What does “populism” actually mean? Is it just an insult to be hurled at any politician you disagree with? Is it a natural part of the political process? With the European Parliament elections coming up in May, there have been predictions made that the “populist vote” could increase. What would that mean in practice?
Democracy is more than just the will of the people. There are two pillars to traditional liberal democracy: the popular pillar and the constitutional pillar. Without constitutional checks and balances on power, democracy is “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”. Constitutions set the “rules of the game” that popular politics can then operate in, helping to prevent tyranny (including a tyranny of the majority). However, some argue that the constitutional checks on popular power have gone too far, and it’s time for popular politics to reassert itself.
What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from George, who would define populism as the “foundation of democracy”. That certainly doesn’t sound like an unbiased definition of populism. Has George got it right?
To get a response, we put George’s comment to Paul Taggart, Professor of Politics at the University of Sussex. Did he agree with George? And how would he define populism?
To get another perspective, we also put George’s comment to Peter Lundgren, an MEP with the Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigration Swedish party often described as being “right-wing populist”. What would he say?
Well, populism for me is mainly a word that [my] political opponents are using. You must bear in mind, for example, with the situation in the European Union, it is not the populist parties who have lead the development in the European Union up to where it is right now, with huge problems to deal with. That is actually the so-called ‘federalist’ parties that are giving more and more power to the European Union.
So, actually, I’m flattered when they call me a populist, because that shows I have the will to change something. I don’t want to follow like a sheep among all the rest. I have a clear will as a politician to change how it looks in Europe right now. I want Europe to be a place where sovereign Member States are cooperating together, where we also trade and have good relations with each other.
For me, multiculturalism is something you will have if you keep national sovereignty, because every country has its own thing that makes them a little bit special. I don’t want to see 27 Member States (after the UK leaves) developing in exactly the same way…
How do you define populism? What does it look like in practice? Is it the “foundation of democracy”? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reaction!
45 comments Post a commentcomment
How do you define populism?
The Politically Correct madness, defines it as evil and creating opposition to their odd, stultifying views.
My understanding is, it is the voice of the people, which is the basis of democracy. Without which, we become ruled by dictatorship.
populism
/ˈpɒpjʊlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: populism
a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
“the question is whether he will tone down his fiery populism now that he has joined the political establishment”
support for populist politicians or policies.
“the government came to power on a wave of populism”
the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
“art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism”
Translate populism to
Use over time for: populism
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/james-miller
Cheating people talking about fashioned subjects like global warming, racism, intolerance and hate speech…
Short sighted
:D LOL
“It’s better to govern with the people than against them.”
“we put the will of the people over the law”
Quim Torra, president of Cataluña recently in a interview.
Political party: Convergencia, the one that ruined Cataluña with a massive austerity and rotten of corruption. Later, when they were finished in 2012, they waved the flag and became the voice of the “people”.
It works.
Incorrect. Self-determination is a fundamental human right, a natural and inalienable right. The “law” you refer to is wrong because it fails to recognize this inalienable right.
I disagree. Cataluña is not either a colony or there is any lack of human rights. It is just political opportunism with a pinch of racism against the rest of Spaniards.
According to your statement, any unscrupulous government, once the polls go bad for them, just has to wave a flag, demands assumptions from the middle age, and to fuel hatred against “the enemies of the people”. Also, the richest areas with greedy, as this case, to demand to be alone to avoid the animals without soul and with genetic problems, inferior beings (as Quim Torra, current president of Cataluña, has written defining Spanish people, just Google if you want to read it) taking profit from their hard work.
It is up to you, but there should not be room in Europe for this… Too much blood to fight against that mindset in Europe and here we go again…
Also, imagine that he succeeded, more than a half of catalans don’t want that. According to you, they would have the right to not follow the law as they would have the right for self-determination.
Where is the limit? Where you like just for your personal experience or beliefs?
That just drives to wars. No law, war…
I wrote about principles.
They are very subjective, based on feelings, experiences and our personal bias. Because of that law and order are needed.
Spain, with its big mistakes, is a democracy where the kaw allows them to get a referendum (not easy, it is true, but they can), but in 2012 many things happened and the catalan government, finished, started all this. Very important, this movement does not come from the people, it comes from the politicians. If you really dive into it leaving feelings aside, you could realize how bad this smells.
BTW, I don’t defend the horrible, incompetent and corrupt Spanish government. Only the Spanish and catalan right wings are taking profit from this… just waving flags and making us hate one another.
I define it as “Giving unrealistic promises and seemingly simple, but non-working solutions to complex problems in order to win more voters.”
This is the propaganda.
“populism” – the interest of the voting majority.
How do we have to “defend it”? – By protecting democracy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=populism
A better question will be: Why does EU defend “plutocracy” ?
I followed your link it doesn’t say that at all
Careless politicians who give up the responsibility of their role to gratify whatever some people say in order to be elected or keep power.
are you saying democracy is “bad”, and people need to be “ruled” by politicians, who “know what is best” for the people? ;)
seems like you are defending the “plutocracy”
Not at all. I’m saying politicians should never forget their responsibility and they should never encourage what goes against the greater good or choose personal gain, a manipulative attitude or individual power as their main goals.
Can someone please explain what is the difference between populism and patriotism??.
Hiho Dan. Patriotism is the general support of your country and its policies, a lighter form of nationalism where you simply stand with and help your country when its needed.
Populists may deeply disagree with their country. For example a “Patriotic” politician may support his country in a war even when it may be wrong (because they are stuck in it) while a populist may think the war to be foolish/created on lies/etc and oppose it, looking for any way out.
A populist can also ofcs support a war, but this was just an example.
MEP Peter Lundgren’s answer is reasonable = more popular, than that of Mr. RG STRACHWITZ’s view (see previous debate)- representing the German “Progressive Zentrum”= Pan Europeanism.
https://www.progressives-zentrum.org/author/rupertstrachwitz/?lang=en
If ever a suitable definition is found for political populism- it will solve absolutely NOTHING! It just blows more oxygen into this debate to keep it going in circles- like always- like Brexit- no exit!
The EU concept (as is) is perpetuated and driven by the existing but invisible ancient & current elites, the mega rich, the corporations they own, powered by their money, the think tanks & friends they support and implemented by the useful political serfs & climbers we elect in our limited wisdom!
Apparently the most “popular” around are singers like The Beatles – 178 million units- besides the current ones- like Justin Bieber, Bruno Mars, Rihanna, Beyoncé………etc. creating lots of pleasures- that’s why they are so popular, creating a wave of positive populism.
The most popular persons seem to be Muhammad (570 – 632 AD) Prophet of Islam, Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727) – British mathematician and scientist and Jesus Christ (c.5BC – 30 AD) Spiritual teacher and central figure of Christianity. All creating positive populism!
Than we have the most popular scientific concepts in order to understand all other concepts who are popular to create positive populism:
http://www.dailygood.org/story/478/35-scientific-concepts-that-will-help-you-understand-the-world/
There is no popular democratic model- except the most “common form” called representative or indirect democracy. It results in a mixture of hope, demands & disappointments. The supranational democracy is on/off popular to unpopular!
All justified criticism leveled against such imposed supranational EU concept by part of the unhappy population (60-70%?- need to be verified!) is labeled by its “Master Voice” as populist= the negative kind of populism= negative or dangerous populism!
No fists, no violence, no marches, no definition- just a “binding” referendum!
Got it?
@ EU Reform- Proactive
Well, it is really simple in practice. The politicians call the will of, or, preference for, the majority of voting citizens, if they disagree with their particular leaning, populism. However, if the voting citizen is heavily in favour of their governments given policy and appear to back the way they are leading, it’s referred to as a directive or mandate. Directive or Mandate, good, Populism bad.
As an example, the remarkable event taking place in the UK over our PM, May’s, so called Withdrawal Agreement, is this.The EU has our Parliament and our citizens in a fight with each other over an agreement that was written in whole by and passed by the EU actors. Then, on her first visit to Europe after the referendum, handed to May to get through our legislation department quickly. Therefore, today, Mrs May is offering our representatives a Treaty that was prepared and set out by the very people our voters want rid of. This is why every time it is rejected by the Commons, she has to rush back to the EU to get their permission to any changes to the wording. Which is designed in order to hide from our public the fact that the EU itself set up the rules by which the British can ‘leave’ their EU club. And as we know, this Treaty is not Leaving at all.
In other words, she has taken the wishes of the EU globalist instructors, in a ‘New Treaty’ of their collective agreement requirements, for our so called ‘withdrawal agreement’ and presented to our MP’s as if it is a genuine ‘leave’ expectation, constructed by our own UK government. And, by omission of these facts of its true creation, pretends it is a deal Britain has put forward to the EU to benefit the British majority who voted leave in or Brexit referendum.
You may well ask how I know this. It was a nationwide exposure on our last Question Time BBC programme, 14-3-2019, by a Cambridge Professor of EU Employment Law, Catherine Barnard, who claims to be in the know. It is on this added link about half way through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irBpeMiUJnY
So, May’s deal is really the EU’s deal.
The populists would be in dismay if they were aware our political representatives were working closely with the group they want to be free of. Hence, populists bad, mandate givers, good.
And here we are at why she can’t get this through. We all know it is not a leave the EU document, it is, in fact, an agreement to remain within EU regulation. With only a simple movement of wordage.
Nah Catherine- what say I?
“May’s deal is really the EU’s deal”!
Yes, I can only agree with you & your namesake the mentioned Cambridge Professor in EU Employment Law!
Your last parliamentary vote to “leave”- without a deal- was only lost by a “handful” votes- if I remember correctly. That begs the question: would Boris & his “handful” have remained (not resigned) from parliament- that probably “would have” tipped the outcome in ”favor” of a no deal and “could have” ended that “1st” uncertainty- before the many “other issues” needed tackling.
I don’t understand- why did Boris & Co decide to go on a “cycling tour to loose weight”- amidst a serious and important period?
So, what will the new but different proposal be? Your maneuvering space is getting smaller & smaller! The EU is (skillfully) depleting your options!
A strong and resolute new team could have been sent to the “battlefront” in Brussels- to start afresh & with determination! Surely, nobody wants the see a repeat of “a battle of attrition” between 2 European entities- like the WW1 “Battle of the Somme”- (Germany- Britsh+French)! This time- the EU has overwhelming “fire power” & reserves!
And- T. May should protest for being “kissed” every time they meet with JCJ! That’s undiplomatic & signals a fake familiarity! Or?
EU 21st century motto: everything is done by “legal attrition” & “peacefully”!
On a lighter note- not knowing the many details:
I wondered why your parliament chooses to “work” & vote at “night”? Do your MP’s mistake the UK parliament for a nightclub or a part time work opportunity? Work at “night” & sleep during the day? The morning hours are usually you’re “sharpest”!
How does your PM motivate, team together and find consensus between all her MP’s? Via cell phone- or do they have a 24/7 “war room” going?
Your PM & MP’s cannot cook up a serious strategy between & during tea breaks, shopping trips, resting & a quick meeting at night! In that department the EU has & will overwhelm your MP’s/government- because the EU has resources- goes to bed at night, is sharp in the morning and is deadly serious!
Yours Honorable John Bercow- MP for Buckingham & Speaker- is a very likable character! He reminds me of a typical “Old English sheepdog” who is herding and nipping his parliamentary Honorable-s into place!
That is what your PM needs to do with all her Conservative MP’s- all the time- specially during working hours!
Addendum:
Sorry, but T.May made herself even more unpopular last night! (Again this damn night shifts- she needs a “holiday”!) Did she still not figure it?
D.Tusk made it clear- T. May’s deal or no deal! Does she think another Canossa trip to Brussels and more kisses from JCK will work wonders?
Obstinate, defiant- fighting everyone, instead Brussels’- is that T.May? Even UK’s sovereign parliament wasn’t spared. Normally one faces the firing squad. Will she? Has the good Sheppard turned into a wolf?
No deal Brexit on the 29th is the only “fix” left for all the Honorable ones! How will it be phrased (differently) to pass the eagle eye of John Bercow?
Of course, after a bit of “chaos” the “real” & tough negotiations will begin & life starts afresh! Stay calm, by happy & don’t worry! I has & will come right!
Empty words.
@ EU Reform- Proactive
I was very amused by your reply regarding the machinations of our Parliament. Well, it’s the Commons really. Backed by the unelected in the red room.
First of all, regarding the objective of May. She is an adamant Remainer. Not a Leaver. Her and the husband have enormous funds invested in the outcome of a Remain in EU settlement. Which is why she and so many others are clinging on relentlessly. They want to sink the so called Leavers ‘ill informed’ wishes. And the Leavers, Boris and co, also have an on the fence situation for Remain along those lines. Boris’ Dad is an EU official pension receiver from via that little group, and it is therefore difficult for Boris to really want to set up a proper ‘Leave’ scenario. He is one foot in with the other out. But, they need to make a show of ‘trust us’ guys to persuade our 17.4 million ‘Leave’ voters that at least some of their elected representatives have their wishes at heart. Unfortunately, the man who would make a very fine Leader, is also financially entwined in EU investments. In fact, all of them are, one way or another, caught up to their necks in the racket and will not fare well should there be a full Leave of that club. Hence the dismay when the vote went the way it did. They were not prepared and three years hasn’t given them enough time to reset their portfolios.
This was why May was chosen to lead. Chosen not elected. They pulled her nomination from Conservative membership as they knew she would not pass the test. Can’t debate for a start. And none of the men wanted to touch it. She had little to lose, she has a husband. And the Lords are cushy. She will go straight to this ‘other place’ when the awaited resignation takes place. She will have performed her task.
The few who went off to slim did so for a number of reasons. Presentation is very important if you want to win an election to lead. Boris and his new amour have their eyes on number ten. His hair and his fat were too hard to conceal, he would be side tracked and hen pecked Gove shoved in his place. So, in Boris case, needs must. As far as reality is concerned, he already knows the outcome is preconceived, so taking a break wouldn’t do any harm. This three year farce is simply for effect, to pretend we are taking the democratic steps needed. This is called a ‘deal.’ When no deal is necessary. And to give room for adjustments as they know many of them, on both sides of the spectrum, are not going to be re-elected. Their constituents are furious and want so many of them out. They must have time to set up new jobs giving them a comfy income once out. Its their pay back time for marking time this way.
John Bercow was a plant as Speaker. He is supposed to be a Conservative member and as Speaker, neutral. Clearly he is neither Conservative or neutral. However, he is a clever manipulator and knows House rules well. Takes liberties by turning to Charles 1 rules for help when he’s in trouble and wants to keep his men lined up behind him, just in case. Again, the Lords awaits, can’t burn that bridge.
What is happening in that place is, a strong, long held power of Lawyers, PR men, etc., as well as back room boys, are way out of their depth. The Leader is weak and has no vision, therefore, they await the EU Globalist power boys to jump in and save them. Only, there has been a dramatic shift in deep state policy which means, as you rightly say, they are going in circles as they divide up the spoils between them. The people are not so willing to turn a blind eye the way they used to. Makes it awkward. And that is because they see power as traitorous toward those who run this show. The taxpayer has suffered for too long and is about to pull the plug on the money.
And, I forgot, the night time sitting is to do with their day jobs in part. Most of them are connected to Hedge Funds, Banks and so on, so they only arrive at the House from about noon on. Late night drinking, late out of bed. Turn up for five minutes at their offices to spill the beans to those paying those little emoluments. Then, off to Parliament for lunch, drinks and to wait for the Division bell. Nice work if you can get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QurCB1lCHp0
Hi Catherine,
i liked how you “deflowered” the commons! It could real be funny if reality would not be that tragic & full of pretending & fake democrats! A pity a “Bernard Shaw” is not alive anymore. Thanks!
“Populism” is a word which has been invented by the ones who think to be in love with our nation and with the people who are living there is bad. In “populism”, there is “population”. For some people, especially the elite, there is nothing more stupid, more bad, more vulgar than the population, that is to say people. Perhaps, we should remind to the elite that, in France, all the revolutions have been made by people who never has been nice with the elite during these periods.
I totally agree with you
Populism is letting people think that difficult, controversial problems are easy to solve.
First of all, i’m sorry for my terrible english… I’ll say that populism, in the corrent meaning, is used to describe those political forces, agency and institutions who build a narrative of reality around the fears, worries and sometimes viscerale desires of a part of the electorate (and in italy, for example, this group has been very well targeted and subsequently hammered with ‘costum made’ propaganda). Due to the fact that this kind of political “storytelling” needs semplifications and emotional appeal, usually the modern so called populist parties choose to focus their communication on old and well-tested bullsh… sorry… traditional values, like family, ethnicity, nation, monetary sovereignty. They tend to produce socially divisive propaganda and absurd anti-economical and anti-logic statements in order to keep the discussion on the lowest Level, where is easy to use emotion instead of reason. We should admit that “populism”, in this context, is just an euphemysm for sciovinistic, reactionary (if not totally fascists), forces caratterized, all across the continente, by different degrees of racism, misogynism, and mere bad manners. This forces are exploiting the discontent for the current economic system that an ideollogicaly empty (when not corrupt or incompetent) left has been unable (or unwilling) to intercept. Love from Italy gals and guys… Europe is falling into madness, and even this time “prima gli italiani!”… italians first. Pupulism meant something else, once, but who cares of historical accuracy nowdays?
@ Renato Barrella
I wish my Italian was one tenth as good as your English. You are exceptionally good at it, so pat yourself on the back. Well done.
Just another label stuck on people who disagree with the neoliberal agenda
A new word to vilify those who disagree with the mainstream
a very old word for a very old problem and people who feel vilified should question themselves before they question others
Populism is when rich elites build media campaigns to deceive the uninformed and Stoke up social unrest against the enemies of those very same elites.
but this is what normally happens in a democracy.
No it isn’t. For instance if I get elected promising to abolish all forms of taxation I would win easily. Salvini in Italy is currently in power because he promised to lower taxes to a very great extent and many other racist things…
But using dangerous promises to win elections so as to actually do the bidding of economic elites is exact what populism does.
but the choice is up to people. People should judge what is dangerous and what is reasonable. Obviously there’re politicians that want to keep power and politicians that want to seize it and luring people into voting them by waving a candy under their nose is part of the game, at least in a mass democracy.
Well actually that works if you are assuming an informed public with a homogeneous high standard of education and if that is the condition I agree with you: any “crazy” votes end up being averaged out.
But that is not the word we live in. People have far more basic education than before. But the world is now based on complex relationships, past decisions and treaties and also highly specialised knowledge.
To simplify it into a “tribal democracy” is possibly a bit dangerous.
A populist is a person who is prepared to lie in a very much more significant way. All politicians lie to get votes, but populists lie to take votes and then use the authority they get for their own interests, or those who interests (often international) they owe something to.
While doing so they don’t govern, they continue the election campaign on social media and on the TV. They spend little to no time doing their job, and spend far too much time posting selfies.
They have no respect for institutions because they think they have gamed the system and have absolute power and everyone else is a fool.
I’m sorry there is a very large difference between politics and populism.
Populism is democracy when they vote against you.
Only idiots believe that
A reactionary movement in opposition to prior unpopular ideas being slammed into peoples throats by two or more disconnected sides of the establishment. Essentially it seeks to rectify politics into a form the common man agrees with, regardless of his or her ideological flavor.
Wouldn’t exist if democratic capital was high and popular discontent low. The last French president ended his presidency with a 10% approval rating for example and the current one is heading that way. Such things shouldn’t exist and there needs to be an outlet for popular discontent to remove politicians or rectify policies the vast majority of the population of a nation or group of nations disagree with.
Just for example as other reactionaries like nationalists wouldn’t exist in large numbers if their members concerns hadn’t been ignored too long.
Populism? Politicians promise sollutions. Check wiki for: We can`t live without EU and euro. The EU will bring us lots of economical growth and social wellbeing. I don`t recall a national growth above 3%. Without the EU WW III will start. The lights will go out forever.
Such claims where there 1995-2002. We had the bank crisis and euro crisis since. Now the Brexit. You simply can`t trust politicians