Why Anti-Establishment Votes Keep Winning, and What That Means for Real Change

Trump’s re-election might feel like yet another setback for those of us striving for a fairer, more sustainable world. A serious roadblock on the journey to an ecological economy focused on the wellbeing of all citizens. Yet, despite the frustration, we must take the opportunity to ask ourselves: why do voters keep turning to figures like Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Wilders, or others who promise to shake things up, even when these candidates are deeply entwined with the very systems they claim to oppose?

This question touches on a growing mistrust in politics and a profound sense that, no matter who wins, those in charge are more interested in preserving ‘business as usual’ than addressing genuine issues. Ironically, the supposed “anti-establishment” choices are turning out to be some of the most powerful guardians of the current system. But it is not the voters who need a wake-up call – it is our entire political establishment and the structure it relies on.

The Broken Promises of Business as Usual

To understand why, we need to look back. Over the last forty years, politics has increasingly aligned with neoliberal, big business interests, often at the expense of ordinary people and the environment. Trickle-down economics, remember that? Economic growth was progress, they said. Everyone would be better off, we were told.

The 2008 Financial Crisis was the turning point: bankers who had played roulette with our economy kept their jobs and bonuses, and saw their losses absorbed by taxpayers. Meanwhile, millions of ordinary taxpaying people had to deal with unemployment, foreclosure, and the sense that no one at the top cared about them.

“One rule for the elite, another for the rest of us.”

Is it any wonder that, across Western democracy, people are turning away from the traditional establishment? The promise of change by those in power has been a mirage, with each election cycle delivering similar economic models that exacerbate inequality and alienate more people from the political process.

In this year of elections, perhaps every political party and candidate has talked about the need to grow the economy. Even the Greens talk about green growth. How many have questioned the absurdity of continuous growth on a finite planet or argued for a wellbeing economy?

Real Anti-Establishment, or Just New Faces for the Same Game?

A vote for Trump is a “public vote of no confidence in the leaders and institutions” of the past four decades according to Daniel MaCarthy in The New York Times.

For many voters, politicians like Trump or Farage appear to represent a break from the past, an answer to years of feeling overlooked and unprotected. An alternative to austerity. And in truth, these politicians excel at speaking to people’s frustrations – offering big promises and “straight talk” that shatters the traditional political mold.

But here is the twist: despite their rhetoric, they are deeply tied to the current system. They may challenge ‘how’ things are done, but rarely ‘what’ is done. In an article in The New Yorker, Jia Tolentino argues that Trump’s policies are just another brand of conservatism. Wealth and privilege protected, inequalities exacerbated, and environmental commitments sidelined as “job killers” or “excessive regulation.” For all their “anti-establishment” appeal, they are, in many ways, the establishment’s most formidable defenders.

The Growing Polycrisis and Political Paralysis

Meanwhile, the challenges we face are mounting. The climate crisis, biodiversity loss, economic inequality, the erosion of social services – these are just some of the threads of the complex web often called the Polycrisis. Yet, our political systems have been slow to respond. Even when they do, policies to address these issues often disproportionately impact on the poorer sections of society, while the wealthier tend to avoid the consequences.

This is not a coincidence. Robert Reich argues in “Saving Capitalism,” that corporate and financial elites hold excessive political influence, allowing them to shape economic rules in their favor. This concentration of power undermines public trust and shifts the system from production to protection. The systems in place are built to shield wealth and power, rather than distribute the burdens and benefits of environmental and economic action equitably. And as a result, we end up in a political cycle where real action on critical issues, like climate change, are constantly stalled by lobbying, polarized politics, and a lack of meaningful accountability.

Could Citizen Assemblies Be the Answer?

What if we dared to look beyond the old, broken system? The answer may not lie in one politician or one political party but in a different approach to governance. In his book “The Good Ancestor,” Roman Krznaric, discusses the use of citizen assemblies to bring people into the decision-making process, creating genuine democratic accountability and removing power from vested interests. They build a culture of long-termism and break free from the short-term pressures that typically drive political agendas.

Take Ireland’s citizen assemblies on abortion or climate, for instance. When ninety-nine randomly selected citizens, representing a cross-section of society, were empowered to study issues, listen to expert opinions, and deliberate together, the outcome was often more innovative, practical, and widely accepted than traditional parliamentary approaches. People engaged in these assemblies are not beholden to lobbyists or election cycles; they are free to explore what will actually benefit the majority, including impacts on future generations.

Similarly, countries like New Zealand are beginning to experiment with wellbeing economics, reframing success away from GDP growth and toward measures that track the wellbeing of people and the environment. Te Pāti Māori, the Māori Party, is at the forefront of a movement that prioritizes environmental balance and social justice, drawing on Indigenous philosophies that see human and ecological wellbeing as inseparable.

Seattle, Washington, Santa Monica, California, and Baltimore, Maryland in the United States have adopted or been inspired by the Kingdom of Bhutan’s concept of Gross National Happiness. These efforts highlight a growing movement among local governments to redefine prosperity and adopt well-being as a key indicator but adapted to their unique community needs and contexts. These approaches offer tools for measuring social and environmental factors alongside economic ones to create more sustainable and balanced communities.

Breaking Free from “Business as Usual”

For too long, our political systems have been reactive rather than initiative-taking, more concerned with protecting the status quo than envisioning a sustainable future. But we have the tools – and now, the imperative – to demand something better. Alternatives like citizen assemblies and wellbeing-focused policies are starting to show a new way forward, but they need widespread public support to truly change the system.

This is not about “throwing out” traditional politics altogether but recognizing that without structural reform, we are bound to keep repeating the same cycle of disappointment and inaction. The current “anti-establishment” wave is a signal that people want change, but until we start building genuine alternatives, the same broken policies will continue to wear fresh faces, while the core remains intact.

What We Can Do

It is time to demand that our political leaders put people over profit, and our planet over power. Embracing citizen-centered governance structures like assemblies, committing to ecologically sound economics, and reshaping our definitions of success around wellbeing rather than GDP – these are not radical ideas. They are practical, necessary, and they could help build a more equitable future that better reflects the will and wellbeing of all citizens. And help save our democratic institutions vital in facing the challenges of the Polycrisis.

In the end, the real fight is not just between political parties or ideologies; it is about whether we will continue to accept business as usual, both politics and economics, or finally break the cycle. The choice is not simply between the candidates on the ballot – it is about demanding a system that truly works for everyone. The path forward is ours to shape if we are willing to fight for it and make that choice.