Rethinking Authoritarianism and Populism: Conceptual Distinctions and Political Articulations

Authoritarianism is one of several ‘-isms’ commonly associated with populism in both academic research and broader public debate. Alongside nationalism, euroscepticism, among other phenomena, it is often used to denote specific variations or manifestations of populism in practice. Yet despite significant advances in the conceptual clarification of populism – for example, in distinguishing it from nationalism and/or nativism – the relationship between populism and authoritarianism remains under-researched and under-theorised. As a result, authoritarianism is often treated as an inherent attribute or outcome of populism and folded into broad and uncritical labels such as ‘authoritarian populism’, a move that is problematic both analytically and normatively. This paper addresses this issue by developing a novel theoretical and analytical framework that conceptualises authoritarianism not primarily as a regime type or individual disposition, but as a distinct discursive practice centred on rigid notions of authority, order, and anti-deviance, and structured by a logic of closure that limits contestation and accountability. This approach enables a clearer differentiation between authoritarianism and populism, understood respectively through authority-centrism versus people-centrism and through logics of closure versus equivalence, while also providing a systematic way of analysing their possible articulations. Rather than presuming their overlap, the framework clarifies how populist and authoritarian elements may combine, coexist, or diverge across political contexts and actors. By foregrounding authoritarianism as a dynamic and gradational phenomenon, the paper aims to contribute to comparative debates on democratic backsliding, discourse analysis and party politics, and offers conceptual tools that can be operationalised in empirical research.