One in four European voters supported a populist party the last time they cast a vote in national elections, according to the Authoritarian Populism Index released today.

The rapid rise of authoritarian populists from Poland to Italy has been well documented in recent years, and what began with a surge in popular support has now led to real political power for parties formerly on the fringe. Outsiders who rose to prominence by claiming to challenge the elites are slowly becoming part of the mainstream themselves.

In 2010 only three EU countries had a populist, authoritarian party in government, a number which has since increased to 11. This trend will undoubtedly have a big impact on the upcoming European Parliament elections in May and the direction of EU reform in the near future.

Perhaps less well documented are the three island nations in which populists have had the least success – Ireland, the UK and Malta. Each has certainly had its political challenges, and some might argue that Brexit was one of the crowning achievements of the populist movement, or that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn has embraced an authoritarian leftwing version of populism.

Both arguments have merit, however it still seems that the UK’s democratic traditions (and its electoral system) have maintained a more centrist political class than in many other European countries.

It ‘s also worth taking a step back and asking what all the fuss is about with these new and emerging political forces. Start-ups and new companies often arrive with a bang and have a provocative media presence, then consolidate once they have raised awareness about themselves. What if the same applies to populist newcomers?

Centrist parties on both left and right have run out of steam in many European countries. They have become intellectually lazy, politically inefficient, and often almost indistinguishable from one another. This comes as no surprise to anyone in Germany, a country ruled by the centre-left and centre-right for 10 of the last 14 years.

Social democratic parties have seen their support eroded by radical leftwing and Greens. Meanwhile conservative, Christian democratic parties have become smaller as their voters shifted towards far-right nationalist alternatives. But besides worrying mainstream politicians, what are the exact implications of these changes?

The two primary problems with populist authoritarians is their tendency to support majoritarianism, without the checks and balances of liberal democracies. They often claim to represent the true voice of people, to speak for the downtrodden majority. And in many cases, this is somewhat true; in most European countries, there is an increase in support for being ‘tough on crime’, railing against ‘mass migration’ and other changes to the political status quo. These feelings are coupled with an increasing hostility to the globalised political and economic elites which populists have been quick to capitalise on.

The primary problem of majoritarianism and heavy-handed leadership is the disrespect for minority opinions that are seen as irritations, slowing down long-sought political change. This attitude leads to the deterioration of the rule of law, as independent political institutions are considered bumps on the road to change.

Another problematic aspect of populists is their strange mix of economic nativism and socialism, combined with social conservatism. The political realignment that has been happening over the last decade presents a great challenge to individualists who endorse limited government intervention both in economic and social affairs. Not all populist authoritarians are against liberal social views – Geert Wilders’ PVV party is a strong supporter of gay rights, for example – but the vast majority of central and eastern European populists are. If history tells us anything it’s that a mixture of socialist economic policies and nationalist, conservative social policies never ends well.

So is there an antidote to the surging popularity and power of populists? Yes, and it lies in taking back control – though not in the way most people understand it. Voters who turned to populist parties because they were fed up with the inefficiency and lack of leadership of the mainstream will soon find themselves equally disappointed by the alternative.

It’s time for individuals rather than political parties to take back control. Institutional and economic reforms that would enable voters to express significant political preferences at a local level would lead to more economic prosperity – especially in the poorest areas of various countries – and empower the individual as a political actor.

Instead of changing the political elites, we should be changing the political system so it doesn’t require powerful political elites. If we reduce the scope of decisions taken at the highest level and allow more regional autonomy on taxation, education, healthcare, while taking other policy areas – like nanny state regulations – out of the political arena altogether, then people would regain a sense of control over their lives and would not be taken in by the seductive promises of populist strongmen.

CapX relies on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.