Populism Destroys Democracy
Populism — a buzzword in the media brought into the spotlight by Donald Trump’s campaign. On the other side of the political spectrum, Bernie Sanders’ populist leadership also sparked debates. Combined with radical ideologies, populism has earned itself a polarizing reputation, not just in the United States but also globally. So what does populism truly entail: democratic renewal to fix an imperfect political system or democratic breakdown to revert to autocracy? Even though some may argue that left-wing populism empowers the people and brings successful reforms to democratic institutions, populism destroys democracies because it creates dangerous political polarization as the media enlarges divisions and demagogues spread inflammatory messages.
There are some academic disagreements over the definition of populism, but researchers mostly agree that populism must speak on behalf of the people and protest against elites and the establishment. Adding political context on top of that basic definition, left-wing populism leans toward people-centrism while right-wing populism focuses on anti-elitism. However, I find the above definition to be superficial, for it fails to address the inflammatory and offensive nature of populism. As Doctoral candidate Octavia Bryant and senior lecturer Benjamin Moffitt at the Australian Catholic University point out, “the fact populists often want to transform the status quo, ostensibly in the name of the people.” By using the word “ostensibly,” the authors hint that populism excludes people that don’t fit in with its generalization of “the people” and undermines democratic values that many people value. To assess whether populism helps or destructs democracy, it is important to expose its definition as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I would argue that the populist slogan “for the people” is a cover-up for demanding protectionist and anti-immigration policies, similar to Trump’s “America First” policy.
The history of populism has tried to warn us of its dangerous consequences. According to CQ Researcher, Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign invented populism in the 1820s. The opposing Whigs Party described autocratic Jackson as “King Andrew I,” who did not defer to Congress. The history of Jacksonian democracy teaches us that along with populism comes authoritarian streaks. Populist figures are often polarizing, as critics dub them as dangerous demagogues. From Huey Long to Joseph McCarthy to Alabama Wallace, these leaders used populism to disunite the people.
From history, we can observe that populism divides and excludes people, to the contrary of its very motivation — power for the people. Positioning populism as a threat to democracy, political scientist Zsolt Enyedi argues that populism “undermines the civility of the relations among citizens.” By deprivation of civility, he is referring to the erosion of respect toward political opponents and minorities and the loss of reason in debates. In agreement with his claim, I observe that populist leaders tend to pit one group against another and take advantage of people’s anger and irrationality to gain popular support. Enyedi’s observation is significant because he identifies that populism causes differences to be enlarged. For example, Bernie Sanders’ populist challenge to moderate Democrats has caused splinters within the Democratic Party. I have noticed community members who used to be Democrats now doubting their political affiliation for they think that social democracy is too similar to communism. Similarly, the battle over Brexit dragged on for more than three years, as leavers and remainers have stark differences over the EU, immigration, and the future of the country’s culture. Stanford political scientist Anna Grzymala-Busse elaborates on Enyedi’s claim on the excluding nature of populism. She points out that “precisely because populists claim to represent “the people,” they have to define the people first and that often means excluding vulnerable and marginalized populations, such as religious or ethnic minorities and immigrants.” She supports her argument with an example of the Poland populist party, and their campaign contained gay-bashing and anti-Semitism, according to The Economist. This ostracizing feature of populism explains my distaste for its seemingly empowering slogan. If populism is “for the people,” why are minority groups and immigrants excluded? To me, the fundamental irony of populism threatens the American concept of democracy because America is known to be a “melting pot,” a nation built on immigrants.
As a result, the disunity populism generates evolves into extreme political polarization and may develop into a bloody revolution. Political polarization is rather predictable because the immediate cause of populism is distrust in the center-left and center-right. The combination of populism and radical right ideas that are xenophobic and anti-immigration receives strong criticism and hatred from the left. With Donald Trump’s presidency in 2016, the United States heads toward an almost uncontrollable lane of division and conflict. Trump supporters are verbally attacked in blue states, and vice versa. The media plays a key role in deteriorating political polarization, and people’s distrust in government looms large as people read very opposite sources of information from media outlets. Depending on what you read, your world is entirely different. Since populism takes reason away and replaces it with self-centered impulse, polarization is an inevitable path that is hard to walk back. Consequently, aggravated political polarization leads to a people’s revolution. James Miller, a professor of politics at the New School in New York, gives an example of a bloody revolution caused by populism in his article — “The French Revolution had resurrected the idea of democracy — and produced a hecatomb on a grand scale.” Miller adds that the revolts against elites in the French Revolution are “essential to the vitality, and viability, of modern democracy.” He argues that the benefits of challenging the status quo outweigh the destructive consequences. It is important to question the ethics of Miller’s opinion: does change have to come at the sacrifice of lives? I strongly disagree with his statement for he disregards the extreme cost of human lives in the French Revolution. If populism is “for the people,” why are thousands of people dying?
Admittedly, there are successes of left-wing populism that empower the people, but those successes are often short-lived and tend to collapse after the populist leader steps down. As Bryant and Moffitt discuss in their article, populist and former president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, “[channeled] the country’s oil revenues into social programs with the aim of distributing wealth among the Venezuelan people, relieving poverty and promoting food security.” Here, they portray Chavez as a populist leader that was antagonistic toward private sectors and cared more about the general welfare of his people. However, Bryant and Moffitt fail to include the aftermath of Chavez’s authoritarian legacy. After Chavez died in 2013, Venezuela is now home to an economic and humanitarian crisis. Notably, Venezuela used to be one of the richest countries in Latin America, but the surge of populist power destroyed its wealth and democratic institutions. To compile their evidence of successful populism cases, Bryant and Moffitt add that “left-wing populist parties, Spanish Podemos and the Greek Syriza, enjoyed success in the aftermath of the Great Recession.” The authors use these two examples to demonstrate how populism can save a country in economic distress by reforming its political system. It is significant to note that populism may be more helpful if a country’s institutions are already breaking down. However, the authors fail to note that the success of Spanish Podemos was not possible without its charismatic leader, Pablo Iglesias. Only 7 percent of the electorate had heard of the political party Podemos, in stark comparison to a high 50 percent who knew of Iglesias. Down the road, Podemos teamed up with a rival party of communist descent, which further blurred the line between populism and communism. Compared to Spanish Podemos who had their victories, Syriza in Greece is a more tragic story. According to The Guardian, Syriza is now a confused bedlam of liberals, social democrats, conservatives, and right-wing populists that defends policies it used to stand firm opposition to. From Chavez to Podemos to Syriza, the once successful stories of populism are cover-up fairytales that only describe the victory of a people’s revolution but not the grim aftermath.
Although left-wing populism brings short-term successful reforms to democratic institutions, populism serves as a threat to democracies because it disunites the people, worsening political polarization and leading to gory revolutions. Even though populism may not be the right approach to reforming political institutions, it is a reminder and a warning for moderates to respond with efficient policies, for voters to reflect on their democracies, and for humankind to focus on their common goals instead of differences. Ironically, what defeats the danger of populism? The people.
