Populism as a Driver of Democratization in Hybrid Regimes: A Case Study on the Belarusian Presidential Elections 2020

I explore how populism can drive democratization processes in hybrid regimes by uniting fragmented opposition groups through a shared discursive framework. Using the 2020 Belarusian presidential election campaign led by Sviatlana Tsihanouskaya as a case study, I examine the potential of populist logic to overcome the structural advantages of incumbent authoritarian regimes in the context of elections. Drawing on Bunce and Wolchik’s (2011) electoral model and Laclau’s (2005, 2015) theory of populism, I argue that populism provides a discursive mechanism for linking diverse grievances into a cohesive, convincing opposition platform. This process, which Laclau refers to as the "logic of articulation," constructs an antagonistic “regime” divide between "the people", striving for democracy, and "the authoritarian regime," represented by a singular, unifying demand for free and fair elections. Through my analysis, I identify key features of the 2020 Belarusian opposition campaign that align with this theoretical framework. I show that the campaign demonstrated a populist structure by framing grievances through a hegemonic “regime” divide: supporters of democracy versus proponents of the regime. Tsihanouskaya’s leadership embodied the collective will of "the people," bolstered by affective investment that established her as a representative figure of the opposition. The campaign's single-issue focus on free and fair elections served as the unifying demand, linking diverse policy concerns under a common narrative of systemic dysfunction. This approach enabled the opposition to form a credible coalition and avoid fragmenting the opposition vote, a critical obstacle in many hybrid regimes. To support my argument, I conducted a qualitative content analysis of campaign materials and public statements, demonstrating how populist rhetoric contributed to opposition unity. I found that the campaign transcended conventional strategic alliances by fostering solidarity among opposition groups. The unification of Viktar Babaryka, Valery Tsepkala, and Siarhei Tsihanouski’s previously separate campaigns behind Tsihanouskaya illustrates how shared values and emotional connections drove cooperation. I argue that solidarity played a vital role and therefore propose the term “populism of solidarity”, complementing the strategic imperatives outlined by Bunce and Wolchik. I claim that populism, despite its often cited ambivalent relationship with liberal democracy, can serve as a tool for democratization in hybrid regimes by mobilizing disenfranchised citizens and reframing electoral competition. However, my study has limitations, including the inability to assess the pre-coalition demands of individual opposition campaigns due to the lack of publicly available manifestos. For future research, I plan to explore how populism influences other necessary conditions of the electoral model, such as civil society engagement and voter mobilization, and test the hypothesis across other cases to enhance generalizability. Throughout my argument, I emphasize the role of solidarity as a novel element in fostering opposition unity. In the Belarusian case, the shared grievance of injustice catalyzed cooperation, showing that coalitions based on common ideals and emotional bonds may be more effective than purely strategic alignments. I argue that this repositions populism as a potentially constructive force in democratization, offering a framework for opposition movements in other hybrid regimes to challenge authoritarian incumbents through collective action and shared purpose.