Populist parties in Europe attract many more votes than they did just a few 

decades ago and are now much more likely to govern. They have also become key 

players in the international sphere. At the same time, the relationship between 

democracy and populism is subject to substantial scholarly and public debate. 

This raises questions about opposition to this controversial set of political 

actors: do opponents favour the use of rights-restricting and 

exclusionary repertoires typical of ‘militant democracy’ responses to anti-

democratic or extremist parties? Or do opponents favour the ordinary, persuasive 

and sometimes inclusive strategies more typical of the daily conduct of liberal 

democratic politics? To what extent is opposition conceived of as democratic 

defence? How do strategies vary among countries and in relation to different 

types of populist parties? How do international and transnational actors respond?

Addressing these questions, the book presents new research mapping opposition 

to the Hungarian Civic Alliance (Fidesz), Law and Justice in Poland, Alternative for 

Germany, League and Five Start Movement in Italy, Podemos and Vox in Spain, 

the Sweden Democrats and the Danish People’s Party. It argues that opposition 

to populist parties in contemporary Europe is, in most cases, best conceived of as 

democratic defence as normal politics. That is, while there is no direct link 

between populism and a decline in democratic quality, critical claims justifying 

acts of opposition often problematise populist parties as threats to 

liberal democratic principles and values. At the same time, opponents are 

more likely to respond to populist parties using the repertoires of normal 

politics – or strategies typically employed against less controversial 

groupings – than the exceptional, rights-restricting instruments typically used 

against extremists. The case of Alternative for Germany, in which exceptional 

politics continues to guide much opposition, remains a case apart.