The modern political landscape appears dominated by populist movements. Most recently, populism has been associated with the Trump administration, Brexit, anti-establishment, etc., but it seems that there is little time taken to sit down and think through where populism comes from, what its implications are, and if it is in fact inherently negative, as the media often paints it to be nowadays. The core definition of populism is that of a movement aimed at ordinary people with political parties and leaders focused on granting the wishes of the people. Therefore, it is meant to propel leaders that are best at appealing to and advocating for the masses and citizens that come from different walks of life. At its core, populism does not necessarily seem like the worst political approach possible; in fact, it seems quite intuitive to democracy. The problem comes when leaders misuse their populist appeal to control all aspects of the government and downplay the importance of stable political and economic systems, ultimately allowing for the country’s downfall.
More recently, populism has also been associated with more nationalist and nativist tendencies of some areas of the world, most particularly the US and Europe, which adds on to the drawbacks of populist appeal. However, all of this does not mean that populism as an idea is at its core a “dirty word.” It should be important to instead analyze the development of modern populism and learn from previous mistakes thus enabling the intuitive and positive aspects of populism to shine. Some of these positive aspects are that populism indeed seems intuitive to democracy, populist leaders tend to shine light on a previously ignored group in society, at least historically, and populism may be a step towards more constructive and lasting solutions, enabling citizens from all walks of life to feel like true participants in their country. In order for these events to happen, however, it is important to acknowledge the need for the populist leader to avoid creating a cult of personality, and by extension, meddling with the country’s institutions that guarantee accountability and balanced functioning of society.
The Roots of Populism
Early populism is most often associated with post-WWII regimes of Latin America such as Peron in Argentina and Vargas in Brazil where leaders had a very direct relationship with the voters and grounded their career in promises to the citizenry. This type of approach grounded itself in flawed processes of modernization and the need of the masses to embrace a new system and a new link of trust with the political authority. Elites were no longer seen as trustworthy, and leaders that were more approachable, direct, and trust-provoking in the promised policy were necessitated. People such as Peron and Vargas were able to fulfill this void. However, in these early cases, there is already this notion of a cult of personality forming, one clear piece of evidence being that Peron’s wife bore significant influence on the political life of the state to the point that she took over the leadership at some point; although she appeared to have basic qualifications to lead and debatable successes in her role, this also showcases the trust that the people put in the entirety of the Peron family. “Peronismo'' remains a term that people use to refer to their political style, which also bears witness to the vitality and centrality the political movement has on one person, that person being Peron. Latin America itself, being the “cradle of populism” in the sense that its modern manifestations can be traced to originate from the region, also bears witness to other types of such politics centered around one charismatic leader, which is a key characteristic of populist leaders. “Chavismo” is one particularly prominent term meant to refer to the politics of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Populism is now evolving and becoming increasingly a buzzword in the worldwide political scene. Political figures such as Trump in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK, and even Putin in Russia are being assigned the title of a populist leader, which adds further dynamics and scope to populism as a term and a movement.
Problematics of Populism
The origin of populism’s negative manifestations lies in the potency of the leader and centralization of power that may bear negative consequences. While this may not be at its core an intent of the populist movement and sentiment, a leader that is capable of charismatically moving the masses is also likely to be able to accumulate power, and, historically, leaders described as populist seem to have a natural drive to conserve and accumulate power. This results in a vacuum being left in a state after the leader’s death or change in leadership, which creates space for deterioration of political and social cohesion further weakening the core aspects allowing the society to function. Another consequence is high inflation rates as a result of the populist leader or party’s drive to fulfill the wishes and needs of the people. After all, the populist campaign is focused on the appeal to the voters en masse which means that, and especially so in left-wing populist movements, many wages increase, the investment rate gets magnified, and the populist political leadership after being selected is then called upon to fulfill these promises. In order to maintain support, populist governments have been known to make risky economic decisions tolerating quite grand public spending and refocusing or narrowing the economy in attempts to increase progress and provide jobs and satisfaction for the people that would over time result in catastrophic inflation and other economic outcomes. The recent developments in Venezuela, tied with populist origins in politics of Chavez and Maduro, bear witness to this the most.
Another crucial reason for flaws within the populist approach is that, especially in more recent “western” examples, populism tends to be rather right-wing as opposed to traditionally left-wing, so populist leaders focus their appeal on specific societal groups, which often fall along race or ethnic lines, creating divisive, hateful rhetoric and deteriorating social cohesion instead of building it up by promoting inclusion of the marginalized and better cooperation. This is a grave issue and one that certainly should not be ignored when considering the potential of populism. It should also be noted that this turn of events which painted modern populism in such a divisive light is very paradoxical to the promise of the populist agenda to ease the struggle of society’s underappreciated citizens and bring about further inclusion of the marginalized to the society by questioning and reconstructing existing elitist framework. The reason is that while putting faith in the mass vote and focusing on wide appeal would attract diverse audiences, the masses can either be mostly supportive or disapproving of some core issues, such as very popularly in modern times, the issue of migration. This means that if xenophobic sentiment already nestled within the country’s demographic and social composition, a populist leader would just further extend this problem.
The Benefits of Populism
However, there are many reasons why populism is, after all, not seen in a completely negative light. While the drawbacks certainly are there and remain very unpredictable and dangerous, it also holds true that there are certain positive aspects. One is the very heart of the populist movement which is the appeal to the “ordinary” people. This has the potential to promote democratic values and function as populist leaders turn their attention to people on the ground and listen to the popular demands. Even in cases where a populist administration saw the eventual economic demise of the country, as with the case of Venezuela, leaders such as Chavez were able to appeal to rural and indigenous communities that previously never gained much attention from the political leadership. Populism thus has the potential to move politics beyond the Ivory Tower and the elite and to the people that actually make up the majority of the state communities and are waiting to finally see their demands met. While this does not automatically mean that these demands will indeed be met, that they will be met without graver consequences, or that there will ultimately be political turmoil and abuse of power, it also poses a foundation to creating a more inclusive society and one in which the political leadership listens to demands of the top.
Furthermore, populist regimes have at times been very successful in their implementation of revolutionary policies with wide appeal. Populism has evolved to match the reality of the neoliberal market and is now focusing its appeal on stronger and more efficient social programs. The recent Pink Tide populism seen across various countries in Latin America has seen a turn away from neoliberal policies and provided, or at least began to provide, a viable alternative. These states are not necessarily as rigid and overly controlling as previous examples of populist regimes, but they have come to realize their position as a negotiator between policy and the people, and as a consequence have developed to become more fluid and responsive to the citizenry. These are some ideals highly desired of the political leadership in order to move the country and democracy forward.
A Way Forward
Populism certainly has the potential to contribute to the creation of authoritarian and xenophobic modus operandi on a state level, but this may be more connected to the way that societal institutions already in place allow such populist sentiment to flourish. If the existing institutions already allow for a lack of accountability and unfair centralization of power, it is easier for charismatic leaders to spiral out of control and assume too much power with too little accountability, resulting in a dictatorial scenario. If institutions that are in place as populist leaders are ascending to their role allow for creation of a cult of personality and do not strongly protect balanced distribution of power or ensure protection of minority rights for example, then damage is likely to happen in terms of social cohesion and the protection of minorities or those of contrary opinion. This means that ultimately there would be less potential for a healthy democracy.
This does not mean that populism should or even can be fully abandoned. Instead, as populist movements do not seem to wane but rather evolve, it may be better to embrace positive aspects of populism and look for ways to put mechanisms in place that would support and nurture the positive aspects of populism, such as emphasizing the focus on the actual people. On the other hand, negative aspects should be prevented from manifesting, such as the overtaking of power by the president and the ruling party or protection of only specific portions of citizens. In a world so often tortured by negative outcomes of neoliberalism such as environmental damage, worker exploitation, and ever-present expansion of corporations with monopolistic tendencies, nurturing the connection between the political top and the people that actually make up the country and are the majority may be just what is needed to bypass these elitist and exploitative tendencies of the modern world.
A thorough way to begin ensuring that positive aspects of populism are amplified while negative aspects are addressed and contained is to: 1) ensure constitutional protection of freedoms such as freedom of expression, the press, political opinion etc., 2) ensure constitutional protection of minorities, 3) ensure clearly defined and unamendable division of powers that would control the president and the ruling party from overpowering the rest of society, 4) make space for civic education that would ensure that the “ordinary” citizens to whom the populist appeal is targeted are voting with conscience and sufficient knowledge and understanding of the implications of the policies, and 5) ensure, even constitutionally, a strong, diverse, and inclusive economy, preventing the president from single-handedly changing economic policies while also allowing the president to call upon these values of inclusion and diversity in order to promote the will of the citizenry. Such measures would limit the power of the president while simultaneously respecting the will of those that make up the state and are often overlooked or unheard as they would ensure checks and balances, protections, and space available to promote social cohesion and a healthy democracy and economy, meaning a populist government would not mean the end to civil liberties or the destruction of minorities.