We need to talk about populism

Populism in a form at least vaguely reminiscent of what we know it as today has been around for a couple centuries. Yet, it is in the last decade or so that the rise of movements and leaders to whom this label has been ascribed (it is rarely self-declared) has caused concern to grow for the very integrity of the political institutions that (at least in the West) are held sacred. It is not utterly illogical to reason that populism’s name has been damaged by these recent, high-profile movements — but I think that it is crucial not to throw the baby out with the bath water in this case, as there are still several key tenants of populism that are worthy of at least a second look. In the social media age of politics, I think that it would be very difficult to reason that populism has had its moment and is now going away; populism is a very resistant concept on account of the simplicity and universality of its message. With this in mind, we have to consider that we will have to learn to live with it in the years to come. However, we need not turn our noses at it because of some of its dodgier proponents — instead we should recognise what it brings to the table, adapt it, and work it into the way we do things.

What is crucial first and foremost is to lock down a working definition of populism. In this case I interpret it in the way that the vast majority of those that engage in discourse surrounding it do. Populism tends to refer to a bottom-up, grass roots political movement driven by people. What Felicity Burke takes particular note of is that these populist movements “must claim to speak on behalf of ordinary people”[1] — and positions said people as being against an “elite establishment”[2] that is keeping them down. I wholeheartedly concur with her assessment that these two things are fundamental to populism, as they have been seen to be reflected throughout movements.

A key issue that plagues populism and therefore must be acknowledged is the inflammatory way that it tears down the status quo without offering tangible alternatives. This was particularly evident in the two most prominent populist movements that last swept through western democracies, Brexit in the UK and Trump in the USA. Proponents of the former espoused xenophobic rhetoric and backed their drive for independence from the EU with economic-based claims that £350 million were being sent weekly to the group — aside from this being a blatant lie, there were never concrete proposals on where to redirect this hypothetical mountain of cash — a flurry of fury and nationalism spurred the movement, but issues such as the petrol crisis currently underway in the UK demonstrate that there was very little planning for the aftermath. In the case of Trump, his entire campaign was underpinned by the ‘drain the swamp’ slogan, suggesting the political establishment in the US needed to be swept out (a common suggestion by populist demagogues). This was just the first on the list of the promises he would fail to deliver on — he had no alternative, and the ‘swamp’ was no less swampy following his arrival.

Stanford political scientist Anna Grzymala-Busse concurs with this sentiment, in an interview she is quoted as saying, “Populism argues that elites are corrupt and the people need better representation, but makes very few policy commitments beyond this criticism.”[3] In other words, populist leaders and their followers are quick to rage against the system and argue that it needs to be overhauled, but never come with any solid proposals to enact a change to said system. As is evident, I largely agree with Grzymala-Busse’s view and it is backed by the aforementioned evidence provided by recent populist movements. It is certainly a very valid criticism of populism that must be looked when assessing how we should operate going forward in looking at the theory and existing with it. Greater demands should certainly be placed on populist movements to offer alternatives. It is very easy to criticize but this is painfully unhelpful to any sort of progress, and when populist leaders have come to power little advancement has been made as a result. Sewing discord and damaging faith in political systems does not help the cause of improving peoples’ situation and can in fact move the situation further from a resolution.

There needs to be balance whereby the populist criticisms are heard (as many of them carry significant validity), but then explored and addressed as opposed to tearing everything down. My one issue with Grzymala-Busse’s view is that I believe it applies more so to high-profile right wing populist movements than left wing ones. Though many could reasonably question the economic feasibility of many of the proposals put forth by Bernie Sanders in the US, it would be difficult to argue that he does not offer well-reasoned alternatives. He criticises established systems in a manner not unlike his right-wing counterparts but does differ in his readiness to publish detailed proposals, such as with his views on healthcare.

There is, however, grounds for considering the fact that the ‘power of the people’ idea peddled by populism is something that cannot be brushed aside — it is a key building block to democracy. At least in the USA, it would appear as though nothing is offered greater deference than the Constitution, whose opening salvo: ‘We the people…’ makes fairly unambiguous the sovereignty that its citizens hold in the crafting of its laws — a concept only further driven home by the series of amendments that empower them. This sentiment is reflected worldwide, though especially in the West, even in nations where there may not be a single document to codify it. James Miller highlights the concept’s importance in his article ‘Could populism actually be good for democracy?’, stating, “Modern democracies all rest on a claim of popular sovereignty — the proposition that all legitimate governments grow out of the power of a people, and in some way are subject to its will”[4]. Put simply, the people are supreme. It was this principle that the Greek’s leaned upon when first crafting the concept of a direct democracy. The very word derives from the confluence of demos ‘people’ and kratos ‘rule’ — meaning it is the people who hold the power — and as representative democracy has been crafted to accommodate the expansion of communities and nations, the crucial nature of this principle has remained unshaken. Miller says this within a broader narrative in which he argues that for democracy to be truly democratic, populism-esque expressions of the importance of popular sovereignty have to be respected. This is a position that I find extremely interesting — Miller acknowledges that this does not mean that populism is a faultless ideology, and we should accept it wholesale. However, wars have been waged in the name of spreading democracy — democracy is so firmly ingrained in our understanding of how nations ought to be run that it is hardly given a second thought.

Perhaps democracy is itself flawed but this falls outside the purview of this conversation — in the discussion of how populism slots into our existing systems we take the existence of democracy at the heart of said system as an unshakeable and undebatable truth. It is within this context that we have to consider the fact that, at least if exercised appropriately, the bedrock position of populism as a call for a reclaim of the power of the people is about as democratic as it comes.

This duality creates some issues when we evaluate the issue of how we ought to look at populism going forward. We as societies, at the very least in Western/Westernized nations are so rigidly shackled to the notion that democracy is the absolute apex of perfection when it comes to political systems. Now, of course we recognise that it has its case-by-case flaws, but ultimately, we wouldn’t for a second consider swapping it with an autocratic, oligarchic, authoritarian or any other in a long list of -ics and -ians that have popped up in other nations throughout history. In the presence of these options, it is totally reasonable to stick with democracy — that is only compounded by considering that the supremacy of this system of government has been conditioned into us. In the context of this debate, as mentioned, I think it would be futile to go as nuts and bolts as suggesting a dismantling of democracy and rebuilding from scratch with a new system. Aside from the inefficiency of arguing ‘till the cows come home’ over how useful this would actually be — it is a preposterously unrealistic suggestion in the world as we know it today — as mentioned, democracy is simply an established and accepted way of life. So let’s just take democracy off the table and pin it on the wall — it is the system within which this discussion takes place.

We have seen the damage that populism is capable of doing, especially in recent years — it divides, incites violence and rocks the very foundations of the systems by which we live. Grzymala-Busse points to the aforementioned fact that populism isn’t as ‘we the people’ petitioning the elites as it would have you believe when she says, “they have to define the people first and that often means excluding vulnerable and marginalized populations, such as religious or ethnic minorities and immigrants.”[5]She is right, recent populist movements have in fact served a fairly narrow sect of the populace. Yet, it positions itself as ‘the voice of the people’, and when you slot this into a system which holds the people sovereign, surely this voice should be the thing we uphold as the most sacred.

It would therefore appear that populism has a theory-practice disconnect issue. On paper, an ideology that supposes power should stem from the people is something that we should all support if we prioritise democracy. The issue comes in when this is abused by enthralling orators — who exploit widespread (and arguably reasonable) disillusionment to further their own ends. This is where the baby and the bathwater principle comes in. A list naming the issues that plague the governments of western democracies would wrap around the globe several times over — people have very legitimate grievances that need to be heard, the status quo is broken in very severe ways. So if we suppose that it needs fixing, its clear that these attempts won’t be coming from the elites whom the present system serves, it therefore has to come from the people.

These people’s grievances are extremely valid and the issues with the present systems run very deep. Unfortunately however, this all becomes far too easy to brush aside if it comes wrapped with a populism bow — we point to the exclusionary nature of these movements and the damage they have done and therefore ignore some of the very legitimate issues that they bring up.

The left-wing populism that Bernie Sanders is most often considered to exemplify is certainly a step in the right direction when it comes to bridging this gap. His critiques come with policy proposals and his movement is generally welcoming of all. That being said, many of his methods remain unpalatable, and yes much of this comes from a concerted effort by the established parties to suppress him and his ideologies, but there is nonetheless something lacking in his positioning — it comes across as very ‘tear it all up’ and aggressive. Don’t get me wrong, remedying the issues of the present systems requires a certain reformative zeal, but equally the frameworks within which change can be affected require a degree of consensus and cooperation.

We need to not be so dismissive of populism due to the tainting of its image by a few exploitative demagogues. There undoubtedly needs to be greater accountability in requiring legitimate proposals to follow criticisms — but equally we should recognise that the underlying sentiments are no less valid than those presented more ‘properly’. The sovereignty of the people should be respected in practice in the same way as democracy suggests it is in theory — the drifting apart of these concepts has happened very subtly but highly impactfully over the years.

The people must be heard. However, ‘the people’ needs to actually be THE people — and the leaders shepherding these people need to be held to account by their followers — ethically, morally and politically. Grzymala-Busse mentions in her interview that the best way to keep populist movements in check is to get out and vote. She’s not wrong, but we should retool this advice. The greatest power that people have in a democracy is indeed their power to vote — they should be using it to hold unruly populist leaders to account yes, but even more so to pressure the establishment. There has to be a commitment to avoiding factionalism and viewing the political landscape as a battleground — the ‘elites’ are kept in power by keeping the people divided. We must promote these grass-roots movements to include everyone who wants their voice heard, acknowledge that compromises will have to be made by individuals — and effect change by petitioning those in power with firm and legitimate policies. This all certainly sounds unattainably idealistic in the political climate that we know today — but the main point lies in the fact that we have to pivot our perspectives to seeing this as the holy grail. Getting 300 million Americans (or any country) singing from the same hymn sheet is almost certainly impossible — people have their own priorities and vast cultural and ideological differences. But if we as a society aim toward something like this then, even if we fall at the first hurdle, it would be a far greater step toward inclusive, people-driven government than the dark path that our discourse and policy is heading down now — a path lined with personal attacks, insurrections, and an almost civil war-like rift in the populace.

Populism is sticking around, and we should endeavour to work its positives into our systems and Overton windows while safeguarding them from its glaring negatives. Of course, I accept that this is easier said than done but even the act of accepting this as a worthwhile pursuit is a massive step in the right direction.

[1] https://theconversation.com/what-actually-is-populism-and-why-does-it-have-a-bad-reputation-109874

[2] https://theconversation.com/what-actually-is-populism-and-why-does-it-have-a-bad-reputation-109874

[3] https://news.stanford.edu/2020/03/11/populism-jeopardizes-democracies-around-world/

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/11/could-populism-actually-be-good-for-democracy

[5] https://news.stanford.edu/2020/03/11/populism-jeopardizes-democracies-around-world/