Mitchell A. Orenstein explains why the illiberal, conservative Poland under the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party is so popular among its voters. Mixing populism with a socialist agenda, its formula of success is the new child benefit programme called 500+ launched in 2016, which gives Polish families with a second or subsequent child a monthly allowance of 500 złoty (about $144) up to the age of 18. Even those already born benefit from this programme.

In recent years, the Catholic, nationalist PiS has been making headlines for the very wrong reasons. Known for its anti-EU stance, xenophobic policies, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim views, it cracks down on free press and curbs civil rights and liberties. Due to its utter disregard for the rule of law, Warsaw has been at loggerheads with Brussesl, and the EU contemplates cutting funds to Poland, following its controversial court reforms that undermine judicial independence.

Yet the author says Western democracies must not “out-xenophobe” right-wing nationalists in Poland, but “should slip their own ideological blinders and learn a thing or two from their adversaries about policies that work for the people.” He points out that other countries, like Lithuania, are introducing similar welfare programmes, and urges “liberal democrats” to realise that “many voters are buying into the nationalist right’s vision of a social state that advances national priorities, cares for the poor, and supports families.

Poland, which used to have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe after the fall of the Iron curtain, is seeing a surge from 1.29 to 1.42 births per female since 2016. However Polish women living abroad have higher fertility rates. According to the 2011 UK Census, birth rates among Polish migrants were above the British average - 2.13 births per female. Thanks to higher incomes, parental leave, allowing both parents to share leave after the birth or adoption of their child, as well as other inclusive welfare policies, Polish women feel more confident having children in the UK. This must have inspired Poland to emulate the UK or some EU countries – France, Sweden and others – that have family friendly policies, despite lower incomes.

The author lauds Poland’s Family 500+ programme, which should be emulated. “No wonder liberals have trouble gaining traction with the electorate. Many Poles see a government that finally does something for ordinary people, and all liberals can do is complain, ironically, that it is anti-democratic.” But most EU countries had adopted policies long ago that are family-friendly and provide for child benefits, integrating mothers back into the workforce.

Economic grievances may have driven many into the arms of PiS. Nevertheless each year hundreds of thousands emigrate since Poland joined the EU in 2004, despite good economic performance in recent years. They seek employment or better paid jobs abroad, because at home their incomes would not allow them to save money or provide for their families. While Western economies see the declining economic fortunes of the middle-class, the former communist Poland is seeking to build one.

The ruling party, the PiS has reason to worry about its dwindling demographics as a result of low birth rates, and its Family 500+ helps boost population growth. It relies on a nationalist, anti-immigrant agenda and a social welfare programme to reach out to a broad electorate – ultraconservative and working-class Poles. It does not seem to “weaken work incentives and blow up the government budget.” On the contrary, the programme “has actually increased economic activity.” Most of all, “thanks to rapid economic growth, the government deficit has steadily fallen, not grown.”

But social-political discontent is another reason why populists gain power in Germany and other wealthy EU countries. Right-wing populism can be driven by a sense that the disparity between different social classes is increasing. Providing white voters with higher levels of economic security does not tamp down their anxieties about race, immigration, history and cultural identity, when they feel a – real or perceived – threat posed by minority members of the society.