leverage, leaders rely on notions of gender to appear charismatic. In essence, they lean into “suave” personality traits to appear likable to a base that is empirically proven to be white and male-dominated (Hörst and Groenendaal). As Mostov explains, ideas of masculinity are embedded in the personalities of populist leaders (Mostov). As an example, Donald Trump’s political campaign — which scholars agree has discernible populist characteristics — is marked by hypermasculinity. His discussion of his testosterone count during speeches as well as his characterization of sexual assault as “locker room talk” are obvious examples (Kurtzleben). This imagery resonates with an overwhelmingly male base by including them in a climate where they feel ostracized by mainstream political parties and trends toward liberal norms. (Hörst and Groenendaal ) In this same vein, supporters of this kind of “patriarchial populism,” a term coined by Sanders and Jenkins, see themselves in a war against what they describe as “genderism.” What remains central to these campaigns is the creation of a moral panic by a “macho” or “traditional” leader who claims to want to protect the status quo by paradoxically changing the existing laws and structure of government. Gender, in these movements, thus becomes a broader critique of liberal democracy and social change (Mostov).

Secondly, these leaders utilize conflated notions of gender to define “the people” and mobilize a fringe, disorganized base –  both of which are aspects that Müller describes as key characteristics of populism. To further explain, populism functions by separating the world into homogenous, opposing halves — “the people” and everyone else against “the people” (Müller). This has the effect of mobilizing a group, who often believes themselves to be disempowered, around a common grievance rather than through party affiliation, for example. The simple dichotomy of ‘us versus them’ in populist politics often aligns with notions of gender — most simply, ‘men versus women’, ‘families versus non-families’, or ‘tradition versus change’ (Mostov).

Even in populist campaigns that seem otherwise unrelated to gender, it remains an uncurrent. This is clear in the forms of xenophobic populism, where leaders divide the people based on notions of citizenship and national identity. To exemplify, Marine Le Pen, a leader of France’s right-wing populist party, characterizes herself as the defender of French women against male foreigners. Here, she uses gendered language to increase anti-immigrant sentiments (Hörst and Groenendaal).

Now, how do populist leaders utilize gender to commit “stealth authoritarianism”? 

For any person invested in democracy, populist leaders’ weaponization of gender to erode its most basic functions is cause for concern, regardless of how one may define democracy writ large. 

For those who have a Dalihan perspective of democracy — who believe that civil liberties and the inclusion of marginalized groups are foundational aspects — then right-wing populism across Europe and the United States is worrisome. In these campaigns, where anti-women rhetoric oozes, gendered notions of family values, tradition, and nationalism conceal the calculated erasures of women’s liberties.

As a historical example, in Nazi Germany, women were central to Adolf Hilter’s scheme to devise an “Aryan” nation. Viewing them as biological reproducers of a “pure” race, he fervently advocated confining women to the domestic sphere and imposed legal restrictions on marriages between “Aryans,” and “Non-Aryans” in the name of German nationalism (Holocaust Encyclopedia). Contemporarily, in the United States, MAGA Republicans championed the Supreme Court’s reversal of federal protections for abortion, all under the guise of family values and state rights. Across the Alantic, the populist-led governments of Turkey, Hungary, and Poland have taken steps to leave the Istanbul Convention, which provides legal support to women experiencing domestic violence, attacking the convention for threatening classic gender roles and family structures (Brechenmacher).

Such actions have daunting implications. First, they increase a populist leader’s electoral support by mobilizing a “thin-centered” base that sees advances in the rights of women as a threat (Müller). Secondly, they risk shutting women out of the political process. In the United States for example, after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, thousands of women were forced to endure unwanted pregnancies while more had to travel across state lines to access necessary care. This restricts women from exerting electoral and political power as these increased burdens limit the time one can spend waiting in polling lines or protesting (Frye, Goodman, and Haider). As previously discussed, these movements also reference gender within a broader plan to change the existing forms of democracy. To exemplify, Project 2025, a policy agenda that is inextricably connected to Trump’s Republican Party, states that the U.S. Health Department should “maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family” and also proposes to consolidate power in the executive by vesting the entire federal bureaucracy within executive authority (Wendling). 

Contrastingly, for those who subscribe to a Schumpeterian framework — who see democracy as simply the presence of free and fair elections — left-wing populist leaders flaunt their efforts to advance women’s rights as a distraction from attempts to erode democracy.

For example, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a self-described feminist. His populist campaign promised social justice. He strengthened the Women’s Bank and the Women and Gender Equality Ministry and passed groundbreaking legislation that expanded protections for women experiencing violence. However, as he gained incumbency, gender was utilized in an increasingly manipulative way to subordinate it to his regime’s political agenda (Women Across Frontiers). Despite his inclusion of women’s rights in most official statements and speeches, issues such as female representation and economic equality remained stagnant, while he repressed the media, manipulated electoral laws, and arrested and exiled government critics (Gamboa).

 Despite conventional wisdom, left-wing populists’ “advancement” of women’s rights, too, is bad for democracy. Whether it manifests in abortion restrictions or the championing of women’s rights, a warning sign of democratic erosion is women-centered populist movements. 

Works Cited 

“Democracy & Abortion Access: Restrictive Voting Laws across States Threaten Freedoms.” National Partnership for Women & Families, 30 May 2024, nationalpartnership.org/report/

Gamboa L. “Chávez Vete Ya”: The Erosion of Democracy in Venezuela. In: Resisting Backsliding: Opposition Strategies against the Erosion of Democracy. Cambridge University Press; 2022:98-128.

Hörst, Corinna, and Laura Groenendaal. “Manipulating the Vote: How Populists Exploit Gender Roles.” GMFUS, www.gmfus.org/news/manipulating-vote-how-populists-exploit-gender-roles. 

“Hugo Chavez Greets People in Caracas.” Life on Earth Pictures, archive.lifeonearthpictures.com/image/I0000weMUWNZQ91A. 

Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Trump Has Weaponized Masculinity as President. Here’s Why It Matters.” NPR, NPR, 28 Oct. 2020, www.npr.org/2020/10/28/928336749/trump-has-weaponized-masculinity-as-

Mirochnik, Karina. “Women in Venezuela: A Mirage Called ‘Feminist Revolution.’” Women Across Frontiers Magazine, 5 Feb. 2018, wafmag.org/2017/12/women-in-venezuela-a-mirage-called-feminist-revolution/.

Mostov, J. (2021). Populism Is Always Gendered and Dangerous. Frontiers in Sociology, 5, 625385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.625385

Müller, Jan-Werner (2016). What is populism?. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Women in the Third Reich” encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/women-in-the-third-reich. 

Wendling, Mike. “What Is Project 2025? Wish List for a Trump Presidency, Explained.” BBC News, BBC, 11 Sept. 2024, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do.

Varol, Ozan O., Stealth Authoritarianism (April 24, 2014). 100 Iowa Law Review 1673 (2015), Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-12, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2428965