In recent years, scholars have turned increasing attention to the global phenomenon of populism and its consequences for democratic governance. This paper examines how populist leaders, despite differing ideological backgrounds, often erode democratic institutions and norms once in power. Through a comparative case study of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Donald Trump in the United States, this research analyzes the ways in which populism functions as a vehicle for democratic backsliding. Drawing on the theoretical framework of Cas Mudde, who defines populism as a thin-centered ideology that pits "the pure people" against "the corrupt elite," this study demonstrates how both Chávez and Trump centralized executive power, undermined institutional checks and balances, and polarized their respective societies to consolidate authority.
Using historical, theoretical, and empirical sources—including scholarly literature, government documents, and policy analyses—the project traces the path by which both leaders transformed disillusionment with the political status quo into populist mandates. It argues that populism’s impact in electoral democracies is not ambiguous, as some scholars have claimed, but systematically corrosive. Ultimately, this research contributes to the literature on democratic erosion by illustrating how populism can facilitate transitions from electoral democracy to competitive authoritarianism, even in established democracies such as the United States.