FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Spectre of Populism

by PHILIPPE MARLIERE

London.

A spectre is haunting Europe: the spectre of populism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre. Various political movements and politicians are described as ‘populist’ in the media and in academia. To name but a few: Nigel Farage’s Euroscepticism in Britain, Geert Wilders’s Islamophobia in the Netherlands, Beppe Grillo’s anti-elite campaign in Italy, Jobbik’s anti-Semitism in Hungary, Die Linke’s anti-austerity programme in Germany, Marine Le Pen’s Fascism with a human face or Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s pro-6th Republic in France. What do these political forces have in common? In truth, very little. Some are ideologically and politically poles apart. If these parties are politically different, why indiscriminately refer to them as ‘populist’?

What is ‘populism’?

Traditionally, the notion of ‘populism’ has been used to refer to the opportunistic exploitation of popular, sometimes demagogic, sentiments with a resonance amongst the masses. More recently, the label of ‘populism’ has been more loosely applied. In its current acceptation, populism essentially entails:

– A criticism of the forms and practices of liberal democracy;

– A movement that tends to draw its values from the past and which offers an ideological and sentimental landmark;

– A ‘Manichean’ worldview in which the ‘people’ are celebrated and the political elites are presented as ‘corrupt’ and ‘out of touch’. Populism is therefore about siding with ‘the people’ against ‘the elites’.

– Demagogy and ‘catch-all’ politics.

Such typology is not entirely enlightening. Firstly, to be critical of liberal-democratic institutions does not necessarily make a politician or a party an enemy of those institutions, let alone a threat to democracy. Secondly, mainstream parties arguably can also draw inspiration and values from the past. Think, for instance, of conservatives and traditional social-democrats. Thirdly, there is nothing wrong with popular movements singling out ‘corrupt’ and ‘out of touch’ politicians. Fourthly, virtually all parties across the political spectrum are desperate to be in tune with ‘vox pop’ and practice various forms of ‘catch-all’ politics. Otherwise, why would they bother to run focus groups and why would they be over-reliant on opinion polls? These preliminary remarks show that populism is a rather ambivalent concept and therefore one has to exercise a degree of caution when using it.

Until 15-20 years ago, studies on populism referred almost exclusively to Latin America. In the 1930s and 1940s, many regimes based themselves on authoritarian politics such as Getúlio Vargas’s Estado Novo in Brazil or Juan Perón in Argentina. Here, populism meant that leaders and political forces adapted to the prevailing mood of the nation, moving within the ideological spectrum from left to right several times during their political lives. From the 1950s, Latin American populism managed to capture high levels of working-class support, notably when it was associated with left-leaning petty bourgeois nationalism.

A perceived threat to representative democracy

Over the past fifteen years or so, the word’s meaning has changed quite considerably. Nowadays, it rarely defines authoritarian regimes which appeal to the masses, but rather designates left-wing or right-wing movements which are seen as challenging the dominant ideas or policies. What is more, critics of populism worry about the mobilisation of the people in politics. Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, recently observed that ‘the mantra of the moment is “listen to the people” – a call for populist politics dressed up to look like a demand for the genuine democracy which is said to be denied to Britain by an unrepresentative and remote elite.’ According to this line of reasoning, popular democracy seems unnecessary and it can even be dangerous. It certainly has to be mediated though a professional political elite who is wiser and knows better.

More than anywhere else in Europe, the notion of populism has been used aplenty in French politics and academia. This is largely due to the persisting electoral successes of the Front National, an extreme-right party, from the mid-1980s onward. It is quite ironic to note that the reference to populism in French media and academia is inversely proportional to the presence and visibility of the ‘people’ in politics (understood as working-class or ‘popular’ classes). In other words, the less represented the ‘popular’ classes are in political parties, in parliament or in government, the more ‘populism’ is branded a threat for French society.

Talk about ‘populism’ culminated in 2005. After a politicised debate nationwide, 55% of French voters rejected the European Constitution. Mainstream parties and media had all called for a ‘yes’ vote. They were prompt to reprimand an ‘irrational’ and ‘immature’ electorate which had followed ‘populist’ politicians from the right and from the left. Hardly one year later, the Lisbon Treaty – a repackaged version of the European Constitution – was adopted by heads of state behind closed doors. This time, the French government did not consult its people. Nicolas Sarkozy, then French president, publicly admitted that had he organised a new referendum, the French would have opposed it again. To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht: by voting ‘the wrong way’, the French ‘people had forfeited the confidence of the government’. As the government could not possibly ‘dissolve the people and elect another’, it opted to impose its decision in this most undemocratic manner.

Distrusting the people

There is more to it than the question of people’s ‘political immaturity’. The ‘populism’ tag subliminally signals that the popular classes are morally corrupt and dangerous. Evidence of this is that they support demagogues. By labelling political movements as antagonistic as UKIP, the Five Star movement, Jobbik, the Front National or Die Linke, one tends to demonise forces which have only one thing in common: they disagree with mainstream political parties’ policies. In so doing, one confuses political movements which are historically antagonistic. For instance, Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon are both frequently called ‘populist’ in the media and by some academics. Yet their worldview and policies are totally at loggerheads. Le Pen’s politics is essentially ‘ethno-centred’ (end of immigration, anti-Islam stand, discrimination against foreigners), whereas Mélenchon’s politics is essentially a radical critique of neoliberal economics. By branding both politicians as ‘populist’, one rather insidiously suggests to the public that the Front National and the Front de Gauche are two symmetrical forces. In other words, they are the two flip sides of the same coin or the same rotten apples that spoil the barrel.

In the mid-1980s, the French political scientist Pierre-André Taguieff presented the Front National as a ‘National-Populism’; a notion originally used in the United States to describe the New Right [1]. He was adamant that the Front National was no longer ‘extreme’ or ‘fascist’, but simply ‘radical’. This is a contentious interpretation. The Front National in the mid-1980s was a party which had been founded ten years earlier by a ragbag of Monarchists, former Nazi collaborators, Maurrasians, former OAS members (French terrorist organisation in Algeria), and whose leader had been condemned several times for publicly expressing racial and anti-Semitic abuse. Critics saw it as an attempt to water down the Front National fascistic legacy (Vichy and Pétainism, French Algeria), as well as the extreme nature of some of its policies (on immigration and nationality law). Indeed to call the Front National ‘populist’ sounds less extreme and threatening. It somehow gives the party an air of ‘respectability’. Some have contended that it helped kick-start a long process of ‘de-demonisation’ of the French extreme right.

The categorisation of the extreme right as ‘populist’ has above all helped discredit both the left and the popular classes themselves. In the mid-1995, Pascal Perrineau talked of ‘Gaucho-Lepénisme’ to explain that a significant fraction of communist voters had transferred their votes to the Front National [2]. If true, this would demonstrate that the ‘two political extremes’ converge and are politically compatible. Furthermore, it would confirm the idea that blue collar workers are racist and authoritarian, and therefore politically unreliable. Annie Collovald has demonstrated that this was a far-fetched interpretation [3]. Marine Le Pen may have received 31% of the working-class vote in the first round of the 2012 presidential election; the truth of the matter is that 69% of them did not vote for her. Furthermore, the notion of ‘Gaucho-Lepénisme’ overlooks two important factors. Firstly, a very large number of working-class voters abstain from voting altogether. Secondly, since the 1950s, there have always been a fair number of working-class people who have rejected the left in France. So there is nothing new here.

Populism and demophobic feelings

‘Reasonable’ commentators in France suggest that the popular classes switch their allegiance from mainstream parties to the extreme right or the radical left for essentialist reasons; because they are allegedly ‘racist’, ‘authoritarian’ and politically ‘immature’. Few wonder whether this vote transfer might not have to do with the socio-political environment, such as the economic policies implemented by mainstream parties (austerity), the economic crisis, unemployment, the loss of class identity or politicians’ corruption and broken promises. As for the so-called ‘authoritarian’ penchant of the popular classes, the ‘reasonable’ mainstream parties only have themselves to blame. Both Parti Socialiste and Union pour un Movement Populaire have for so long put at the heart of their programmes and rhetoric the issues of immigration and law and order, both advocating a ‘tough stand’ on crime.

It is tempting to point out that the accusation of ‘populism’ for some betrays hardly concealed ‘demophobic’ feelings. Those who constantly fear or lament ‘populism’ seem indeed to believe that voters – notably of modest extraction – cannot be trusted to make the right political decisions. Thus when they do not vote the way the political elites had anticipated, their opinion is null and void. The 2005 referendum in France famously illustrated this point. Furthermore, mainstream parties as well as governments and international organisations have a tendency to project their own interests as ‘national interests’ while the interests of their opponents are belittled as ‘corporatist’ and ‘narrow’, or to put it in one word as ‘populist’.

Ambiguous and ill-defined, the notion of ‘populism’ offers little heuristic value. It furthermore fails to grasp the various backgrounds and motivations of anti-systemic parties as well as the nature and density of their conflict with the dominant social, economic and political institutions in our societies. The use of ‘populism’ is today problematic. In some quarters, the fight against ‘populism’ seems to be a convenient pretext to dismiss whoever challenges the ideas of what Alain Minc once optimistically called the ‘Circle of Reason’. Others call it the ‘Circle of Neoliberal Thought’.

Philippe Marlière is professor of French politics at University College London (UK). He tweets @PhMarliere

Notes. 

[1] Pierre-André Taguieff, ‘La rhétorique du national-populisme (I)’, Cahiers Bernard-Lazare, no 109, June-July 1984, p. 19-38 and (II), Mots, no 9, octobre 1984, p. 113-139.

[2] Pascal Perrineau, Le symptôme Le Pen. Radiographie des électeurs du Front National , Paris, Fayard, 1997.

[3] Annie Collovald, Le populisme du FN, un dangereux contresens, Editions du Croquant, 2004.

 

Philippe Marlière is a Professor of French and European Politics at University College London (UK). Twitter: @PhMarliere

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail