Author: David Art
Affiliation: Tufts University School of Arts and Sciences, Political Science
Organization/Publisher: Perspective on Politics
Date/Place: November 2022/USA
Type of Literature: Journal Article
Number of Pages: 12
Keywords: Populism, Radical Right, Authoritarianism, Austerity
Brief:
Political scientists have recently rediscovered populism and are now treating it as a worthy subject of academic study. However, David Art believes that populism is just a political term used by opponents to label others without providing much analytical value. In reality, the decline of global democracy can be attributed to three trends: nativism, anti-austerity, and competitive authoritarianism. Populism is just a part of mass party politics, especially during election years, and focusing on it obscures the true issues at hand.
The rise of far-right political parties in Europe has led many to try to understand the reasons for their political grievances. One common explanation is that certain segments of the population feel left behind by modernization and are therefore attracted to far-right ideology. However, this theory does not seem to hold up when considering the historical evidence, such as the rise of the Nazi party in Germany after World War I. The author instead suggests that racism is the primary driving force behind the rise of the far right in Europe. To support this argument, the author provides a detailed analysis of George Wallace, a three-time governor of Alabama who launched a credible third-party presidential challenge in 1968.
Wallace employed what is now known as the “southern strategy” in an attempt to gain support from rural and southern voters by appealing to racism. His approach was highly effective. He used stereotypes of “ordinary Americans” as being under threat from corrupt elites in Washington and portrayed himself as their defender. Historians of the time characterized Wallace’s campaign as a “white backlash.” He opposed the federal desegregation of state schools and openly expressed envy for candidates who won with the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan. The author directly compares Wallace to Trump, explaining how Trump used similar tactics to win public support for his candidacy. The author dismisses alternative explanations, such as genuine political grievances, due to the lack of cohesion among Trump supporters as a demographic. According to the author, labeling Trump a populist is an attempt to obscure his racism, similar to the way defenders of Wallace tried to downplay the racist elements of his political rhetoric.
A second trend in global politics is the emergence of leftist anti-austerity political parties, such as Syriza, Podemos, and the Five Star Movement (M5S). These parties are often described as populist because they promote policies that challenge the actions of elites that are perceived as going against the will of the general public. These parties not only implement such policies, but also openly reference political theorists who have theorized about populism. Additionally, they advocate for direct democratic reforms, including the use of internet platforms to allow people to participate in national decision-making processes.
The author argues that while these left-leaning parties may seem populist on paper, in reality, many of their promises have not been fulfilled. For example, after winning the January 2015 elections, Syriza had a mandate from the public to leave the European Union due to its aggressive lending policies with the Greek government. However, the party ultimately did a U-turn and agreed to even harsher measures than previously negotiated. Its unrealistic promises had no chance of being implemented, and the threat to leave the Eurozone would have left Greece in a worse position than before. These actions show that Syriza was not a populist party, but rather, like many parties, was willing to compromise and negotiate demands in the face of real threats. Other parties, such as Podemos and M5S, also promised to involve voters through online platforms, but like Syriza, they were unable to follow through on these radical strategies. Ultimately, it became clear that these left-leaning parties are similar to traditional parties, being “classically alpha-male, top-down.”
The author discusses the case of Hungary, where Victor Orban’s tenure has often been described as populist. However, the author argues that Orban’s populism is more about empowering himself than empowering the people. The author asks: “What relevance is populism to the breakdown of Hungarian democracy from 2010-2020?” In short, the author argues that Orban worked to weaken democratic institutions in Hungary. The author provides four reasons why populists often undermine the political health of societies: 1) they are inexperienced and lack the skills to manage the responsibility, 2) they have a mandate to oppose the establishment and therefore work to undermine democratic institutions, 3) they attack elites and are unable to eliminate their influence, and 4) they lack strong parties and are unable to translate electoral success into real progress.
The article offers insight into the use of the concept of populism in political science by situating populism within more traditional concepts in the discipline. The author suggests that the term “populism” obscures more than it clarifies in terms of our understanding of politics. The reference to the Iron Law of Oligarchy is particularly noteworthy. The author’s own bias towards populism may be seen in his allusion to the permanent oligarchy that pervades the international system. The author’s skepticism towards the potential political outcomes of populist platforms is understandable, given that all parties have some populist elements. Without a measure of populism, democratic politics would not be possible. According to the author, most so-called populist parties function like traditional parties, but create access points for themselves and their constituents into the political system. Anti-immigration, corruption, racism, and nativism are common campaign tactics, but in reality, these tendencies dissipate as parties focus on governing and negotiating with global power elites. This article is highly recommended for readers interested in the ongoing use of the label “populist” to praise or criticize individual political actors. The author effectively demonstrates that the term has more political value than analytical value.
By: Üveys Han, CIGA Senior Research Associate
