Features Editor Govhar Dadashova reflects on populism and how it has been used as a buzzword in recent years. She examines if populism is a legitimate threat, and what it can tell us about the current global political landscape.
The perpetual allure of populism
Just a few years ago, it seemed impossible to read the news without seeing a reference to populism, whether as a concept, political label, or a descriptor for the turbulent political environment. Cambridge Dictionary infamously called it their word of the year in 2017, reflecting its wider cultural resonance. With the rise of figures like Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni, it made sense that academics and policymakers clung to the term.
It helped them reflect upon the seismic shifts that were occurring in politics – events and decisions that felt like turning points, even as we were experiencing them. It also helped reflect the emotionally-charged leadership of populist leaders, alongside their ability to create almost para-social relationships with their followers. Above all, the word populism felt new and exciting, a refreshing perspective through which to view the challenges of politics. In a period of upheaval, perhaps it felt comforting to have a reason for why things in politics unfolded the way they did.
Whether it was Britain’s dramatic departure from the EU or the electoral victory of Trump in 2016, these stories have become crucial and familiar threads in the tapestry of our recent politics. But when we untangle the knots and take a closer look at them, what do we actually see? Does populism really still constitute a legitimate threat for policymakers? And how we do we even go about defining what a threat is in such a complex global political landscape?
These are all questions that can be taken in infinite directions, but they are crucial ones to ask, and most importantly, to keep on asking. If the years since 2016 have taught us anything, it is that politics, and how we view politics, is constantly evolving. Each generation’s view of politics is deeply impacted by what they go through, which is what makes the personal so political.
Thus, it is imperative that we interrogate our perceptions of politics, even if certain concepts or ideas appear straightforward. Furthermore, we must remember that words can have a multiplicity of meanings, which can differ in an academic, public, or personal context. Populism does not need to have one accepted definition, and it will most likely not, given its ability to stretch far and wide.
What does populism actually refer to?
Out of all the concepts I could have chosen to write on, why populism? The truth is that the idea of populism has fascinated me since high-school, when I read ‘What Is Populism?’ by Jan-Werner Müller — a Professor of Politics at Princeton University. The book was truly phenomenal: it was concise, witty, and unpretentious.
In addition, the book made me realise that while it could be easy to imagine that Trump’s populist rhetoric was the exception and not the norm, the truth was that examples of populism were everywhere. When I studied abroad in Washington D.C. I took an incredible module on the links between populism and authoritarianism. To this day, it is probably my favourite class that I have ever taken.
What struck me most was how populism is a constant source of reinvention, recycling, and redefining. Its basic premise is the idea that only one leader, party, or organisation is truly capable of representing ‘the people’ (an elusive term that does not necessarily refer to the entire population and can instead be applied to a specific group or community). However, given that politicians from both the left and the right have been labelled populists, there is no single ideology attached to populism.
That is what makes the power of populism so awesome, terrifying and important to grapple with. Its basic tenets can be adapted to fit different times, spaces, and interests allowing controversial and corrupt leaders to take power. This can have dangerous and sometimes even fatal impacts on the survival of democracies across the world. Furthermore, it can also exacerbate existing tensions and conflicts in countries where democracy is already under threat or has no real foothold.
The manipulation of language is at the heart of populism. Its leaders, movements, and followers demonstrate the power and passion that words can evoke. Whether it is the fevered chants of the Peronist movement in Argentina in the 1960s or the determination of MAGA to ‘tear down that wall’ in 2016, populism has been, and to a certain extent, will always have the potential to be relevant.
It arises out of civic frustration, distrust or dissatisfaction with government, and the belief that the political system is working only for an elite few. Importantly, whilst its manifestations can be violent and undemocratic, populism reflects legitimate concerns of the citizenry that should not be ignored. Labelling the followers of populists as ‘crazy’ or ‘ignorant’ simply bolsters the justifications of their leaders to act in undemocratic ways.
If anything, the threat of populism reflects the need for bipartisanship, cooperation and mutual understanding. That is a lesson that policymakers across the world must take into proper consideration. It is one thing to win an election, but politicians need to spend more time worrying about what happens after elections and the collaboration in the long-term.
Even if these populist leaders are themselves part of the elite, they will present themselves as one of the people. They are, however, always careful to maintain some air of mystery and a superhuman quality to them, in order to distinguish themselves from the average person. The populist leader is, at once, the underdog yet also a cut above the rest of society. They are human, but they are also fearless, invincible, and untouchable.
The problems begin for them when that façade inevitably starts to chip and crumble away. Even if we assume that populist leadership cannot survive indefinitely, which should not be considered a hard and fast rule, there is still potential for damage and destruction. In the space of a single term, democratic institutions can be attacked, rights severely limited or even taken away and the lives of millions of people forever altered.
That is why it is imperative that citizens of all societies have the right tools in their arsenal to combat elements of populism. From disinformation to “rage-baiting”, it is crucial that the personal being political does not become a justification for intolerance or injustice. Populism is a serious threat to democracy when it is not taken seriously, or when it is brushed aside as belonging to one group or cause.
It does not happen overnight, and in extreme cases, its effects cannot be undone overnight. Finally, the emergence and sustenance of populism undoubtedly reflects the culmination of several different factors, which all need to be given due consideration.
What role should the threat of populism play in our future?
It might be tempting for policymakers to bury their heads in the sand when they see populist leaders coming to power in recent elections (like Herbert Kickl in Austria), but the truth is that the best time to act is always now. There is also something to be said for preparing in advance for potential populist threats. If we think about grand strategy and the idea that nations should have a guiding framework for their actions, it is critical for populism to be taken seriously.
Policymakers should take time to distinguish between different types of populism – whether it is a strategy, attitude, rhetoric, or something else entirely. They should also seek to understand why populism is emerging on a local or national level in their country.
What is motivating citizens and why do they feel as though their voices are not being heard? Why is the populist evocation of ‘the people’ potentially more appealing than other evocations?
Above all, policymakers and indeed all of society, must realise that understanding populism or authoritarianism is not the same as condoning it. There is a fine line between informing ourselves and tolerating undemocratic practices. The latter is unacceptable.
Examples of condoning or sustaining populism include accepting hateful language from leaders or parties, ignoring when their followers deploy violence as part of their campaigns or merely accepting that portions of the nation will always support populists. This last point will not only demotivate policymakers from fighting off populism, but it will also feed into the false belief that certain leaders have an irresistible charisma. Charisma will only get you so far, and liberal democratic politics will have to work hard to ensure that voters believe in this fact.
Populism is not only a sponge, a tool through which to manipulate language and meaning, but also a slippery slope to authoritarianism. Therefore, the public, academic, and policymaking spheres should not rule out populism and its threatening nature just yet. We must stay alert in the long term.
