A Defense of the Term “Populism”

Anne Applebaum writes in the Washington Post about the “euphemisms” she will try to avoid for some time, and among them there is also “populism.”

To a certain extent, I understand this. The term “populism” has been over-used to say the least. It can be a euphemism for something else, which deserves a narrower description and also more condemnation. I am fine with “Fascism” or “National Socialism” when that applies. However, I don’t think that the movements that have been called “populist” are well-characterized by these terms either.

Actually, over-use of “Fascist” or “Nazi” can backfire, too, because those who are attacked are perhaps often correct in finding it unfair. Major planks of a Fascist or National Socialist ideology, eg. expansionary wars to create huge empires, or more so in the latter case: a drive to enslave and even exterminate millions of other human beings are not what I see with most so-called “populist” movements. I am unsure if it might not be implicit in certain premises, but I do not find that obvious.

There is often an overlap with anti-Semitism if you think of the dogwhistling or outright whistling of the American alt-right or also the situation in Hungary. Still, it does not seem a central plank as with the National Socialists, more instrumental, which is no excuse, of course. And sometimes this is not true. My opinion of Geert Wilders is quite low, but I don’t have reason to believe he is an anti-Semite.

— — —

A euphemism would be a nice term for an ugly reality. I am not sure that is true for how the term “populism” has been used. I would say it has a negative ring to it although some of its adherents try to turn this around. My experience here in Germany was that the go-to epithet should have been “Nazi.” Now since that did not fit all too well, the next epithet would have been “rechtsextrem” (extrem rightwing). However, the various “populist” movements do not easily fall under this heading either, some have even a leftwing flavor.

So as a backstop, the term “rechtspopulistisch” (rightwing populist) caught on. It was technically distinct, but easily filled with the same opprobium as “rechtsextrem.” So soon “populist” sounded not just like a description, but like a moral judgment, and a negative one. Not to be misunderstood: I think you can make the case, and I would, but not simply by transferring the moral judgment from “extreme rightwing” or even “Nazi.”

— — —

The reason why I think “populism” is a good term to describe the various movements we see in our times is that it captures a major part of their worldviews if understood in a descriptive and narrow sense. That is not even contentious between critics and supporters of the respective movements, some of whom espouse the term themselves and view it as positively charged.

A narrow take on the concept, can also explain why “populism” can appear on the Right and the Left of the political spectrum, which is hard to understand if you view “populist” as another variety of the extreme Right. In a deeper sense, “populism” fuses ideas from the extreme Left with ideas from the extreme Right. It depends on the balance: If the former are predominant or even de rigueur, the respective “populism” is perceived as on the Left, and otherwise it could land on the Right.

— — —

My understanding of what these movements are about is that populism is part of a broader worldview, which can contain many other elements. The central tenets are in my view:

(1) There is a pre-existing community of the “people.” In German, the equivalent word “Volk” is a collective noun, and that is in keeping with a certain anthropomorphism as if the “people” were some collective human being.

The underlying assumption is that the “people” are homogeneous enough that, like with an individual, there is a unity of interests, will, and action. This is contrary to a view, where societies are seen as inherently pluralistic and lack this unity, which then leads to the idea that social organization is the result of negotiation and contracts.

Instead, the “populist” conception is that the “people” are an organic entity that grows by its own inner logic. Various writers, eg. Ferdinand Tönnies, have tried to capture the distinction with different words, eg. in German: “Gesellschaft” (society) and “Gemeinschaft” (community), which does not carry over fully to English where ideas of a social contract have had a much stronger impact on political thinking and are the default.

(2) The “people” are understood in opposition to the “elites.”

During the First French Revolution the “people” were the “third estate,” which was oppressed by the first two estates: aristocrats and the Church. Socialists would view the “people” as “the fourth estate” facing off with the first three estates, but mostly with the now ruling third estate, narrowed down to the “bourgeoisie.”

That is where you can have the connection on the Left: The latter view informs directions descended from the old Socialists: Communists, Socialists in a narrow sense, and perhaps also some varieties of Social Democrats. The former is common with most reformist Social Democrats as well as various strands of Christian Democrats or Liberals. Since aristocrats and organized religion play hardly a role now, the enemy has gone missing, and is only of historical interest. Still, also those directions have some “populist” heritage, which can show sometimes. Their “populism” is only long past the virulent phase.

There were also other interpretations of the “people,” though, that emerged during the 19th century, with forebears already in the 18th century and before. The “people” are then understood as a linguistic and/or cultural community and/or also a community with a mostly ficticious common descent. That is where you have the connection with the extreme Right for whom this is the natural habitat.

In other contexts, it could also be a religious community, which can go along with a cultural community and/or one of common descent. That is how the concept was adapted, for example, by Islamists or the proponents of Hindutva.

The main point in all these cases is that there is also someone who is viewed as an oppressor of the “people,” the elites, sometimes rightly so, often not.

(3) The main demand of “populists” is that the “people” should in some sense rule directly. To this end elites have to be driven out, which idea can have many interpretations depending on who you view as the elites: aristocrats, the Church, the bourgeoisie, Jews, Free Masons, “globalist coastal elites,” (in Islamism or with the Slavophiles:) Westerners, (in Hindutva:) that and also non-Indian religions like Islam and Christianity.

The idea of direct rule of the people was pioneered by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is “democratic” in the literal sense that the “people” should rule. And it has a certain leftwing feel to it, which can be confusing if you mentally classify “populists” as extreme Right because the latter encompasses also many political conceptions that are extremely elitist and full of disdain for the “masses.” The early “populism” of the Liberals did not go as far and was often content with some form of representative democracy and an order that enshrines liberal values. So in a strict sense it does not fall under my definition, despite similarities.

(4) The “populist” critique of liberal and representative democracies is not that they are democratic, but that they are in this view too little democratic. Representative democracy appears as a trick by the elites to offer some token democracy, but not really. The “people” do not rule, it is still the elites. Marxism is an early example of this type of critique, but by no means the only one.

The critique can easily expand: The “liberal” part of liberal democracies, namely the constraint on what can be decided by a democratic process is interpreted as a betrayal of democracy: The rule of law can come across as a ruse to keep the people from administering justice directly, so can constitutions, the separation of powers, elections only every so-and-so many years in place of rule by direct polling.

“Populists” do not have to go all the way in theory here, but it is implicit in their premises, and once in power, it is a useful line of argument to remove obstacles to their program and rule.

(5) The basic assumption of “populists” is that there is really this community of interests, will and action. But then, a casual glance at actual societies shows that it is not so. There are often divergent groups that have wildly different views and interests down to the individuals making up a society. This results in an intellectual problem for “populists,” especially when their views are actually not all that popular, or even marginal.

The trick is to define so many people out of the community of the “people” that the concept becomes plausible. The “people” are not the people that are there, but the “real people.” What is assumed as a given, has to be created afterwards, sometimes by brutal means: expelling non-”people” or even killing them off, in the milder versions: by indoctrination.

In addition, there is a tendency to view the people as they are as deluded if they are not on board with “populism.” They suffer from “false consciousness” and have to be taught about what they “really” want apart from what they actually want.

The implict tendency of this thinking is that “populists,” despite their pretensions of just speaking for the community, the “silent majority” and what have you, position themselves as an “avantgarde of the people,” which is ironically elitist.

— — —

If you define “populism” in this way — and I make no claim that my definition is anywhere complete or precise enough — this is a distinct worldview that is actually quite common, though there are deep disagreements how to apply it correctly. The term also captures much of what sets movements apart that are called “populist” by their critics and often also their adherents. It is also not so broad that you can call anything “populist.”

In addition, it is not only useful for classification, but also to think more clearly about what is going on. For example, it explains why the respective movements can crop up both on the Left and on the Right, and sometimes even straddle the two extremes. Or why there can be competition between them for the same constituencies and even with similar arguments.

I found the presidential debates in France earlier this year very instructive in this regard: Le Pen and Mélenchon were at loggerheads because the former is extreme Right, the latter extreme Left. However, their general worldview was strikingly similar in many ways. Quite a few times, they had to admit that they were reading from the same page.

Of course, for Mélenchon the “people” were the proletarians of the world, but more so in France, including immigrants, a no-no for Le Pen. And for Le Pen the “people” were also the businessmen in small and medium-sized companies she wanted to protect from international competition, for Mélenchon, however, those are probably just the lower echelon of the capitalist class.

Actually, if you think about it, many or even most major political movements once began as outsiders who railed against the elites and held out the prospect of more direct rule by the “people” in various interpretations: Liberals, Socialists, Greens, etc. So faulting others for “populism” is somewhat self-referential. It may also explain why adherents of those directions can find it hard to argue the case against virulent “populists.” In a way, the underlying assumptions were once not that different, they have only receded into the background.

Is not a common defense of liberal and representative democracy to advertise it with the words of Abraham Lincoln as: “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Actually, many “populists” seem to think of themselves as particularly consistent defenders of the same principle, and fault representative democracy for not living up to the ideal.

— — —

This is not the place to develop a critique of “populism” that can only be hard-hitting if it also well-targeted. Someone who thinks of himself as a defender of “real democracy” will not be impressed if you call him a fan of authoritarianism, maybe even rightly so. I think there is an argument here, but it is not as simple as that. Let me jot down a few points that would need further exploration:

The main problem for “populism” in my view is that the demand for direct rule of and by the people has hardly any meaning beyond the original program of the Liberals: representative democracy constrained by liberal values. Rousseau apparently thought of it as the people in a very small community getting together on a continual basis without any lasting superstructure.

“Populists” somehow imagine that it could work in this way. There are myths about how it is so in Swiss cantons. But then it is not possible in a society that is larger than a village, also not a Swiss canton. And even then, I am not convinced why it could not turn out as extremely oppressive and prone to manipulation as anyone can attest to who has seen such closely-knit communities in real life.

Concrete demands on the Left often go in the direction of a “Soviet” system in the original sense, a hierarchy of councils down to the lowest level. Again, with any real-life experience, you know how this works: Determined minorities can capture one level after another, and that’s why the “Soviet” system was such an easy prey for the Bolsheviks.

Other demands are direct elections for almost any posts in an administration. When the Democrats rose in 1849 to defend the Revolution of 1848 in Germany, one of their ideas was that even officers should be elected by their subordinates. That did not work too well against the professional armies of the reactionary side. And then the mainstay of “populists” is that there should be more “direct democracy” with lots of referenda.

It is possible to integrate such elements into a representative democracy. Switzerland has many referenda compared to other countries, sheriffs or prosecutors are elected in the US, which seems weird from a German perspective. I am open to arguments, but in my view, all this is not necessarily an improvement over a liberal representative democracy, and then it is at most a minor component.

If you take “populism” seriously, the demand has to be much more expansive, and I would say impossible as a matter of principle. I have not seen any concrete idea from “populists” that would strike me as both realistic and obviously better than representative democracy, and I suspect that is so because there are simply none.

— — —

As I said, a claim that “populism” is the same as authoritarianism is in my view facile, but there is a connection. Real-existing “populism” has degenerated into authoritarian rule with a consistency that is otherwise hard to explain. That applies both on the Left and the Right. What then is the connection? Let me focus on the Right. The Left is simpler to analyze because there is the rather well-known dynamic that also led to Communism.

How can “populism” mesh with what has been traditionally the extreme Right? And why would that matter when such movements gain power?

At first glance, the combination is strange: Many strands on the extreme Right are outright elitist, often mixed with a deep disdain for the dumb “masses” that only appear as disposable material for the “Übermenschen.” Elitist strands view representative democracy as bad because it does not produce an elite. The general complaint is that politicians in representative democracies are mediocre, which is actually in tension with the “populist” claim that vox populi, vox Dei (the will of the people [is] the will of God). If politicians were mediocre, would they not be close to the people by definition and worthy leaders?

Rightwing elitists do not complain about elites per se, only that actual elites do not deserve their role, which is only the result of what they view as a malfunctioning mechanism in representative democracy. Instead, “real” elites should emerge from some Darwinian struggle where only the “strongest” rise to the top. In older versions, it could also be some “divine right” that confers automatic leadership roles on some people. Both are deeply non-”populist” concepts. The modest self-image of those who think in this way is that they are, of course, the natural elite, which can be very ironic if their actual situation is one of failure and inability to rise to the top.

— — —

Here is how you can still have a connection between rightwing elitism and “populism” where I admit that my point is not sufficiently worked-out:

First there is a common enemy although maybe with a different outlook: Representative democracy and also the liberal part that constrains it. “Populists” fight it because it is too little democratic in their view, rightwing elitists because it is too democratic.

— — —

But then from the rightwing elitist side, “populist” rhetoric does not hurt if you have a disdain for the stupid “masses” anyway. Realistically, the only way to the top is to dupe them. So why not? If you view yourself as an enlightened “avantgarde of the people” you can even have it both ways. You are effectively the “real people” although the actual people still suffer from “false consciousness” or are inherently incompetent.

In addition, the “populist” hunt for the “real people” means that many have to fall by the wayside. Rightwing elitists have no problem with this because they already have a long list of groups that should be kept out or down. “Populists” also have their own hierarchy here on a higher level, while insisting on an internal egalitarianism. The fit is not perfect, but perhaps acceptable for rightwing elitists with their penchant for “natural” hierarchies.

— — —

But it can also work from the other side: Since there is no real conception of how the direct rule of the people would work, there is a vacuum. It would have to be some mystical communion. But how? One way to make it concrete is that you envision it as a leadership that emanates from the “people” in a direct way. That is close to an idea where success in rising to the top proves someone should be at the top, which is favored by many rightwing elitists.

Another overlap is that both sides have no use for constraints by abstract rules, be they constitutions, the rule of law, separation of powers, and so forth. This drives “populists” towards certain organizational principles: rule by “obvious” leaders. “No abstract rules” de facto means a web of informal loyalties and adhoc alliances, which is similar to feudalistic conceptions also popular with rightwing elitists.

Robert Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy” is perhaps more of a tendency in every large organization with an inevitable division of labor. But if you already start in theory without any constraints that could work against it, chances are good that you will end up with an actual and unconstrained oligarchy in the otherwise rhetorically “populist” movement.

Any larger organization will have this type of problem, but I would say that you see it in an especially acute form in “populist” parties. Geert Wilders’ PVV does not really exist as an organization. UKIP is Nigel Farage and his cronies, and the FN is run by the Le Pen clan. Early on, there can sometimes be major clashes, as you can see with the Alternative for Germany. That’s before the oligarchy consolidates.

This may not play such a prominent role before a “populist” movement gains power although I find it still rather conspicuous. However, when it has free rein in an actual state, a pre-existing oligarchy within the movement easily evolves into a ruling oligarchy.

Removing constraints on their hold on power is even part of the program and hence a feature and not a bug. Ironically, “populist” movements, if successful, install elites that are beyond the reach of popular control. I find it unsurprising that the end-result is so often what rightwing elitists would want in the first place: a feudalistic system built on personal loyalties and unconstrained by what makes liberal and representative democracy superior.

— — —

Critique was not the main point here, only a defense of the term “populism” as useful. I could even drop the scare quotes. But then I just wanted to keep it clear that I defend only a rather specific definition of the word, not a vague epithet.