The term "populism" has become an indispensable part of modern political discourse. That's not only useless; it might really do some damage.
 |
| [Right-wing populist leader Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban] |
The populist may be compared to the yeti of the political discourse, in that everyone is talking about him but nobody has really seen him. Some people think of a populist as someone who is opposed to elites and the established order. In this scenario, the populist positions himself as a representation of the genuine will of the people, in contrast to an elite that is tainted with corruption. For some people, populism is largely a mode of communication that is divisive, emotive, and too simple; for others, it is just an ideology that lacks a central substance. Another characteristic of populism that many people recognize is the tendency for political groups to be molded around a single leader.
These many efforts at definition are united by a single trait: they don't really express much of anything. If what they say is true, then the vast majority of politicians would be populists. In a democratic system, it is expected that elites will be criticized. It is commonplace in political discourse for one side or the other to make the claim that they are acting in the people's best interests. In order to explain difficult subjects for the purpose of public debate, the use of simplification is an essential element of style. Emotions have just as significant a role in political discourse as do logical reasons. The arbitrariness of the word populism, on the other hand, is not only a blunder in academics; rather, it is a serious challenge for democracy and the discourse that surrounds it. Despite the fact that it does not exist, this Yeti does significant harm.
Attacks against democracy are often masked under the label of populism. In the case of Donald Trump, who is generally considered to be the archetype of a populist, the fact that he oversimplifies, polarizes, and portrays himself as a representative of the silent majority is less of an issue. The issue is that he makes assaults on democratic processes. It undermines the credibility of the media and the judicial system, and it degrades the status of disadvantaged groups while refusing to acknowledge the outcomes of democratic elections. These are direct assaults on the fundamentals of democracy in the United States, but they are masked by Trump's self-description as a populist. The word "populist" gives the impression that what Donald Trump is doing is something that is well-liked or close to the people, rather than something that is anti-democratic.
The same may be said of Viktor Orbán, who is another populist who follows the textbook model. The fact that he acts as if he is a protector of Hungary, its culture, beliefs, or traditions is also a less significant concern in this regard. The actual issue is that it undermines the independence of the judiciary, reduces the extent of civil society, undermines democratic elections, denies equal chances to the opposition, exploits referendums for its own ends, and restricts the reach of civil society.
The concept of populism not only minimizes threats to democracies but also creates a wedge between citizens, which ultimately makes democracy more vulnerable. The primary goal of the charge of populism is to undermine the credibility of the opposing viewpoint. The purpose of the allegation is to diminish the significance of the opposing viewpoint by portraying it as being unscientific, susceptible to simple messages, undemocratic, or even nasty. He draws a distinction between the portion of society that is sensible and liberal, on the one hand, and the part that is frustrated and emotional, on the other. This so-called "axis of populism and anti-populism" is now one of the primary fault lines running through western democracies.
To add insult to injury, the liberal side of the political spectrum likewise maintains this dividing line. The concept of populism is quite common in this area. Phrases such as "citizens need to be lifted up" or "their concerns and anxieties need to be treated seriously" are typical reactions to populism. These replies often include the unstated undertone that the problems in question are really unjustified or even wrong. This kind of didactic politics does not bring people together; rather, it drives them farther apart.
Another example of this kind of paternalism are political policies that are developed to provide a customized response to difficulties posed by populist groups. Because of the educational picture they have of their fellow citizens, they also serve to strengthen dividing lines and make it more difficult to have frank dialogues at eye level. They want you to speak about the other side, but they don't want you to converse with them. By doing so, they are assisting those of all people who want to steer clear of an open discussion about the facts and instead make their living off of the strident contrasts that arise during the argument over populism.
The idea of populism also has the drawback of grouping together under one category entities that couldn't be more dissimilar from one another. The term "populist" may apply to a wide variety of political movements and parties across the world, including the FPO in Austria, the AfD in this nation, the PiS in Poland, Greece's Syriza, and the Italian five-star movement. If taking on the established order is what makes someone a populist, then Emmanuel Macron is one of the most successful politicians of his time. He has caused a commotion in the political scene of France. But if populists are skulking around practically every corner, it would seem that democracy is coming under assault from all directions in a general sense. This disrupts your equilibrium and causes you to lose your bearings.
One of the cornerstones of democracy, plurality, is undermined when populism is practiced. A populist viewpoint is one that falls outside of the democratic range, as the name populism implies. However, democracy is a large tent that can accommodate a huge number of different points of view. Only the most extreme viewpoints, such as inciting hatred towards members of minority groups or opposing democratic institutions, qualify as anti-democratic and are, as a result, excluded from the tent. The bounds of the democratic spectrum are defined in a somewhat trustworthy manner by national legislation, international law, and resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly. The charge of populism, on the other hand, is so broad and nebulous that it exceeds these boundaries by a significant margin. By doing so, he inhibits pluralism and reduces the range of democratically acceptable viewpoints, which is a problem.
The populist political movement is not only destructive, but also unnecessary as a political philosophy. There are phrases that are both more specific and politically potent that may be used to describe the qualities that populists are accused of having. When it comes to characterizing the assertion that one can only represent the will of the people, then, anti-pluralism is the far more appropriate phrase to use. When referring to a purportedly homogenous national organization, the phrases "volkisch" and "identitarian" are the appropriate ones to use. When referring to the leadership cult of a movement, the term authoritarian is more appropriate.
There has been a lot of discussion about the many issues that are associated with the populist ideology, but very little has been done to draw any conclusions from these observations. Since people are still making use of the word, the issue has not been addressed. The only thing that will make a difference is if people in political debates stop using the word. Therefore, populism need to be elevated to the status of a buzzword in political discourse. Readers of the Harry Potter books can claim that the "P-word" is the phrase that must not be said. In the context of the political discussion, there is a pressing need to differentiate more precisely between beliefs that are not politically shared and those that are anti-democratic.
The author Dr. Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf is in charge of the Ecologic Institute's European and Global Governance Program. He helped form and is invested in the nonprofit organization Democracy Reporting International.
Source: IPG