Populism: An Undemocratic Attempt to Solve the Democratic Crisis
Increasingly, people have found the democratic systems to be abused by politicians: making promises all the time while failing most of them, never appealing to voters that they do not need to win elections knowing that they have limited options whatsoever, and attacking the candidates on the other side without any bottom line. Under such circumstances, many started to buy into populism, an ideology that put the concept of “the people” at the polar opposite of “the elites”. While many people argue that the rise of populism is essential to democracy given that democratic institutions such as elections no longer reflect the voice of the people, I offer the opposite argument because populism is an undemocratic ideology by nature and its mere challenge to the current institutions, therefore, would not lead to a desirable outcome. The problem that is intrinsic to populism is that its claim to represent people often does not reflect reality, while such an idea would give populists a sense of legitimacy to ignore dissenters and nullify democratic processes, which is inherently undemocratic.
Before I start debunking populism, I would have to first identify that one of the liberal traditions that contributed to the rise of populism is its advocacy of a tolerant and moderate stance. For most politicians who would like to win majority votes, such a stance would indeed appeal to most voters in most cases. For some people, however, some conflicts cannot be resolved with a moderate solution, and the conflicts for them are almost impossible to be solved under the current election systems. Thus, it would be natural for them to think that elite politicians no longer stand beside what they recognize as “the people”. Just think about the workers who have lost their jobs in the rust belt, but were abandoned by politicians who do not care: who would like to have their problems ignored by the democratic system for decades just because their votes would not determine the outcome of the election?
Under such circumstances, no wonder many people would argue that the democratic system has been deeply jeopardized. Even for left-wing scholar Chantal Mouffe, who has been a critic of “radical democracy”, has recognized that “Democracy that is in good working order — with conflict, but where people accept the existence of their adversaries — is not easy to re-establish” and she is “not that optimistic” on such an order being re-established. Here, what she implies is that the political system today has not been what it is supposed to be. Politicians often take conflict-avert positions to appeal to voters, while what it usually implies today is completely ignoring what is addressed by the other side, which is exactly opposite to what any democratic society needs desperately: a healthy conflict in which people “agree to disagree”. Under the status quo, we must admit that it is unlikely for those who are being marginalized by politicians to have an opportunity of expressing their views and put themselves under the spotlight.
Does that make the populist movement a necessary revolt that may revitalize democracy? To some scholars and supporters of populism, the answer is yes. According to political philosopher James Miller, “Revolts against remote elites are essential to the vitality, and viability, of modern democracy — even as (and precisely because) they challenge the status quo, destructive though that challenge may be” (Miller 2018). By arguing that populist movements belong to such revolts which might be destructive yet essential, Miller suggests that many people’s negative view towards populism is biased as it is most likely to be beneficial to the democracy that everyone hopes for because populists can better represent “the people” than the elite politicians.
The problem is, however, populism does not necessarily represent people just because they claim to be. Just look at the Trump supporters who stormed the capitol last year. When they yielded their desired result in 2016, they claimed it to be the victory of “the silent majority”, yet four years later, they simply refuse to accept defeat premised upon their presupposed belief that only the voice that they agree with is the voice of “the people”, and they, therefore, chose the most unconstructive and undemocratic way possible to challenge what they perceive as the corrupt democratic system. Writing two years before what happened at the heart of American democracy, Miller at least got one thing right: populism can be destructive. He may want to reconsider, however, if anything that challenges the status quo is essential to the vitality and viability of modern democracy.
Undeniably, the concept of “people” is central to democracy, and most political theories suggest that the legitimacy of the governing authorities in democracies is conveyed by the people. While this rule of thumb is also recognized by populists, their interpretation of it can be problematic. No matter if the type of populism represents a left-wing or right-wing ideology, it puts “the people” that they represent in a polar opposite position to the “ruling elites” and the “establishment”, leaving no ground in between. Such a “us versus them” mindset is dangerous as populists may thus categorize anyone who disagrees with them as siding with the “elites” that they aim to defeat. Both Mouffe and Miller have recognized that a premise for the populist movement is that some people feel that the current political system consisting of mostly moderate parties fails to or insufficiently address the issues they worry about. Yet as I have established in the previous paragraph, populists’ claim to represent people might not always be true and premised upon such a recognition that populists require radical social changes mostly for their own benefits, their use of the word “people” is most likely a means for them to justify their behaviors. If a populist has dove too deep into the belief that his own goals represent the goals of the entire people and only communicate with those who hold similar beliefs, then he is likely to fall into the delusion that what he is doing is for a greater good. Under such circumstances, it would be easy for populists to recognize that the results of political deliberations and the ideologies of political parties may have already been based on the compromise of the people’s conflicting wills. If the populists can indeed represent the majority of the population, it is most likely that the parties would adopt more radical ideologies to appeal to them. Therefore, the status quo fails to justify the claim of populists that they represent “the people” if the concept is meant to be “the majority of the population”. This is still not to mention that, as Stanford Professor Anna Grzymala-Busse has pointed out, the definition of “people” by populists often deliberately ignore the fraction of the population that are really marginalized, such as religious or ethnic minorities and immigrants. Ironically, it would be easy for populists to fall under the control of the very “elites” that they oppose if such a way of defining “people” is indeed adapted. For example, during Trump’s successful 2016 campaign, he has successfully appealed to white workers in the Midwest by emphasizing the exclusion of Mexican Americans in his narrative, which has manipulated this group of people due to their fear of having their jobs taken away by the immigrants (De Witte, 2020). While Miller argued that “I prefer a dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery” is an apt motto for “dark times”, he may have acknowledged that it is a dark time for those engaging in populist movement, but failed to do so regarding a greater population.
If populists fail to represent “the people”, it would be hard for the outcome of their movement to truly promote democracy. The pursuit of democracy is often accompanied by the pursuit of “truth” regarding the society, which is most likely to be realized with civil deliberations in political processes as the representatives of the people fully present their argument. However, this is not the case in a populist government as they have pre-justified their decision in the name of “the people” even before making them. Disagree with what we are doing? That’s because you are not one of us, and we are correct because we are the people!
In epistemology, the most widely accepted definition of “truth” is a justified true belief. For populists, since they have already presupposed their positions as being justified by the people, it is likely for them to disregard whether their beliefs are true in the first place, which may lead to grievous and undemocratic outcomes. For example, most people involved in Jan. 6th insurrection held the false belief that Biden “rigged” Trump’s election victory, and such a belief is highly likely to be based on the following line of reasoning:
P1. I voted for Trump
P2. All of the people I know voted for Trump
C1. Most people must have voted for Trump
P3. If most people have voted for Trump, then Biden should not have won
P4. The “elites” do whatever they want for their benefits
C2. The election must be rigged by the elites
Such a line of reasoning is problematic as P1 and P2 are insufficient to justify C1, and C1 is false if used to justify C2. Unfortunately, many populists would reason in such a way due to the echo chamber effect, which would lead to results such as that of Jan. 6th.
If populists are able to gain power and set up new institutions, it is highly unlikely that their institutions would be more democratic than the old ones as anything they do can be attributed to “the people”. Such a mindset can be and has proven to be dangerous in current countries led by populists. As mentioned by Stanford Professor Anna Grzymala-Busse, in Hungary, the populist leader is trying to politicize the courts; and in the Philippines, the president has warranted people to kill any suspected drug dealers on street. If the populists gain power, it is highly likely for them to produce an authoritarian regime that overrides the rule of law, which is fundamental for any society if it is to be democratic, as long as it is in the name of “the people”. While some people would like to distinguish between left-wing and right-wing populism, the status quo has shown that they have the same essence with the only difference being what political beliefs they endorse. While Trump and the incumbent Hungarian government are deemed right-wing populists whereas Duterte has a left socialist stance, all of these populists, no matter of the ideologies, have set up or attempted to set up institutions that go directly against democratic principles while recognizing themselves as “the people”.
Therefore, it is undeniable that while acting in the name of “the people”, the ideology of populism is inherently undemocratic. While the democratic system might need to be vitalized, populism is unfortunately not the way to do so. Since populism, backed by whatever ideology, is likely to lead to supporters’ delusion that whatever they believe in represents “the people”, and would use it as a means to justify whatever they do, it is hard to imagine the prospect of a populist government to be better than the current democratic system, even though it may be broken. As the record-high turnout and the result of the 2020 election have shown that the polarizing nature of populism is more likely than not to be appalled by the majority of people, why shouldn’t we give another shot at voting before falling into another trap that leads to a path that departs from the heart of democracy?
References
Miller, J. (2018, October 11). Could populism actually be good for democracy? The Guardian. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/11/could-populism-actually-be-good-for-democracy
De Witte, M. (2020, March 11). Populism is a political problem that is putting democracy at risk, Stanford Scholars say. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2020/03/11/populism-jeopardies-around-world/
