A Divided Society
The title of this essay is itself likely to engender a strong emotional response, positive or negative, amongst some readers. ‘Populism’ did not always elicit strong emotional reactions, nor was the term as frequently used as it is today. The relentless rise in usage of the labels ‘populist’ and ‘populism’ has triggered renewed academic interest in defining the terms and seeking to accommodate their modern usage. Amongst the best descriptions, both produced within the last twenty years, are:
‘a language whose speakers conceive of ordinary people as a noble assemblage not bounded narrowly by class, [who] view their elite as self-serving and undemocratic…’
and
‘a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps…’
Both are part of fuller definitions but share focus on populism as being founded upon a distinctive societal view rather than a political theory. This article will explore the implications of such an approach.
History and The Modern Challenge of Defining Populism
‘Populism’, coined in the nineteenth century to describe followers of ‘The People’s Party’, was founded in the United States in 1892. The Party lasted just seventeen years before internal factionalism and repeated electoral failure led to its dissolution. ‘Populist’ was a neutral label for followers of The People’s Party, and agreement or disapproval of their policies was an entirely separate matter. Most of the Party’s policies were socialist, for example advocacy of strongly progressive income tax and increased government control or ownership over many areas of economic activity.
Ambiguity has arisen in modern usage because the term is now applied to politicians and policies across the political spectrum. Whilst there is no hard geographical divide, in Central and Latin America, populism is used primarily to describe Left-wing parties such as Cuba’s Communists or Argentina’s Peronists. In Europe and North America, the term is more frequently associated with Right-wing parties such as France’s National Rally (formerly Front National), Hungary’s Fidesz Party, or, more controversially, Donald Trump’s brand of Republicanism.
A quick glance at Wikipedia confirms the difficulty in defining populism by policy alone. It has four sets of dropdowns for exploring populism: ‘Variants’, ‘Concepts’, ‘Regional Variants’, and ‘Related Topics’. The first offers nine choices, the second twelve, each divided into five different global regions. Twenty-two ‘isms’ and creeds are listed as related political movements, ranging from many named after individual leaders, frequently characterised as autocratic (Putin or Erdogan) to authoritarian mass movements (Communism). Populism appears to have little communality of policies. Globally, this term has been applied across different political landscapes, at times to apparently opposite ends of the political spectrum.
It would, however, be wrong to suggest there are no common threads linking those described as populists. The definitions suggested in the introduction focus upon a communality of philosophy rather than policy. Populist movements everywhere are usually championed within a suggested dichotomous framework of “them” and “us”, accompanied by claims to majoritarianism, and an emphasis upon an allegedly divided society. The targeted ‘other’ may be the privileged ‘elites’ within the establishment, or waves of external immigrants from foreign communities. Curiously, populists put forward opposite narratives for healing the divisions that, to varying degrees, they have highlighted or even encouraged. The ‘Left-wing’ approach is to promote an inclusive cohesion of a collective rising up of ‘the people’. The ‘Right-wing’ seeks re-enforcement of bonding amongst separate collective groups based upon localism or cultural, linguistic or religious boundaries as the remedy.
Populism may have little communality of policy, but a shared philosophical framework can be detected – that the default structure of society to be fought is one of division rather than cohesion. It is this that many find unsettling. Moreover, as shown below, the common philosophy also seems to result in a similarity of tactics to gain political power that many also find concerning.
The Rise in Populist Tactics
The adoption of three particular strategies for political engagement can be identified in most populist campaigning:
Mass rallies are frequently used as a way of the bonding, re-enforcement of ‘us’, as a unified group to fight the alleged ‘battle’ against ‘them’ (the ‘other’).
A high level of emotional rhetoric and a confrontational style are utilised for similar purpose. One of the most identifiable features of the contrast between mainstream politicians and those labelled populist is emphasis upon the need for Foucauldian rupture in society to resolve conflict as a precursor to change. Non-populists, whilst wishing to differentiate and explain their views from rivals, will typically advocate their policies as a progressive part of the improvement all of society without such fracture.
All politicians are making increasing use of social media; however, populists were noticeably early adopters and continue to exploit it more successfully than mainstream politicians. The many studies on this topic have not found conclusive explanations but point to social media having a more pronounced similarity to mass rallies than mainstream media; positively engaging and re-enforcing those already converted whilst being avoided by those who disagree. For example, a common way of indicating disagreement on social media is to publicly announce intention to ‘unfollow’, an option not available on mainstream media.
Populism in modern usage as defined by philosophy and tactics rather than policy may explain its apparent growth. The effects of increasing velocity of change in society, especially technologically leaving larger numbers feeling alienated and excluded, are well documented. These provide fertile ground for seeking to exploit divisive narratives. Another consequence of greater global connectivity is an increase in the perception of threat to local cultures and identity. Populist nationalism and the rise of separatist or devolution movements is on the increase in many countries. The strategies utilised by populists fit well in the era of the sharply rising need for content to fill the huge growth in media channels. Constructed drama offers better media interest than centrist or reconciliatory narratives.
Populism has been rising as a global phenomenon despite widely varying circumstances. The most frequent suggestion of why populism succeeds is economic discontent such as poorly performing economies or unequal income distribution. Examples of populist success in Switzerland, one of the wealthiest and most democratic countries in the world, suggest that whilst this may be true in some cases it is not a universal explanation, however, and it is necessary to look beyond a national circumstance.
Populism as Political Philosophy
An implicit assumption that populism is undesirable and should be resisted has been adopted by many. Those labelled as populists by others rarely self-describe with this term, because ‘populism’, unlike ‘popular’ or a synonym such as ‘mass movement’, has acquired pejorative undertones. To be a populist means more than being popular, it is used to suggest appeal to the baser rabble-rousing instincts of the citizenry. Whilst policies and tactics of populists seeking power vary from military suppression (Venezuela), through fixed elections (Hungary), to genuine democratic appeal (Brazil), the constancy of divisiveness rather than looking to the hope of greater social cohesion may be the reason for discomfort.
If the success of populism is indeed attributable to factors other than policies, those wishing to oppose it must change their approach. Rather than concentrating upon policies it may be that greater success will be achieved by seeking to demonstrate the positive outcome of a different construction of society from that suggested by populists. For example, evidencing the benefits of social cohesion in building a society that may not be perfect, but has achieved a lot, may be the most important strategy. Consider devolution as an example. Advocacy of devolution has been a common defence to separatist populism in many countries, however devolution has itself often been promoted as part of a populist cause, feeding upon discontent with the status quo. In the hands of the mainstream, it may look a weak half-way house to independence. A better approach may be to concentrate upon demonstrating the long-term economic benefits that have accrued from a larger unified nation.
Populist success in media exposure suggests others would do well to adopt some of their strategies. The oft-heard call for greater content control by social media companies is not an adequate response. This can help to set limits for extreme or unlawful content such as incitement to violence or racial abuse, but whilst the content of populist discourse may be distasteful to some, it is within the limits of legitimate political opinion. Energy spent on demonising mainstream and social media as in some way responsible for populist success is wasted. Rather than seeking to curtail the use of social media, embracing it and adopting media tactics successfully employed by populists would be a better strategy.
The width of policies espoused by those labelled as populists cover such a wide political spectrum suggests that the term should be used to describe a states policy strategy. Rather, the uniting feature of those labelled as populists are political philosophical narratives built upon divisive rather than cohesive conceptions of society. The widespread practice of challenging populism by questioning policies rather than addressing these political philosophical narratives may not be the most effective way of combating the rise in populism. Instead, it would be more effective to challenge the political philosophy underpinning populist policies and tactics, which largely run contra to the principles of liberal political philosophy with its focus on cohesion and tolerance.