Copy, Paste, and Change. A Comparative Study of European and Japanese Populisms

Right-wing populism has become a global political phenomenon, increasingly threatening liberal democracies across continents. Despite a growing body of scholarship on populist movements, how illiberal populist demands are articulated and processed within different political and institutional contexts remains understudied. This paper presents a functional comparative analysis of contemporary European and Japanese populisms, using the European experience – particularly focusing on the Italian case – as an ideal-type countercase to examine how populist pressures (demand-side) are amplified, fragmented, or absorbed within political institutions (supply-side). European and Japanese populism are comparable in several key respects. Both contexts are wealthy societies experiencing weak economic growth, demographic aging, and growing distrust toward mainstream political actors. In both cases, fringe parties blame institutions for social and economic challenges and advance demands that include restrictions on minority rights, as well as, in some instances, nativist and exclusionary policies. In many European countries, populist movements act as polarizing forces, often mobilizing religious tropes, seeking electoral gains, and directly challenging mainstream parties for political power. In Japan, by contrast, populism is more fragmented, lacks an explicit religious imprint, and is largely absorbed by the dominant party system. Populist demands expressed by the Japan Innovation Party and, more recently, Sanseito are selectively integrated into the policy agenda of the hegemonic Liberal Democratic Party, which maintains close ties with religious lobbies, particularly Nippon Kaigi, an ultranationalist Shinto organization promoting traditionalist values and opposing gender equality. This institutional absorption does not neutralize illiberal populist politics. Rather it produces two distinct mechanisms, shaped by national and, to a lesser extent, diffuse cultural religious principles: the systematic deflection of reforms expanding civil rights, especially in gender equality, reinforcing Japan’s lagging status, and the introduction of less visible small-scale policy changes that gradually erode civil rights. Even when populist demands are broadly similar across Europe and Japan and pose comparable challenges to pluralist societies, political-institutional configurations produce partly divergent outcomes. This underscores the decisive role of institutions in mediating illiberal pressures and democratic backlash. Drawing on party platforms, legislative behavior, and policy outcomes, the paper traces how populist demands are channeled, contained, or amplified. The study addresses three interrelated questions: How are populist demands expressed? How do institutions shape their effects? How are populist demands institutionalized? By focusing on institutional expression and outcomes rather than individual actors or ideologies, the paper clarifies the mechanisms through which illiberal populist politics unfold across political contexts.