Populism is a term frequently used in today’s political discourse, often to describe figures as diverse as Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, and Rodrigo Duterte. But what exactly is populism, and why has it become such a prominent force in global politics? While often used loosely – and sometimes as an insult – understanding the core tenets of populism is crucial to grasping contemporary political trends. This article delves into the definition of populism, explores its historical roots and recent resurgence, and examines the characteristics that define populist leaders and movements.
Defining Populism: Beyond Simple Popularity
At its heart, populism, in political science terms, is more than just being “popular.” It’s a specific ideology centered around a fundamental division within society. As political scientist Cas Mudde explains in Populism: A Very Short Introduction, it’s the idea that society is fundamentally separated into two opposing camps: “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite.” This division is the cornerstone of populist thought.
It’s crucial to distinguish populism from mere popularity. The term is often misused, even in serious political commentary. For example, when Britain’s Labour party used the slogan “for the many, not the few,” it was labeled by some as populist. However, this slogan, while aiming for broad appeal, doesn’t fully encapsulate the core populist dichotomy of “the people” versus “the elite.”
According to Benjamin Moffitt, author of The Global Rise of Populism, a true populist leader positions themselves as the representative of the unified “will of the people.” They champion this “people” against a perceived enemy – the “corrupt elite” or the established system itself. Think of political rhetoric aiming to “drain the swamp” or dismantle the “liberal elite” – these are hallmarks of populist discourse. While populism is often associated with right-wing movements in Europe, it’s not exclusively tied to any single point on the political spectrum.
A visual representation of populism, featuring figures often labeled as populist leaders: Donald Trump, Hugo Chávez, and Rodrigo Duterte.
The Spectrum of Populism: From Left to Right
Populist movements aren’t confined to one side of the political aisle. History shows examples of populism across the spectrum. In Latin America, the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is a prominent example of a left-leaning populist leader. In Europe, parties like Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece have also been described as populist, albeit from a left-wing perspective.
However, contemporary populism, particularly in the West, has largely become associated with the right. Professor Mudde points out that “most successful populists today are on the right, particularly the radical right.” Figures like Marine Le Pen in France, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Donald Trump in the United States exemplify this trend. These leaders often combine populism with nativism (anti-immigrant sentiment) and authoritarian tendencies, creating a potent political force.
Commentators and political analysts have been sounding the alarm about the rise of right-wing populism for years. From articles in Time Magazine to warnings from the President of the European Commission, the increasing influence of populist movements has been a subject of intense scrutiny.
Supporters of the populist Five Star Movement in Italy demonstrate their political ambitions with large letter signs.
The Resurgence of Populism: Understanding the Underlying Causes
While the current wave of populism might seem like a recent phenomenon, experts argue that it’s been brewing for decades. “Political scientists have been catching on to this for the last 25-30 years,” notes Dr. Moffitt, acknowledging that there has been a significant “acceleration” in recent times.
Several factors are attributed to this resurgence. Societal shifts like increasing multiculturalism and globalization have created anxieties and a sense of displacement among some segments of the population, which populist leaders often tap into. Furthermore, concrete economic and political crises have played a crucial role.
Martin Bull, Director of the European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), suggests that while populist parties were visible in the early 2000s, their significant growth began around 2008, and especially after 2011. The global financial crisis of 2008, which morphed into a sovereign debt crisis in Europe, provided fertile ground for populism. This period offered a clear target for public anger: the “elite” of wealthy bankers who were widely perceived as responsible for the economic hardship faced by ordinary people.
Key Characteristics of Populist Leaders and Movements
Beyond the core “people vs. elite” dichotomy, several recurring traits characterize populist leaders and their movements. Dr. Moffitt, in The Global Rise of Populism, highlights two notable characteristics:
-
“Bad Manners” or Unconventional Behavior: Populist leaders often deliberately reject traditional political norms and etiquette. This can manifest as blunt language, social media outbursts, or a general disregard for established protocols. Figures like Donald Trump and Rodrigo Duterte have famously employed this tactic, presenting themselves as anti-establishment figures who “speak their mind.”
-
“Perpetuating a State of Crisis”: Populist leaders tend to operate in a mode of constant crisis, always appearing to be on the offensive against perceived threats. Professor Nadia Urbinati from Columbia University argues that populist leaders who gain power are perpetually in “campaign mode,” needing to constantly convince their followers that they remain outsiders and not part of the establishment.
Populist rhetoric often relies on “negatives”—anti-politics, anti-intellectualism, and anti-elite sentiment. This negativity, paradoxically, is a source of strength for populism, making it remarkably adaptable to various situations. Its flexibility and ability to frame diverse issues within the “people vs. elite” narrative contribute to its enduring appeal.
Another common thread is a skepticism towards complex democratic systems. Populist leaders often express a preference for direct democracy, such as referendums, bypassing traditional institutions and representative bodies. Professor Bull argues this inclination links populism to authoritarianism. A distrust of established systems can pave the way for “strongman” leaders who promise decisive action and solutions.
This sentiment is powerfully illustrated by the words of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who declared, “I am not an individual – I am the people.” This type of thinking, as Dr. Moffitt points out, can lead to a dangerous sense of infallibility and a restructuring of the political landscape in a way that can be detrimental to democratic norms. It creates a polarized environment where dissent is framed as opposition to “the people” themselves.
Hugo Chávez, celebrated by his supporters, embodies the archetype of a populist leader in Latin America.
Finally, populism is often associated with what Professor Bull calls “irresponsible bidding.” Populist leaders, in their quest for support, are often quicker than mainstream parties to make grand promises and offer radical changes, which, upon closer examination, may prove unrealistic or unsustainable. This raises critical questions about the long-term impact of populism on the health and stability of democratic systems.
In conclusion, understanding “What Is Populism” requires moving beyond simplistic definitions. It is a complex political phenomenon with deep historical roots and multifaceted contemporary manifestations. While it can emerge across the political spectrum, its current rise, particularly on the right, presents significant challenges to established democracies and necessitates a nuanced and informed understanding.
