MCC Brussels Tackles Populism, Conservatism, and Democracy in Day-long Conference

In the keynote address, Frank Füredi, Executive Director of MCC Brussels, called on Europeans to embrace the spirit of populism not as an ideology, but as a movement rooted in democratic renewal, cultural belonging, and the need for ordinary people to reclaim their voice. He described populism as an instinctive and emotional response to the alienation felt by millions across the continent—born from the erosion of national identity, the marginalization of traditional values, and a widespread sense that political elites no longer represented the public.

Füredi warned that this democratic spirit was under coordinated attack—not just culturally, but institutionally. At the center of this effort, he said, stood the European Commission, which has poured millions of euros into what amounted to a silent war on populism. Under the guise of “safeguarding democracy,” EU programs have funded campaigns, research, and NGOs aimed specifically at suppressing voices that challenged the prevailing technocratic consensus.

He defined populism not as a political program but as a deep yearning for home, for solidarity, and for voice—a reaction from people who felt disoriented in their own countries, disconnected from communities that no longer reflected their values, and silenced by institutions claiming to speak for them.

The first panel of the conference examined whether populism could offer a constructive, unifying form of patriotism amid growing distrust in institutions and cultural fragmentation.

Rebecca Mistereggen, journalist and host of Document.no, argued that unity could not be imposed by dissolving national identities. Drawing parallels to the Ottoman and Soviet empires, she warned against top-down, technocratic projects like the EU, which she criticized as undemocratic and dismissive of cultural differences. She insisted that true patriotic populism is not exclusionary but rooted in civic duty, family, and culture and patriotism must be reclaimed as a moral foundation for democracy.

Lorenzo Bernasconi, a Machiavelli Institute research fellow,  reflected on Italy’s failed populist experiment in 2018, blaming its collapse on external constraints from financial markets, EU institutions, and legal bodies. Populist leaders, though elected, were effectively powerless. To succeed, he argued, populism had to grow into a deeper nationalist project based on shared identity and long-term cultural investment.

Journalist Bruno Waterfield saw contemporary populism as a “constitutional moment”—a demand for accountability and national self-rule. He rejected elite portrayals of populism as inherently xenophobic, noting that many citizens (including immigrants) supported migration control out of respect for citizenship and democratic values.

The conference’s second panel addressed the uneasy relationship between populism and conservatism. While right-wing and patriotic populists both have a shared respect for tradition, the nation, and community, populist movements can be volatile and willing to embrace the tactics of direct action, and their volatility and anti-institutional nature often clash with conservatism’s preference for order, tradition, and gradual evolution.

Jorge Buxadé Villalba, a VOX MEP, emphasized that conservatism was not a rigid ideology and had been challenged by new global forces such as international organizations and globalist elites. These elites, he argued, have more in common with each other than with ordinary citizens, resulting in a political landscape where traditional conservative values—such as the defense of local businesses and family—had been undermined by globalization, technological advances, and social changes.

He asserted that the current political moment no longer allowed for simple preservation of the past from conservatives. Instead, he called for a "reconquest"—a radical transformation of policies, from international trade rules to immigration laws. Conservatism, he said, must evolve to address modern challenges, moving beyond traditional ideas of preservation and toward a broader transformation to confront the socio-political crisis.

Anthony Gilland, Chief of Staff at MCC Brussels, reflected on the general state of conservatism and the rise of populism in Europe. He acknowledged the political shifts in countries like France, Germany, and Austria, noting the success of populist movements. He expressed frustration with conservatives, arguing they had largely failed to address current challenges and had been complicit in the rise of globalism and technocracy. He called for conservatives to realign with public sentiment and reclaim national pride and solidarity.

In her speech, Susanna Ceccardi, a LEGA MEP, discussed the relationship between sovereignty and conservatism, stressing its critical importance for political discourse and the future of nations. She rejected the negative labeling of "populism," arguing it was often used by elites to discredit those advocating for sovereignty, rights, and cultural identity. She described the rise of such movements across Europe and the U.S. as legitimate efforts to reaffirm national self-determination, especially in the face of growing centralization of power in Brussels and Washington.

She advocated for a Europe of sovereign nations, where each country could preserve its cultural, historical, and political identity without being dictated to by a distant, unelected bureaucracy. In conclusion, Ceccardi argued that the current struggle was a fight for the soul of the nation—its identity, culture, and freedom.

Mick Hume, editor-in-chief of The European Conservative, fully embraced the populist movement, calling it the best hope for humanity. He rejected the notion that conservatives should distance themselves from populism, stating that the heart of the populist revolt was a demand for sovereignty, national control, and the return of the people to the center of democracy. He criticized modern conservatism for abandoning these values, citing examples from the UK and Germany where conservative parties had betrayed voters on issues like Brexit, immigration, and national identity. Hume insisted that true conservatism must align with the principles of national sovereignty and democracy, which he saw as foundational to any meaningful political future.

The final conference panel examined the challenges populist parties face in wielding power: not just winning the elections but forming government and governing. The debate also explored whether populist parties could fulfill their promises amidst institutional opposition.

 John McGuirk, editor of Gript, addressed the challenges and complexities of populist movements in Europe. He questioned whether populist parties could effectively wield power, suggesting that winning elections was not enough—the real challenge lay in governance. He stressed the need for a long-term strategy and clear goals, criticizing populists for often lacking a coherent vision, particularly on issues such as immigration or education.

TalkTV presenter Alex Phillips delved into the rise of populism and its potential to disrupt established political systems. She questioned the negative connotations attached to the term "populist," highlighting how it had often been used to delegitimize movements challenging political elites. She framed populism as a reaction to centralized power in global capitalism and supranational organizations, which had distanced citizens from real decision-making.

Phillips acknowledged the significant barriers populist movements faced in gaining and maintaining power. She described how establishments manipulated electoral systems, changed voting laws, and used legal tactics to suppress populist candidates. She argued that populism required a radical overhaul of the political system and expressed confidence that it was now an unstoppable force capable of meaningful change.

Rassemblement National MEP Angéline Furet discussed the rise of populism across Europe, noting that such movements were spreading despite elite efforts to suppress them. She emphasized the widening gap between political elites and the people, arguing that many elites were disconnected from public concerns and worked to maintain their own power. Furet maintained that populist parties were the only ones truly listening to the people and challenging a political system that no longer represented them.

MCC Brussels’ Head of Policy Jacob Reynolds emphasized the need for populist movements to adopt a more revolutionary stance. He critiqued the dominance of international courts and the ideological capture of key institutions like the civil service, universities, and NGOs. Reynolds called for the creation of alternative institutions—schools, universities, cultural centers—and argued that populist parties must articulate a clear, cohesive vision of the society they aimed to build. While they often united around shared concerns such as immigration and economic decline, he noted they frequently lacked a positive, unifying narrative.

In the closing remarks, Frank Füredi warned: “At the moment of time, everything that can make the populists strong comes from engaging with people and taking them seriously. Political vision - as opposed to planned politics - must originate, almost spontaneously, from what arises in public life, and that means we must learn to listen.”

John O’Brien concluded this important conference by emphasizing that populist movements face not only the challenges winning elections but governing effectively in the face of entrenched bureaucracies, hostile media and international pressure. He reminded the audience that the ultimate question is whether patriotic populism can offer a real alternative to a technocratic and distant political establishment and work with conservatives together towards the common cause, grounded in shared concerns about tradition, sovereignty and community.