Democratic activists and scholars posit two separate counter-theories in response to right-wing populism: militant democracy, which prescribes a temporary suspension of participation rights, and epistemic democracy, which supports decision-making by experts. Despite their different goals and general premises, these two theories have more in common than is usually acknowledged. At the theory-level, they both espouse liberal elitism, hostility to majoritarian principles and a distrust of the people who are vouched as incapable to secure or guarantee a democratic government. At the policy level, they share a preference for unelected institutions, such as constitutional courts or central banks. And from a historical viewpoint, they both came together to build the post-authoritarian liberal consensus of the late 1940s that, among other things, set in motion the European Union. By studying key authors and contextual material, this paper will highlight how militant and epistemic democratic theories converge, and the consequences this has for the current debate on populism and democratic corrosion.
