Volume 7, No. 2, February 2025
Editor: Rashed Rahman
Introduction
There are varying types of populism. However, we can agree to an extent that if the brand of populism espouses good governance, equitable socio-economic development and vies to uphold democratic ideals, then it is a win-win for democracy rather than a threat, not the least because it ignites democratic activism in people via calls for ‘people’s power’. But dealing with populism as an issue when it becomes excessive or strident becomes a necessity. It is posited by some that ‘progressive populism’ is feasible for democracy. The answer of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to populism may not be feasible where equity and rule of law can be considered good for democracy rather than a threat. It can be argued that both populism and democracy establish and uphold the same principles of people’s power.
As Abraham Lincoln argued, the rule of the people by the people and for the people – vox populi vox dei – is central to both these notions. In one of the most significant speeches about democracy 2,500 years ago, Pericles said in a public square in Athens: “Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority, but of the whole people.” So both the notions should stand in harmony, assuming that the more the people’s voice is heard and reflected, the better and vibrant the democracy is. However, the issue with populism and democracy discussed in the context of developing countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka is that the structures that are supposed to be upholding democratic functions do not seem to be fulfilling their functions. The legislature, executive and judiciary seem to have been hijacked under the façade of democratic validation by successive rulers and governments. On the other hand, populism in western nations is different from Latin America, South East Asia or South Asia. The populisms in the US or Nordic nations carry a trademark of racial attacks against immigrants and minorities. The immigrants and minorities are often used by politicians as scapegoats for real systemic socio-economic issues. The populism witnessed in South East Asia, especially in the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand, reflects types of left-wing populism where the ingredient of racism is not so pronounced. The majority support in the US for Trump’s perceived racial politics doesn’t and cannot justify democratic validation under ‘majority rule’ as this amounts to the tyranny of the majority in support of ethnic-racial discrimination. However, the populism witnessed in the streets of Manila or Bangkok may be seen as systemic socio-economic injustice and corruption by the few against the many. For instance, Duterte in 2016, Thaksin in 2001 and Jokowo in 2015 appealed to the masses by promising to ‘politically correct’ the system in favour of a fair and equitable society against the ‘enemies of the common people’. This, in itself, cannot be seen as a threat to democracy as they seek to remedy the faults of ‘their democracy’.
Methodologies
In order to deal with populist forces, the following methodologies are identified:
a. Confrontation.
b. Isolation.
c. Adaptation, and
d. Socialisation.
a. Confrontation
Those who promote confrontation take for granted that populism is a ‘democratic disease’ that needs to be attacked and eradicated. For writers such as Kaltwasser, Chantal Mouffe and the late Ernesto Laclau, the root problem is the nature of democracy itself. Ironically, this way of thinking tends to replicate the populist worldview: given that certain actors are dangerous, they should be censored and confronted. There is no better example of this than the support of sections of the Venezuelan (former) elites and the US government of George W. Bush to the attempted military coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002.
b. Isolation
Isolation is less radical, but is also based on the argument that populism is a ‘democratic pathology’ that has to be kept in ‘quarantine’. The idea behind this medical metaphor is that the claims made by populist leaders are not legitimate. As a consequence, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’: on the one hand, there are the (self-proclaimed) ‘good democrats’, and on the other there are ‘evil populist forces’. The reaction of the European Union to the formation of a government coalition in Austria between Schüssel’s Christian Democratic Party and Haider’s populist radical right party is a good example of this.
c. Adaptation
In contrast to the strategy of isolation and confrontation, adaptation does not rely on moralisation of politics. In fact those who adhere to the logic of adaptation either implicitly or explicitly accept that populism can function as a democratic corrective, insofar as it may well direct the attention of the establishment to topics they have not previously considered. Take for instance the role that Evo Morales’ ethno-populism has played in putting the problem of racial discrimination and oppression at the centre of the political agenda in contemporary Bolivia.
d. Socialisation
Socialisation can be seen as complementary to adaptation, and it refers to short-term and long-term tactics that aim to include populist forces in the political establishment. This implies a sort of de-radicalisation of populist actors, particularly in terms of making policy compromises and accepting the rules of public contestation that are inherent to liberal democracy. To a certain extent, some of the European populist radical right parties that have been able to participate in a coalition government have experienced this process of socialisation.
Cordon Sanitaire
All political parties agree to form a ‘cordon sanitaire’ – a firewall around the extreme right to prevent it from capturing power. The other alternative is power sharing – formation of a coalition like the extreme right in Austria. The ‘cordon sanitaire’ school has its pros and cons. Those against it say that cooperation with the far right legitimises their ideology, which is inherently anti-democratic. Further, it is charged that, ironically, extreme right parties come to power through democratic elections but after attaining power they act to curtail and limit democracy. So, why give them the opportunity to use state resources? Leaders of the extreme right-wing political parties, who are mostly charismatic, tend to become opportunistic and even unscrupulous and invariably exploit the situation. Masquerading as democrats they turn antagonistic towards democratic values and norms. While both left and right populist parties share the same basic values, i.e. respect for rules and institutions common to the democratic arena, those values demand a ‘cordon sanitaire’ against parties not sharing the underlying values.
Power Sharing
Power sharing with the extreme right/left is another advocated strategy and rests upon the following arguments: democrats have to respect the basic principles of democracy. If part of the electorate in a given country regards the far right as a legitimate representative, then it should be allowed to take part in the government. Moreover, as long as they respect the rules of the democratic game, it might not be wise to exclude them from the political process since this would mean undermining democracy. In fact, good governance means healthy compromising, especially in a coalition government. There is no reason to believe that the same rule does not apply to extreme right-wing parties. Extreme right-wing parties have been able to increase their votes whenever confronted with a firewall.
Both strategies rest on valid arguments but all depends on the political landscape in each country. That is why tailor-made strategies would be more suitable to address the rise of the far right/left. Or is there a European solution to the problem, taking cognisance of the sub-cultural norms, history and type of leadership?
Some takeaways
Developing a vision
When outlining future plans it is necessary to seek answers where the country or region wants to be in the medium-term future, for example by 2030. This includes which jobs can be created, which specialisations by industry are feasible and advantageous, and what abilities and education levels for the young can be attained. The vision should specify which public services are to be provided and how living conditions can be improved. Performance should be judged based on sustainable development goals.The vision should be ambitious but within reach, shared by citizens and developed jointly with experts and political parties.
Challenging core beliefs
Contrary to what liberals like to believe sometimes, not everything populists say is necessarily demagogic or mendacious. Ultimately, their self-presentations are based on one big gross misrepresentation: that there is a ‘singular people’ and they are the ‘only representatives’. Their campaign encourages citizens to leave behind accustomed circles and milieus, and instead enter into conversations with the new people they would not normally meet. It encourages them not to deploy accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘fascism’ early in such conversations. This might be a pious hope on the part of democratic theorists; much social science research claims that the ‘contact hypothesis’ is too good to be true, i.e. it is not enough to meet people very much not like us in order to foster tolerance and respect for pluralism. But anything that can pierce the populist fantasy of a ‘fully united’, ‘homogeneous people’ has got to be seriously challenged.
Defining game-changing instruments and finding partners
Populism is a reflection of domestic policies. There is a linkage between domestic concerns and the onset of populism. For example, changing tax systems are crucial as they can make environmental exploitation costly while supporting a circular economy and innovation. In education, lifelong learning and retraining should be further promoted. The strategy should be discussed and finetuned in a dialogue with citizens, NGOs, reform-minded trade unions and representatives of new firms. Moreover, the skills of migrants should be utilised and their children integrated. The increase in spatial divergence has to be stopped. The crowding in urban centres should be curtailed through teleworking and teleconferencing. Buying ever bigger cars fuelled by gasoline or diesel should be discouraged through better public transport, incentives for electric cars and car sharing, and renting of unused houses should replace urban sprawl.
Engaging with populists
Talking with the populists is not the same as ‘talking like populists’. One does not have to adopt their descriptions of political, economic or social challenges in order to be credible with them. At the same time, it is important that a whole range of policy positions that liberals find highly problematic are, nevertheless, permissible in a democracy, and that one has to reason with the best arguments and evidence available, not polemically launch an onslaught on ‘populism’. However, when populists reveal themselves as specifically populist, which is to say, when they try to deny the legitimacy of their opponents or membership of certain citizens, or when they fundamentally question the rules of the democratic game, it is crucial that other politicians draw the line. More important still, the campaign encouraged citizens to leave behind their accustomed circles and milieus, and instead enter into conversations with people they would not normally meet.
Revisiting Globalisation
A probable new narrative could be that Europe is trying to work on globalisation by taking the lead in fighting climate change, epidemic control, scientific research and innovation. Some writers opine that populism is on the decline. But dealing with populism as an issue is still a necessity. It is populism that reduces opportunities by falsely promising a return to a non-existent past glory, raising false hopes. Resultantly, it leads to lower income and higher expenditures for people unable to find jobs and a self-determined life. Moreover, it increases the probability of conflict with neighbours. Under populism, government expenditures for policy, border control, and environmental degradation and health problems increase significantly, and, in turn, lead to higher taxes and debt. For its multiple roots that need to be addressed, there exist better solutions for these problems if discussed prudently and skilfully with citizens.
Including populists in healthy debates
This is an extension of the earlier mentioned ‘engagement’ argument. There are two main extremes of how to deal with populists. One is complete exclusion, not least the kind of moral exclusion that populists themselves practice along the lines of: ‘We good democrats won’t even appear on TV together with populists’ or ‘When populists ask a question in parliament, I walk out,’ etc.). This is a mistake both on a strategic and, less obviously, on a normative level. It is bound to fail as a strategy, because in fact it confirms populists in what they have been telling their supporters all along, namely, that the corrupt elites never listen or are afraid to debate certain subjects, that these elites will all unite against the populists to preserve their undeserved privileges.
Realising that all populists are not committed voters
Not all voters of populist parties can be assumed to be committed to anti-pluralism if they have accepted the rules of the democratic game. There is also a distinct problem from most extreme right-wing parties seeking power – mainly at the local level. Once in power, they find out that the execution of their programmes are unattainable and tend to become moderate. The electoral success and appeal most likely fade away once they are in government as their voters tend to be anti-establishment with exaggerated expectations.
Populism is on the decline?
While according to some analysts, populism seems to have peaked and is declining, an active policy is still needed to deal with it. The challenge lies with possible support of new leaders at the IMF, reformed UN and international bodies. Economists seem to have partly descended from their ivory towers to include societal environmental problems in their agendas with GDP substituted by Sustainable Development Goals. New inter-disciplinary think tanks are on the rise, and are connected to international networks, stimulating fresh discussion. Young people are more interested than ever in the future of the planet and seem to be infecting their parents and teachers with concerns of career and employment. New political parties are being created on a basis other than the old socialist versus conservative divide, governments are becoming climate conscious and ‘greener’ and somewhat more liberal and attentive to future opportunities and partnerships with neighbours.
Final words
To put an end to populism is not an easy task, given its multifarious triggers. For writers such as Kaltwasser, Chantal Mouffe and the late Ernesto Laclau, the root problem is the nature of democracy itself. Specifically, failing economies, rise of cultish figures and the inability of mainstream parties to deal with the existential national issues are responsible for the rise in populism. Support for populists eventually fades away if the economic situation worsens. However, if there is no candidate presenting an alternative or the opposition is divided, a return to liberal democracy becomes difficult. The phenomenon of populism has many shades and nuances depending upon different locations and socio-cultural contexts. Style of politics, jargon of terms like ‘fascists’, ‘imperialists’, ‘dictators’ are bandied about indiscriminately to emotionally sway the general public. Arguing with populists in counter-polemical style needs to be replaced by sober, fact-based discourse. Today, many populists come from different professions of film, advertising, sports, media and others. Their experience in politics is limited but it does not mean that they are not competent; at the same time, politicians are also culpable. Instant remedies, oversimplifications, conspiracy theories, self-righteousness, lack of tolerance and hauteur are typical traits of many populists. Broadening the canvas, populism is not just about domestic concerns: when citizens feel that their state has lost global importance, they are more susceptible to populist messaging. It is not just a movement, but also a political style, relying on emotional and even overtly offensive language to stress the urgency of their demands and proximity to the people. Institutions like the EU do not easily master this style. Given its complexity, tailor-made strategies would be more suitable to address the rise of far right populism. Although populists are very much future-oriented when it comes to their concerns, economically speaking, they take a short-term and redistributive approach to policy issues. In budgetary terms, they prefer spending, e.g. the establishment of a minimum wage or increased pensions; environmentally, curbing restrictions on businesses to protect jobs; socially, they will most likely identify ‘others’ as the cause of the problem.
The writer is former Adviser, Centre for Policy Studies, COMSATS, Islamabad, former President of Islamabad Policy Research Institute, and ex-Head Department of International Relations, NUML University, Islamabad