Populism and corruption - the research agenda. An introduction

Certain forms and degrees of polarization, in specific circumstances may have positive effects on democratic processes, accountability, and corruption control. However, recent election results have shown that increased polarization together with populism may undermine not only democracy but also accountability. For instance, the leftist voters concerned with the negative effect of right-wing populistic discourse and policies seem to endorse a president even if convicted for corruption, such as Ignacio Lula di Silva in Brazil. On the other hand, as the US example shows the right-wing voters who are afraid of ‘wokism’ do not seem to care if the ‘anti-woke’ President Donald Trump does not disclose his tax records and his family thrives on conflict of interest. Indeed, the relationship between, populism, polarization, and (anti)corruption is puzzling. The literature is at best ambiguous about the effect of corruption on polarization and especially on the opposite, the role of polarization in the evolution of corruption. We seek to contribute to this stream of research by proposing a theoretical model linking pernicious polarizaiton (a particular form of polarizaiton whereby “society is split into mutually distrustful “us vs. them” camps”) (McCoy and Somer 2019, 234), populism and corruption via a complex mechanism of reverse causation. We are particularly interested in describing the role of populist actors in the interplay between polarization and corruption (e.g., using corruption to fuel polarization, or creating and implementing populistic anti-corruption campaigns and policies). In light of the potential importance of the institutional setting in shaping polarization, corruption, and their interplay, we delimit the scope of our inquiry to electoral democracies. To underpin and refine our broad theoretical model and to shed light on contextual and intervening factors we conduct case studies of Hungary, Poland and Romania, focusing on the post-socialist era. In a broader sense, our research seeks to link three streams of literature. First, there has been a surge in research about the causes and effects of pernicious (and other, similar forms of) polarization, with many arguing that it is both an important cause and an effect of recent episodes of democratic backsliding. Second, another, closely related stream has focused on the interplay between populism and polarization. Third, another body of work sees undue influence, state capture or grand corruption as a root cause of the rise of authoritarianism. Despite the important links between these areas, research on the relationship between pernicious/affective polarization and corruption, and in particular, on the role of populism in it, is largely absent. McCoy, Jennifer, and Murat Somer. 2019. ‘Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies’. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681 (1): 234–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218818782.