Neoliberalism, Populism and the Erosion of Popular Control in Contemporary Democracy

Authors

  • Wuben Qi International Department, Shenzhen Middle School, Shenzhen, 518024, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/3bwnwq24

Keywords:

Democratic crisis; neoliberalism; populism; undemocratization; Oceanic Games; political economy.

Abstract

This paper explores the role of neoliberalism, the world’s current economic system, in shaping the current democratic crisis and investigates the paradoxical relationship between free market and undemocratization. It argues that populism and populist autocracy are not the causes but symptoms of a deeper structural transformation. By linking neoliberal deregulation, monopolistic enterprises and the weakening of state authority, the paper shows how market autonomy can deprive average people of politico-economic power and freedom. Drawing on the Oceanic Games model, it explains how individually fragmented citizens become powerless against atomic players such as corporations and monopolies when the state no longer organizes popular interests into collective democratic power. The paper further argues that the 2008 economic crisis triggered public anger by exposing the inability of neoliberal institutions to protect ordinary citizens, which enabled populism to appear as an expressive response. It concludes that democracy cannot be restored by eliminating conflict, but by keeping political competition alive through democratic processes and allowing competing ideologies to check and balance one another.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Freedom House. (2026). Freedom in the World 2026: The growing shadow of autocracy. Freedom House.

[2] V-Dem Institute. (2026). Unraveling the democratic era? V-Dem Institute.

[3] United States Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. (2022). Final report. U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-J6-REPORT/

[4] Reuters Staff. (2026, April 10). Hungary: how has it changed during Orban’s 16 years in power? Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/how-has-hungary-changed-during-orbans-16-years-power-2026-04-10/

[5] Nam, C. W. (2024). Introduction to the issue on rise of populism: causes, consequences and policy implications? EconPol Forum.

[6] Keynes, J. M. (1936). General theory of employment, interest, and money. Palgrave Macmillan.

[7] Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom. Routledge.

[8] Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

[9] Amazon.com, Inc. (2025). Amazon 2024 annual report. https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/2025/ar/Amazon-2024-Annual-Report.pdf

[10] Statista Research Department. (2025, November 28). U.S. lobbying expenses of Amazon 2024. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1035836/lobbying-expenses-of-amazon/

[11] Milnor, J. W., & Shapley, L. S. (1961). Values of large games, II. RAND Corporation.

[12] Bloom, N. D. (2023). The great American transit disaster. University of Chicago Press.

[13] Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Andrew Crooke.

[14] Direction Générale des Entreprises. (2024). France 2030: stratégie nationale pour l’intelligence artificielle. https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/priorites-et-actions/autonomie-strategique/soutenir-linnovation-dans-les-secteurs-strategiques-de-6

[15] Katz, J., et al. (2025, October 13). Global democracy is more resilient than you may think. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/global-democracy-is-more-resilient-than-you-may-think/

[16] Van Gelder, S. (2012). This changes everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% movement. ReadHowYouWant.

[17] Callison, W., & Manfredi, Z. (2019). Mutant neoliberalism. Fordham University Press.

[18] Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso.

[19] Rousseau, J. J. (2006). The social contract. Penguin Books.

Downloads

Published

14-07-2026

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Qi, W. (2026). Neoliberalism, Populism and the Erosion of Popular Control in Contemporary Democracy. Academic Journal of Law and Society, 1(2), 23-26. https://doi.org/10.54097/3bwnwq24