WHAT DOES POPULISM REALLY MEAN?

Re: “Rethinking our attitude towards populism” (Opinion, Dec 6).

Thanks to Wichit Chantanusornsiri for opening the proverbial can of worms regarding “populism”. The highly misunderstood and maligned term is certainly nothing new. Virtually all politicians play the populist game to some extent or another. Without promises and benefits (whether “handouts,” tax breaks, or delivery of popular programmes) it is doubtful any politicians could win an election.

At what point do “programmes to benefit the people” cross the line into “populism”? Some, like Khun Wichit, argue the demarcation depends on the degree of efficiency in design and delivery of the programme in question and some measure of “goodness” (he cites vocational training as an example of the latter). But who determines the relevance or “goodness” of any particular socio-economic programme? Who decides what is “populist” and what is simply bad policy (or good policy, for that matter)?

The world has seen its share of leftist populists (for example, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez) as well as the current spate of rightist populists (exemplified by Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump). What they all have in common is a claim to be looking out for the “real people”.

Columbia University Professor Nadia Urbinati notes that populist leaders who get into power are forced to maintain a permanent campaign to convince people that they are not establishment and never will be. She argues that populism is “made of negatives” — whether it is anti-politics, anti-intellectualism, or anti-elite. Perhaps this is the one characteristic of populism that is most easy to identify — it foments conflict and stokes divisions within societies, usually for the express purpose of gaining political advantage for one person and a few of their cronies.

Samanea Saman