Let’s start with some definitions. Populism is NOT a political ideology. It is a political tool. And political movements of both left and right can utilize populism to win public approval. Fascism, socialism, and even liberal democracy are ideologies – they are built around theories of how government should function. Their political representatives often are elected via totally legitimate votes. Populism, by contrast, is a style of politics which pits “the People” against “the Elites.” The trickiest definition is who comprises the two groups. The People, in any constitutional democracy, must comprise a “majority.” Elites, in any political system, democratic or otherwise, are those who hold a disproportionate share of power in that society. Populists assert that the interests of these two groups are mutually opposed. To summarize:
- Populism: the techniques or political strategies based upon the “People” opposing the “Elites”
- Democracy: any majoritarian system of government, no matter how unequal its members might be, often led by populist politicians
- Liberal Democracy: those democratic systems which guarantee constitutional rights to all members of society and follow the rule of law to enforce those rights – but they may still have some group or groups who amass considerably more power than others, namely the Elites.
Lately, populist leaders in various countries previously thought of as liberal democracies, have come to power, and caused “democratic backsliding” in their respective societies. Viktor Orban in Hungary, Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, Recep Erdogan in Turkey, and Narendra Modi in India are frequently mentioned in this vein. “Democratic backsliding” usually means legal or constitutional changes that tend to weaken the separation of powers in a liberal democracy with the aim of increasing the power of the executive, moving toward autocracy. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has been interested in these backsliding trends for several years. The phenomenon also occurs in countries where liberal democracy has never been firmly established – look at Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Xi Jinping’s China. There, the backsliding is a move from a plurality of elite power centers toward a single authoritarian presence in the person of the leader (e.g., being designated “President for Life”). Then, there are the would-be authoritarian populist leaders who haven’t quite succeeded – we all think of Donald Trump here. But there are others in Europe and Latin America who fit the same mold (Marine Le Pen in France or Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil). And sometimes it’s not a single charismatic leader that brings about democratic backsliding, but a political party that has tried to ride a wave of populist rhetoric, probably, but not necessarily, of its own making. In Europe, such populism often takes the form of opposition to immigration from North Africa and the Middle East. In the U.S., The People are understood to be Christian, native-English speakers threatened by “special interests” of capitalists or cosmopolitans who import cheap labor and disrupt traditional cultural values. Populist-leaning politicians here (Trump and many Republican Members of Congress) endorse and promote such feelings.
These days, most populist sentiment does seem to gravitate toward the Right – anti-immigrant, racist, anti-cosmopolitan – but there was a time in the early 20th century when the political Left had all the populist cards in its hand. Socialism was defined by Marx and Engels as workers (The People) vs. capital (Elites). Class struggle has been fundamental to the political Left ever since; and still is in much of the Global South, where capitalism is in its early stages. But richer European and North American societies still manage to manufacture populist causes easily, with the targeted group known as The People usually composed of those on a lower rung of the social status ladder than their perceived enemies, The Elite (perhaps based on education or geography). In the developed world, that divide seems less economic, more cultural.
But it is still conceivable that some economic divisions in Europe and North America may remain exploitable by the political Left, wielding high-powered populist appeals. Bernie Sanders tried it with his 2016 and 2020 Presidential campaigns. And the British Labour Party, under Jeremy Corbyn, tried and failed to prevent Brexit in 2016, Corbyn ultimately being barred from the party for unrelated reasons.
So, what’s wrong with populism, anyway? If “We the People” is construed as ALL of us in our society, leaving only the Elites somehow OUTSIDE of it, does that mean they are a group who have too much power? Too many rights? Populism is always based on an Us-versus-Them model, rights and legal protections are zero-sum, so as the People get more, they must take it from the Elites. And liberal democracies are supposed to consider everybody in their societies as having equal worth, at least as far as the law is concerned. Yet, we know that power dynamics are such that some are more equal than others. And shouldn’t our goal be greater equality in society? And doesn’t that mean redistributing something from the few to the many? Taxation, political representation, opportunities for greater participation, all could see some leveling intent – maybe a lot! But is this really what we want? Perhaps the greater motivation in a liberal democracy is to aspire to Elite status. Perhaps only when the ability to aspire breaks down do we get backsliding in frustration. “If I can’t ever get to be part of that Elite, then at least give me a leader who is on my side,” we say – one who shares our frustrations, or plays victim himself. (Donald Trump, again.)
Anti-populists say that giving the People opportunities will allow them to succeed (meritocracy). Unfortunately, there isn’t much evidence to support this. A much more promising political strategy is to embrace whatever struggles a group experiences, then broaden that empathy to as many different groups as possible. The adroit politician will identify the Elites, to exert political leverage on them – “Look, you have to concede something here” – and make a deal. This is the foundation of all democratic politics, both liberal and illiberal. Only the size and breadth of the governing coalition separates the two.
As Rodney King said after being beaten by police in the 1992 Los Angeles riots, “Can’t we all get along?” We ought to practice “getting along” more than many populists are inclined to do. Social relations have a synergy – fears of isolation of your group in the polity can be mitigated by how willing you are to broaden your affinities to other groups. Ultimately, political issues are decided by compromise, not consensus. And compromise certainly beats intimidation and force when consensus is unreachable!
Let’s go with populism, from either Left or Right, if it facilitates electing political representatives who will dedicate themselves to compromise once they arrive in the “halls of power.”
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 