The Doctrine of Stolen Elections

The claim that the people can never be in opposition is the most concise and precise definition of illiberal populism I know. The key word, of course, is people—in Latin, populus—from which this political technique of seizing and maintaining power also takes its name. A populist is not someone striving to be popular among the people, but rather a politician who unilaterally claims the exclusive right to represent the people. Based on this self-proclaimed exclusivity in recognizing, articulating, and defending national interests, the populist appropriates sole authority over the fate of the state and its citizens.

In the name of this right, the populist undermines democratic checks and balances and the rule of law, interferes with the judiciary, denies the legitimacy of political competitors, attacks critical media, and stifles civil society. Of course, by their own account, none of this is done for personal gain, but in the interest of the people. The populist has their own interpretation of national literature—they alone will pass judgment on the people, as Slovenian author Ivan Cankar might be paraphrased.

In addition to subordinating democratic institutions, an illiberal populist must also secure adequate public support. Unlike dictatorships, which dispense with elections entirely, or authoritarian regimes where results are known in advance, illiberal democracies still technically conduct elections, giving voters the theoretical right to express their will. For any politician, elections are stressful; for the populist, they are an existential battle. A democratic politician—regardless of ideology—can lose, go into opposition, and prepare for the next contest. A populist cannot afford to lose, because they claim to be the people, and the people cannot be in opposition.

Further complicating matters are the integrity issues often woven into the fabric of populist rule. Losing power can open the door to legal scrutiny. Populists also struggle because they typically fail to solve real social challenges. Like in any field, politics without accountability and fair competition will not produce miracles. Moreover, the belief that they alone possess the right to manage the state does not, diplomatically put, foster effective defense against conflicts of interest.

In normal circumstances, one would expect voters not to reward such politicians. Populists try to solve this by blaming others, but every election carries risk. The more cunning illiberal populists—especially in countries with weaker democratic traditions and immune systems—find ways to ensure that the people never vote against themselves. They achieve this not only by undermining democratic institutions, but through polarization, incitement, intimidation, manipulation, and lies.

In populism, politics is not a competition of ideas—it’s just a fight, in which any criticism of the leader is branded as national betrayal. Since most of their ideas cannot withstand rational scrutiny, populists reject reason and facts, and conspiracy theories become gospel. Populism is not about supporting ideas—it’s about following a leader. It is fueled by emotion, not reason.

Some hope that populism will eventually burn itself out, that people will realize they’re being led off a cliff. But that’s as naïve as thinking that sobriety will spontaneously win out in the middle of a drunken party. By the time reality sets in—head in the toilet, raging hangover, blurry memories, and searing shame—it’s often too late.

Until it hits bottom, populism often wins elections, even outperforming more reasonable political rivals. Trouble begins when it loses, as it did recently in the United States. Since the people cannot lose—despite receiving fewer votes—even mathematics must be branded an enemy of the people. This is the heart of the Doctrine of Stolen Elections, which recognizes only one kind of vote as legitimate: their own.

This view is not just undemocratic—it’s illogical. But populism routinely refuses to bow to decency and reason. Any five-year-old understands why Trump was ahead at first and Biden later overtook him. But for those consumed by emotion and blind faith, facts only get in the way. If the populist wins, it’s a celebration of democracy. If they lose, then the election is—by default—stolen, because, as we’ve established, the people cannot be in opposition. Demands for evidence of fraud don’t matter; the only proof needed is that their opponent won.

When the president of the Slovenian Democratic Party tweeted an enthusiastic congratulation to the big orange leader across the ocean immediately after polls closed, it sparked mockery at home and abroad. There’s nothing inherently wrong with hoping for a like-minded leader to win in a country as important as the U.S., but it is remarkable when a seasoned politician congratulates someone before the results are in.

Now, many chuckle smugly at what they see as a premature emotional outburst. Perhaps rightly so. The tweet frenzy created a monumental reputational self-injury, which—given the tweeter’s position—does not harm only the author. But on the other hand, Trump’s loss is not entirely bad news for his ideological followers. The Doctrine of Stolen Elections is not useful as a theoretical concept—it requires practical implementation, and that can only happen after a loss.

The outcry, lawsuits, lies, and agitation in the U.S. likely won’t change the result. But the episode shows that if Americans can do it, so can others. Trump’s tantrums are a test run and possible beginning of the normalization of the Doctrine of Stolen Elections. More capable populists—especially in countries with weaker democratic institutions—can implement this tactic more effectively than the orange loser ever could.

For those who don’t want people’s democracy, but democracy for the people, the message from the recent U.S. election is simple:

Use your vote. Every time. All of you.