Populism
Perspectives based on a simple book on the topic
This is a short, simple, yet powerful book, quite relevant to understand a very significant political phenomena in the world. The only drawback of the book (published in 2017) is that it doesn’t utilize the examples of Trump and Modi, two contemporary populist leaders. But it has utilised the examples of many populist leaders around the world (especially Europe, Latin America, USA and a little of Asia). Beyond the choice of examples, the book provides relevant pointers for contemporary society and situation. One point of caution is important; populism is not necessarily evil, but it even speaks about a grassroot level goodness and participation.
Populism is a much loved and much hated term, difficult to define. But along with democracy, socialism, capitalism etc, it is one of the significant terms of our contemporary political discourse. There are populist leaders in the left wing and right wing of politics. There are populists among capitalists and socialists. Thus this is an movement which works well with many kinds of political ideologies and systems.
Democracy — Majority rule and popular sovereignty are two important aspects of democracy. There can be different kinds of democracies in the world. Some are presidential systems (US, France etc) and others are parliamentary systems (India, UK).
Liberal Democracy — A kind of democracy which also creates institutions to protect certain aspects like freedom of speech, minority rights etc. Constitutions, courts, free media etc are institutions which function along with elected representatives for the running of that country. I believe most of the democracies in the world are liberal democracies.
Populism — It can be a sentiment; it can be a political force; it can even become a political party. There are essential components — people, elite, General Will
- People : It is a very abstract term, difficult to define. It can considered atleast in 3 ways, — common people, sovereign and nation. People are mostly defined as the common people, which includes one set of people of that particular country. It can be a people of dominant religion or ethnic groups or native population or anything else. People may also mean people of that particular nation (eg : American people, Indians etc). They are actually the sovereign too, atleast according to democracy.
- Elite : Again this group is defined based on the context. But they are the enemies in a normal populist set-up, who may be the ruling class or some elite group, who have amassed all the resources or wealth, and thus not allowing the democracy to function according to the rule of the majority. Those elites who are with the populist groups may not be categorized in this category of elites who are the enemy of the common people. We have a pure/good people and evil elite. A homogenous good group and a homogenous evil group.
- General Will : This is the ambitions of the people, expressed or unexpressed. A good populist leader is someone who is “enlightened enough to see the general will and charismatic enough to create a cohesive community around it.” It is very easy to understand or capture the general will at the time of a crisis. For eg: many refugees are coming to a certain country (whether it is right or wrong is another question) and it has created a certain unrest. This unrest can be speaking of a general will of a certain group of people and certain populist leaders can exploit it. When there is a war with an enemy country, again it is a time where leaders (even those who are not populists) will exploit that general will (or sentiment) for their profits. Unemployment, corruption, ethnic/religious fights, lack of any kind of internal democracy in a democratic country and financial crisis are some examples of situations where a general will exists clearly which can be utilised by a populist politician for their benefits. Even when there are no populist politicians or parties, there are such tendencies very visible among the people. One of the common complaints against politicians of any party is that they are corrupt and self-seeking. Yes, already seeds of discontent is there which can be exploited by a charismatic politician.
Two ideologies whom populists are not fond of are— elitism (already discussed above) and pluralism. In plurality, we don’t form one uniform group, but a group which appreciate the differences. It is not homogenous, but heterogenous. Most (again not all) of the populist groups are uniform and homogenous. Their understanding of “common people” will not only exclude elites, but also minorities or other groups which are considered problematic. Inclusion or exclusion is very dependent on the context of each country, or on the general will that unites them or on the leader that unites them.
Another important factor of populism is the presence of a charismatic leader. When we look around the world, we always see important leaders like Modi, Trump, Chavez (Bolivia), Erdogan etc. But it is also important to understand that such capable (I don’t appreciate Modi or Trump, but their charisma is appealing to many people) leaders are not an absolute requirement for populist movements, though a charismatic leaders ensures better stability in many cases; but the negative effect can be that these leaders (most of them project an anti-elite and anti-establishment tendencies) can become extremely authoritarian and even lead to de-democratization.
Good or bad for Democracy
Now after having an understanding of populism, it is good to ask, is it bad or good for democracy? It can be a corrective force to the democracy, that democracy becomes more dynamic and attuned to the people. But it can be quite against the deepening of democracy as the institutions for self-expression, minority rights etc can go against the general will. For eg: A court might say that a certain right of the minority should be protected, which the majority is not happy with. Again populism can be a means for democratisation or de-democratisation (we have examples of both kinds in the world).
The path of populism depends on which ideology it is clubbed with (capitalism or socialism, right or left wing etc). The success of populist movement depends atleast on 3 factors — type of political power they already have (novice or already in power), type of political system (democracy or authoritarian government, presidential or parliamentary system of government etc), and effect of international forces.
Even when they are not successful in establishing governments as in many countries, their impact is not fully determined by that. The success of political actions can be determined by 3 factors — number of votes, ability to set the political agenda, ability to set policies. Even when a party or a leader is not able to get sufficient votes, they have the capacity to set political agenda or to determine public policies.
What to do with populism?
- Many populist experiences have given rise to authoritarian leaders. So should we throw away populism? I don’t think so. Populism gives a sense of the general will of the people (or a significant group). This will may be completely contradictory to the idea of the existing political class. But if those grievances are not sufficiently considered and weighed, or if they are just labelled as foolish or evil, danger is lurking there. At the same time, it is possible that all populists needn’t finish as authoritarian governments.
- Majority rule vs minority rights is a tension in a political system. This is again another tension very much utilised by populists for their gains.
- Populist energy can be helpful for the deepening of democracy. This is a very thin, but it shouldn’t be controlled or suppressed (mostly leading to unwanted consequences), but redirected to development and addressing the concerns.
- One of the beautiful initiatives I have seen in France is also associations. They are different from normal NGO’s in the sense that associations work for a certain cause, but there are no leaders there. All the associations don’t work well, but some do very good job. Everyone’s opinion is valued there and taken care of. Yes, it becomes difficult for a larger group, but I think the “associations” expresses a certain response to the populist sentiment of the people. We need to find better ways to address these issues, that populism can really strengthen the democracy instead of obstructing it.
- Populist movements always posit a dualism — elite vs people (with some minorities ignored) is a dangerous pattern. Addressing some populist concerns can be a way of dealing with this tendency of exclusion.
Synodality and Populism
I don’t think we need to look at Synod with a populist lens, but why not for fun? Synodality is also an attempt to hear the Holy Spirit speaking through all people (common people of Populism) though it needn’t be opposed with hierarchy (unlike in populism). Again, there are sentiments of different groups (conservatives or liberals, North or South etc) in the church; whether they are heard ? If they are heard, we won’t fall into the mistake done by leaders overthrown by populist political movements.
NB: Much of the ideas, except the final reflections are from the book on Populism : A very short Introduction by Cas Mudde & Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser
