Populism on a dangerous political trajectory
It’s moving away from democracy and toward oppression, says John Whyte
The meaning of populism is fluid, ranging from the fine theory politics should pay attention to the needs of ordinary people to today’s practice of populism — a strategy for gaining power through fostering divisions and feeding resentments. This column relates to this second version — seeking political success through denigrating and dehumanizing minority groups, defined by class, religion, race and social interest. This form of populism treats such groups as inherently inferior, as national enemies and as not worthy of political recognition.
Populism’s trajectory is away from democracy and human rights and toward oppression. Nevertheless, its effectiveness has grown. It represents a danger for both national and international stability and it destroys nations’ capacity to do good for their peoples. It is enjoying widespread success — in the United States, throughout much of Latin America, in Central Europe, and in strong political movements within the EU and elsewhere. Not only has populism become a powerful form of political rhetoric, it has succeeded, through its use of new communications technology, in becoming a principle ideology of international political mobilization.
It is not just rhetoric and global communications that have propelled populism. Changing social and economic realities have created an environment which enabled it. These include economic and cultural dislocations produced by growth in economic mobility of goods and investment, vastly increased human migration, a widening gap between average incomes and the cost of urban living, a marked destabilization of human conduct, and the risks unpredictability coming through its use of new communications technology and by significant changes to the natural environment. All these have created an anxiety that has fostered an attitude of blaming.
Since democracy is based on popular choice in selecting who governs, populism might seem to reflect a legitimate aspect of democracy. And, since free speech is a key element of democracy, it may seem there is no limit on the appeals for political support that can be made.
But hate speech does something other than express political ideas; it is as an act of exclusion. Hateful speech produces actual social exclusion through destroying its victims’ sense of belonging. It changes the real context in which those to whom hate is directed live. It creates the specific condition of discrimination and inequality. Hate politics erodes democracy’s indispensable condition of equality.
The underlying idea of democracy is to eradicate the categories of rulers and the ruled. All members of political society are entitled to participate in choosing political rulers; all are eligible to seek office. Exclusion of persons based on religious beliefs, race, ethnicity or ideas about what is socially and economically needed are disallowed under democracy’s basic operating principles.
Populism’s political force is doubly grounded. First, it is in the nature of humanity to feel dissatisfied. Sometimes this is good — when we are dissatisfied over injustice, poverty and ignorance. Other times, it is a curse — when we are dissatisfied because we think we are not getting our way, are under appreciated or not understood; in short, when we are filled with resentment. When political leaders urge citizens to act on this resentment, they ignite a passion so strong the chasm between groups makes democratic discourse and public debate vanish, replaced only by slogans of exclusion.
Second, populism is indifferent to nuance or truth. It is conducted through exaggeration, popular myth and lies. People are asked to believe claims about others that are wrong. Even when lies are recognized, populist audiences are gratified to hear their resentments have been understood and the lies are accepted. These falsehoods create new social beliefs — beliefs that feed and justify anger over felt losses. The intensifies political divisions in society and the principles that sustain democracy become overwhelmed.
Our worry must be this: we cannot predict whether nations whose politics becomes defined by the divisions of populism will be able to find their way back to the spirit of democracy.