References to âthe peopleâ are misleading. Populism is no democratic corrective.
The world is changing rapidly. Artificial intelligence, climate change and demographic shifts shape the structures of our societies and determine what types of new challenges they face. It is only to be expected that social change will be followed by political change, as the losers of these processes are likely to respond electorally.
For many, this explains the rise of populist politicsâincreasing electoral support for political actors who seek to return politics back to âthe peopleâ, often in the name of taking back control and restoring national sovereignty. Most definitions centre on populismâs emphasis on the people, and the dichotomy between the âpure peopleâ and the âcorrupt eliteâ. For this reason, so the theory goes, populism can potentially be a democratic correctiveâshedding light on issues neglected by the elites and giving a voice to discontent.
Some go as far as to argue that we must fight populism with populism. This view often calls for a distinction between âbadâ, far-right populism, which combines populism with nationalism, and a âbetterâ, more progressive version, often from the left. It may even be accompanied by the idea that the left should itself go nationalist, to be able to put forward a viable counter-narrative to far-right populism which will win back those losers of new social cleavages.
Join our growing community newsletter!
"Social Europe publishes thought-provoking articles on the big political and economic issues of our time analysed from a European viewpoint. Indispensable reading!"
Columnist for The Guardian
Appealing though it might seem to see populism as a democratic corrective, and to try to fight the bad version with the good, this is a dangerous route which treads on the fine line between democracy and authoritarianism. Hereâs why.
What if populism is more than a communication style, and even an ideology that parties adopt? What if it is also, and perhaps more importantly, a system of collective decision-making and governanceâan alternative vision of democratic society which such parties seek to implement?
Then the focus on âthe peopleâ against a corrupt elite is not what should concern us most about populism. It is a descriptor of populist parties, yes, but it doesnât necessarily tell us something analytical about populism. After all, who in a democracy doesnât speak about the people, to the people and on behalf of the people, to some extent?
If populism is a vision about how we should be making collective choices in society, and how these choices should be justified and legitimated, then what should concern us most about populism is the extent to which it seeks to bypass representative institutions in the name of the âpopular willâ.
For populists, societal choices come from below: only decisions made by âthe peopleâ are legitimate and morally superior. Populism rallies behind the âwill of the peopleâ, which, it purports, is the only valid basis for decision-making.
But herein lies the problem: there is no single popular will. Societies consist of different social and attitudinal groups, with diverseâoften conflictingâpreferences. Without institutions which reconcile rather than exacerbate these preferences, democracy stands on precarious ground.
Support Social Europe
As you may know, Social Europe is an independent publisher. We aren't backed by a large publishing house, big advertising partners or a multi-million euro enterprise. For the longevity of Social Europe we depend on our loyal readers - we depend on you.
The insistence on equating the will of some of the people with the will of all of the peopleâand portraying that will as indivisible and morally superiorâis an obstacle, not a corrective, to democracy. It inevitably means that those not associated with the thus-constructed political majority are not only excluded but demonised. It also means that the intermediary institutions designed to preserve rights and liberties in societies are undermined.
It is important to distinguish here between populist political actors and their voters. Discontented citizens might indeed seek democratic expression in niche politics, as research shows. But this focus displaces the supply side of those political actors who pursue populist forms of collective decision-making and seek to enact them. These actors often seek to bypass the institutions we have in place that make our democracies work.
Take âBrexitâ. It is ironic that âtaking back controlâ of Westminster from the EU has come in direct confrontation with Parliament. This is a good example of two competing visions of democracy at odds with each other: the populist vision, which draws on popular sovereignty and asserts that decisions made from below are superior to all others, and the representative version, which stresses the legitimacy of public institutions.
Translating the will of the 52 per cent of those who voted in the 2016 referendum into the indivisible and indisputable âwill of the British peopleâ has engendered antagonism and exacerbated social divisions. Democratic stability can best be achieved if we are able to manage diversity and seek consensusâand that can only be done through those democratic institutions designed to make our systems function.
Liberalâor pluralist or representativeâdemocracy is not some abstract, normative idea. It is the institutional framework upon which our democracies are premised. Parliaments and the judicial system guarantee the rule of law and comprise the intermediary institutions which make, legitimate and implement collective societal decisions.
Populism seeks to bypass them. The result is to undermineânot correctâdemocracy. References to âthe peopleâ donât necessarily imply democracy. On the contrary: ‘the people’ has often been the language of dictators.