In recent years we have been witnessing a rise in attitudes focusing on anti-immigration and national identity. Words such as nationalism and populism are now frequent in the media. If it is it good or bad is a question of perspective and before we start analysing the consequences of these social movements we need first to define and understand the meaning of the many of the words that abound in the social discourse and are frequently conflated in the same argument often perceived as equivalent. In this article I summarise some definitions that are important to know in order to understand the present political debate.
The word populism refers to the ordinary people (the populus). It is a particular way of formulating demands in the name of ‘the people’ and a particular way of constructing “the people”. Populism revolves around the powerless-powerful dimension, a vertical dimension – the down versus the up – where the populists claim to represent ‘the people’ against the current elite that does not represent them.
Nowadays the word is used in a derogatory fashion suggesting. Populism is thus a movement of the masses composed by the “little man”, the unsophisticated, uneducated masses which reclaim the power to interfere in political decision making which is perceived to be upheld by a small privileged wealthy elite. Revolutions are usually fuelled by populist movements.
Movement, doctrine or ideology?
Some authors have described populism as a doctrine or an ideology.
As a political doctrine it proposes that the common people are exploited by a privileged elite.
The term ideology suggests permanent beliefs, which underestimates the crucial strategic dimension of populism. The notion of ideology also makes it difficult to account for the sometimes temporary dimension of populism that follows from this strategic character. Ideology seems to suggest that if a party is populist, it will be populist forever, which I don’t think is necessary.
If populism is a movement originated among the common citizens, does it lead to democracy?
Populism and Democracy
One is tempted to associate populism to government by the people, which is loosely the definition of democracy. But the confusion relies only on the wording. In fact the modern concept of democracy is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. As opposed to dictatorships where the people have to right to vote or if they do they have no choice of other political parties but the ruling one. Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority"
So why isn’t populism the same as democracy?
Democracy is a form of government elected by the people. Itfocuses more on the assignment of governance to the people regardless of class
Populism is a movement initiated by the people to bring some change in the existing government. It focuses more on the struggle between the common class and the elite class
Populism and democracy are in some ways related but in some cases can be opposite. For example Venezuela's President Chavez was considered "populist," but his government is not democratic.
More generally, "democracy" is when the people have authority, but is usually in the form of formal institutions governed by established (in modern days, usually written) laws. "Populism" is not so much a form of government as it is a type of rhetoric, especially one that appeals to base motives and class differences.
Democracy is a system. Populism is one of the methods how to have your way in this system. You promise things you can´t deliver, and you know it. That is populism. Think of Brexit and Donald Trump.
Populist leaders appeal to the basic and sometimes nastier, emotions of the people to achieve power. And once they are in power they frequently turn it into a dictatorship. Think of Hitler for example.
Right or Left?
Note that populism can embrace left or right ideologies.
Right wing populism is rising in Europe due to the pressure of immigration. This is a kind of populism associated with nationalistic feelings.
"Nationalism is the worst enemy of peace" (George Orwell)
Frequently populism and nationalism are confused as similar concepts.
The political leaders appeal to a sense of cultural identity to unify the populous which will bring the politician to power. This is only possible in societies where the people don’t think very much, they are not very educated and simply follow with the herd. Often people join these movements due to peer pressure rather than careful consideration of the motives and vested interests of politicians.
Note that nationalism and populism have in common the fact that both approaches are anti-pluralist, i.e. they are hostile to cultural variability inside their country. They want a homogeneous society, made of cultural clones that think the same way. This is obviously welcomed by the political leaders which will not have to deal with dissidents. This is why populism hand in hand with nationalism seed dictatorships. Think of North Korea and China.
Ultimately, extreme Nationalism embraces feelings of intolerance such as racism and xenophobia. Nationalism can easily lead to authoritarianism which is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom and lacks any concern for the wishes or opinions of others. Or in simple words, sooner or later Nationalists end up shooting themselves sin their own foot.
Note that there are several combinations of populism and nationalism.
