Staff Writer João Levy Melancia draws on the essays of George Orwell to launch into a thorough exploration on what populism means and the political threats it poses in the modern era. Ranging from its impact on election campaigns to how citizens view their own identity, he argues that populism remains a perennial problem for all imperfect political systems across the world.
An Orwellian Prelude
While recently reading, for the first time, a couple of George Orwell’s great essays, ‘Notes on Nationalism’ and ‘Politics and the English Language’, it struck me how, over 70 years later, their themes still remain so current. I was not surprised per se. After all, Orwell is widely appreciated to be intemporal and even prophetic where the overlap of politics and human nature is concerned. However, I was taken aback by how, through some very light editing and recalibrating, the essays could very well be published today, directly and piercingly tackling the pervasiveness of populism in modern politics.
Indeed, populism and nationalism could almost be used interchangeably in Orwell’s essays to describe today’s political climate. The two are distinct, of course, in myriad ways that are not the focus of this piece, but they are certainly analogous, because they target the same part of human nature and consciousness. That remote corner where diffidence, selfishness, vanity and fear conspire to keep us safe but that, when overexcited, can quickly give in to the darkest of impulses.
Politics Through The Looking Glass: Populism as a Mirror
Populists, not unlike nationalists in the first half of the 20th century, appeal to our basest instincts and to our worst prejudices. Populism is, fundamentally, an intellectually lazy ideology, which does not require any critical reflection, deep study or consideration of different perspectives and ideas. It draws bold, straight lines from complex problems to purported simple solutions, completely eschewing nuance, and in so doing, gives those disillusioned with, or uninterested in politics, a simple narrative to explain their unhappiness. That is, common enemies to blame and popular heroes to champion.
Put simply, populism is the modern political equivalent of children’s fairy tales.
Populists, in my view, are rather like a mirror. A mirror which accurately reflects the society they inhabit in both its beauty and its ugliness. Hence, they are capable of exciting in many people a feeling of acknowledgement and vindication, for they can see themselves accurately depicted in political power. Nevertheless, like a mirror, it shows only the present, with all its immediacy and self-evident problems.
It is incapable of showing what is ahead, or indeed of considering much of what came before, save for the occasional, cherry-picked historical lesson on ‘patriotism’ or past national glory. It has no vision for the future but that for the removal, presumably magically, of these present problems. At the same time, presenting no concrete solutions, tangible strategies or coherent ideology for positive change.
Populism is therefore limited to observing and pointing out. Much like the People’s Tribune in the old Roman Republic, its role is chiefly to voice the most obvious and basic concerns of large swathes of ‘the people’. Claiming to speak for the masses as a means of attaining political power is not a new phenomenon in democracy, and was indeed prophetically described by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No.1: “of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”
Populism thus plays at this pseudo-advocacy, but is in truth only revealing, and sometimes, explaining popular frustrations while doing nothing to actually address them. The reason for this pattern is obvious: populism ceases to exist when discontent ceases to be what guides the electorate. In times of relative prosperity and general contentment, the majority will not so easily indulge in vile vitriol against other segments of society or the so-called political establishments and economic elites. They will more carefully and calculatedly analyse the options available to them based on what most suits them, be it ideologically or economically, rather than give in to the temptation of a ‘shock to the system’.
Populism, then, while a disease in itself, is symptomatic of a larger illness in a society: a corruption and corrosion of the social contract wherein average citizens, once cohesive, fraternal and aspirational, are now divided, weary and desperate.
Therefore, populism can only thrive, or indeed survive, if the political, social and economic conditions of a nation remain less than ideal, be it due to inflation driving up the cost of basic goods, perceived corruption or inefficiency of government or high unemployment due to outsourcing of unskilled jobs as a result of free trade agreements, all of which in turn cause disillusionment with the democratic processes and the status quo.
The Eternal Campaign: Populism’s Playbook in Power
This is why, when populists finally seize power through electoral victories, they so often turn their coats and assume proto-authoritarian positions, as was the case in Hungary, Mexico and, until recently, Poland. Populists have no intention of solving the problems which they utilised to rise to power, for without them, and the consequent socio-economic division and polarisation which populists so deftly exploit, the purpose of their policy platforms, such as they are, and indeed of their parties and personalities, would no longer exist.
Rather, populists opt to entrench themselves in government, eroding the power, authority, independence and legitimacy of institutions and principles which underpin democracy and the rule of law. This has been characterised by the removal of democratic safeguards, restraints and checks and balances, often through interference with, and politicisation of, independent judiciaries. This was the case with all three examples, often alongside the curbing of fundamental freedoms such as those of press, religion or assembly.
Their crowning achievement is often undermining the process of free and fair elections, be it through sowing doubt and spitting vituperation about and toward electoral bodies: from volunteer vote counters to independent electoral certification boards, à lá Donald Trump, or by outright ‘reforming’ the state electoral apparatus, packing it with political allies and cronies, à lá Viktor Orban.
The people are then left wondering why the problems which they elected this self-proclaimed establishment-overthrowing government to solve still remain, or have likely even worsened, since the last guys were in office. The populists, now in power, can still be regularly observed at rallies and press conferences, repeating the same ‘Us vs. Them’ spiel which got them elected in the first place.
Namely, rambling diatribes about enemies and threats to crush, pernicious interference in their country’s sovereignty by international organisations, the media and the elites, et cetera. Many are then, understandably, perplexed at why this party that they voted for, and which so eloquently voiced their frustrations just a few years ago, is still campaigning instead of governing. The people will rightfully feel like they were the victims of a massive fraud (see ‘Brexit regret’.)
If You Can’t Beat Them, Join Them: Myopic Mimicry
Furthermore, populism is inherently disrespectful and patronising toward those it purports to represent. Populists infantilize their audiences by absurdly simplifying the content of their speech in parliaments, rallies or on social media. This appeal to the lowest of our instincts feeds the electorate idealised, unrealistic ‘solutions’ to multi-dimensional, multi-generational problems. Tackling and demystifying populistic platitudes and falsehoods should then, prima facie, be quite straightforward for honest, knowledgeable politicians.
However, conventional political giants, whose intellect is unquestioned (think Hillary Clinton in 2016, Rory Stewart in 2019 or Emmanuel Macron in 2024), almost always tie themselves into Gordian Knots trying to unmask populist rhetoric. This is, to an extent, not really their fault. Deconstructing and disproving lies requires an order of magnitude more effort than to produce them. Nowhere is this fact more evident than the US presidential debates of the Trump-era, where in two minutes the Republican candidate is often capable of generating over a dozen falsehoods, made-up statistics and exaggerated boasts.
Whereas, within the same time his opponent has for rebuttal, it is only possible to convincingly demonstrate how one or two of those claims were untrue, and in so doing they must forgo any elaboration on their own views on the issue at hand. In the age of clips and ever-dwindling attention spans, attempting to break down every lie a political opponent tells is patently a losing strategy.
Crucially, though, where mainstream politicians fail in trying to resist the seemingly inexorable rise of populists is most often by opting to sink down to their level. Many centre-right and centre-left politicians have, when seeing the extremes to either side of them gain traction, made two critical mistakes. The first is to give in to the instinct of running to their respective flanks, i.e. appeal to newly converted far-right or far-left voters, rather than seek to consolidate the middle and reach out to moderates just on the edge of the other side, who are likely much more sympathetic to them than extremists who see them as ‘establishment’ or ‘deep state’ politicians.
This is done partly because they feel these populists have unjustly appropriated an electorate that used to belong them, and so they must try to win them back. Such an attitude reveals not only vanity, but a lack of democratic spirit and confidence in the electorate’s faculties. The natural result of which is to further fuel political apathy whilst alienating centrists (see the Conservative Party’s final candidates in the recent leadership election, whose platforms overlap much more with Farage than Cameron or May).
The second mistake is that when trying to recover the swathes of their electorates who have begun a tryst with populist forces, they convince themselves they have to mimic the strategies which proved successful for their opponents. As a result, rather than present a genuine vision for what they could do for their country, they resort to an oversimplification of their message and platforms. This had led to politicians refusing to point out any problem which might require some ‘tough love’ to be addressed.
Moreover, they increasingly flirt with their own versions of populist policies, while still trying to maintain their aura of responsibility – a contradiction that becomes easily apparent to any engaged elector (see Kamala Harris’s economic platform in this year’s US presidential election). The result is that the moderates to either side of the centre hasten their own decline, for they lose credibility as sensible and honest, further contributing to disillusionment even among the more informed electorate who had until then resisted populism.
Simultaneously, they are of course no match for populists at their own game. After all, lying and slandering do not come so naturally to straight-laced establishmentarians (see Biden’s ineffectual use of expletives towards Trump in the fateful June debate.) As such, they end up losing ground by engaging in increasingly ugly and cosmetic political disputes.
Both these strategies are fundamentally short-sighted and self-defeating, as they inevitably result in centrists waiving any reasonable claim to moral superiority in the eyes of voters. Rather than acting like the competent adults in the room, conventional politicians debase themselves, merely feeding the chaos off which populists thrive.
As the old saying goes, you should never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Slaying the Beast: Idealism as an Antidote
I therefore propose that the true antidote to populism is unabashed, and if necessary confrontational, honesty and competence. Only true statesmen can slay the beast of populism and to do so they must not engage in the practice of appealing to the lowest common denominator, but should instead seek to raise it.
They must aspire to raise the standard of public debate and they must trust the electorate, as Plato’s analogy in Gorgias goes, to discern between the appealing but poisonous promises of the candy salesman, and the benevolent wisdom and forthright moral leadership of the doctor.
Such work will not be easy; rising above the fray when one’s political opponents have as their modus operandi engaging in calumny against one’s professional and personal lives requires great forbearance and moral strength. To speak truthfully to the masses, regardless of whether doing so is painful, can be a thankless job when they have so long been indulged by fanciful promises from all sides.
In the words of satirist Josh Billings: “as scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.”
However, when faced with populism as an enemy, whose weapon of choice is doom and fear, one must maintain a high degree of optimism and confidence in one’s fellow citizens. Anti-populists should choose to believe that, even if people may not want the whole truth all the time, they certainly prefer it to being lied to and cheated by charlatans who presume to manipulate them and abuse their good faith for their own selfish ends.
True statesmen ought to embrace this bambiesque quality, for without it democracy is but an intellectual experiment doomed to fail.
