Populism
Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite".[1] It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.[2] The term developed in the late 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties and movements since that time, often as a pejorative. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.[1][3]
Not to be confused with Popolarismo.
A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving.[4] Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people".[5] According to the ideational approach, populism is often combined with other ideologies, such as nationalism, liberalism, socialism, capitalism. or consumerism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum, and there exist both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.[6]
Other scholars of the social sciences have defined the term populism differently. According to the popular agency definition used by some historians of United States history, populism refers to popular engagement of the population in political decision making. An approach associated with the political scientist Ernesto Laclau presents populism as an emancipatory social force through which marginalised groups challenge dominant power structures. Some economists have used the term in reference to governments which engage in substantial public spending financed by foreign loans, resulting in hyperinflation and emergency measures. In popular discourse—where the term has often been used pejoratively—it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with political opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.
Some scholars have linked populist policies to adverse economic outcomes, as "economic disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of institutions typically go hand in hand with populist rule."[7]
Voluntarism[edit]
Another underlying debate in discussions of populism is the comparison of structural and voluntarist approaches. Voluntarist or agency-based explanations focus on the behaviors of politicians and parties, including populists themselves.[3]
An important area of research is the examination of how parties develop, and how responses to new parties shape them. Successful politicians and parties shape the formation of agendas, identifying and increasing the salience of issues which they believe will benefit them.[3]
Established parties may adopt various strategies when a new party appears: dismissive, adversarial, or accommodative. A dismissive strategy such as ignoring a party and its issue(s) can only be effective if the issue involved is unimportant or short-lived. Otherwise, dismissing an issue leaves ownership of the issue with the new party and allows them to attract any voters who see the issue as important. In an adversarial response, a mainstream party directly engages over an issue, emphasizing their opposition to the new party's position. This increases the issue's visibility, makes it a focus of ongoing political debate, and can reinforce the new party's ownership of it.[176][177]
An adversarial response can be to the benefit of a mainstream party if most voters, or at least the mainstream party's voters, disagree with the new party's position and are unlikely to ally with it as a result.
An accommodative strategy is to move the mainstream party closer to the position advocated by the new party, in hopes of retaining voters who care about the issue. This works best if adopted early, before a new party is heavily identified with an issue. If an issue is important, long-lived and of strong interest to its supporters, a mainstream party can benefit from quickly shifting its position to one closer to the new party.[176][177]
Similarly, a populist party with neo-fascist or antidemocratic roots may be able to increase its support by moderating its views to a milder form of its original position (e.g. from neofascist to xenophobic.) Right-wing populists are more effective in mobilizing voters around issues when mainstream parties ignore the issue or offer alternatives that are not aligned with voter opinions. They are also more likely to benefit from emphasizing social and cultural issues such as immigration and race, appealing to voters who are positioned economically towards the left-wing but hold socially conservative views.[3]
Other themes[edit]
Democracy[edit]
Populism is a flexible term as it can be seen to exist in both democracies as well as authoritarian regimes.[241] There have been intense debates about the relationship between populism and democracy.[242] Some regard populism as being an intrinsic danger to democracy; others regard it as the only "true" form of democracy.[243] Populists often present themselves as "true democrats".[59] It could be argued that populism is democratic as it allows voters to remove governments they do not approve via the ballot box because voting is an essential value for a state to be considered a democracy.[244] Albertazzi and McDonnell stated that populism and democracy were "inextricably linked",[245] the political scientist Manuel Anselmi described populism as being "deeply connected with democracy",[246] and March suggested that populism represented a "critique of democracy, not an alternative to it".[247] Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser write that "In a world that is dominated by democracy and liberalism, populism has essentially become an illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism."[248] Adamidis argues that the effect of populism on democracy can be measured by reference to its impact on the democratic legal systems and, in particular, to the changes it effects on their rule of recognition.[249][250]
Populism can serve as a democratic corrective by contributing to the mobilisation of social groups who feel excluded from political decision making.[251] It can also raise awareness among the socio-political elites of popular concerns in society, even if it makes the former uncomfortable.[252] When some populists have taken power—most notably, Chávez in Venezuela—they have enhanced the use of direct democracy through the regular application of referendums.[253] For this reason, some democratic politicians have argued that they need to become more populist: René Cuperus of the Dutch Labour Party for instance called for social democracy to become "more 'populist' in a leftist way" in order to engage with voters who felt left behind by cultural and technological change.[247]