Why do some political leaders thrive on anti-corruption rhetoric, even when accused of corruption themselves?
In her latest Connecting the Dots piece, Míriam Juan-Torres, Head of Research at the Democracy & Belonging Forum, explores how authoritarian populists successfully frame their narratives in a way that uses accusations of wrongdoing and even convictions as proof that they are threatening the establishment, standing up for the "true people," and challenging a rigged system. This dynamic turns legal troubles into political capital by fueling a victimhood story and rallying those frustrated with the status quo.
The real danger is when debates get reduced to either/or: Do we need to defeat authoritarian populists only at the ballot box? Is applying the law to a political actor an attack on democracy if it goes against their popularity in the public eye?
Míriam argues that, in fact, we can and must both apply the law consistently and engage politically to counter harmful narratives. It’s not a choice between courts or campaigns. It’s both. Democracy isn’t about protecting leaders from accountability, it’s about ensuring the rules apply to everyone. Always.
