Populism has become a growing trend in contemporary liberal democracies; however, it is surrounded by conceptual obscurity and ambiguity. Even professional political scholars are divided into their approaches to populism, its origins, and the very definition of that phenomenon. Their attitude towards populism can also be described as mixed since some scholars find it threatening to the democratic political process. In contrast, the others manage to see positive effects of populist attitudes.
They also have different views on the social and psychological status of the citizens with populist attitudes. Regarding the definition, in this paper, populism will be viewed as “an appeal to “the people” against both the established structure of power and the dominant ideas and values of the society” (Canovan cited in Bang and Marsh 2018). As for the impact on the democratic process and society, some manifestations of populism can positively influence political representation and participation, therefore promoting social and political equality.
First of all, it is necessary to highlight and understand the key traits and variants of populism and the underlying psychological and emotional grounds of its emergence. According to Bang and Marsh (2018, p. 353), populism is characterized by the rejection of pluralism, the appeal of strong leadership, and an anti-modern stance. Populism understands “the people” as a whole, represented by the “leader” who serves as a symbol of the nation or a particular group. Therefore, populism tends to reject or neglect such institutions as political parties or the parliament. The lack of pluralism can be seen as illiberal rather than anti-democratic since populist attitudes focus on representing a group rather than the individuals within it.
The anti-modern stance expresses itself in opposition to modern political and economic trends, such as globalization and mass migration. Quite often, populism becomes an integral part of identity politics since it is based on the needs of the community, belonging, and affiliation, deeply rooted in the human mind (McDermott and Hatemi, 2018). Given the definition of populism used in this paper, citizens resort to populism when the established governing institutions cannot adequately represent them.
Scholarly take on populism frequently views it as a simplified and emotional discourse, appealing to naive people with a low level of political competence. Lipset argued that populist and extremist parties appeal to “the disgruntled and the psychologically homeless, to the personal failures, the socially isolated, the economically insecure, the uneducated, unsophisticated, and authoritarian persons at every level of society” (Lipset cited in Rico, Guinjoan and Anduiza, 2020). This rather harsh evaluation of populism is persistent; however, more recent studies showed that populist attitudes have a more diverse and pro-democratic support base.
First of all, individuals with stronger populist attitudes appeared to be more supportive of democracy than individuals with weaker populist attitudes (Zaslove et al., 2020). This find seems to be in accordance with populist opposition of the “people” who they belong to and represent, to the “elite”. Populism supporters have also shown greater political awareness (Rico, Guinjoan and Anduiza, 2020) because they do not trust the politicians easily and critically evaluate their statements and performance. Therefore, populist individuals can be supportive of democracy and more knowledgeable about politics than the scholars think.
Nevertheless, the connection between the level of education and income and support of populism exists. In that regard, Lipset was correct, as studies proved, that populist attitudes tend to attract people with lower income and education levels. Populism resonates stronger among the economically deprived and less educated individuals (Anduiza et al., 2018). The reason for that can be two-fold: firstly, these persons can see their income and education level as what makes them belong to the “people”. Secondly, simple and straightforward populist rhetoric finds a better way to their hearts and minds, unlike “overly sophisticated” statements of the established political leaders and parties.
However, this might not necessarily be seen as a negative phenomenon that must be purged from the political system. Without populism, significant layers of society would be excluded from political life, and their views and opinions would remain unarticulated. Consequently, populist attitudes help to alleviate inequality in political participation and representation, giving a chance for the excluded and underrepresented (Anduiza et al., 2018). In that sense, BLM can serve as an example of the populist movement, which launched a campaign for an equal representation of an ethnic group.
Populism can provide an opportunity for inclusion into an institutionalized political process for those who otherwise would be outside of it. Populist attitudes generate a significant mobilizing resource since they satisfy demands for identity and purpose. However, the political participation of individuals with populist attitudes can take various forms. For example, populist attitudes do not motivate citizens to vote in elections, but they make them more likely to join an online campaign or, in some cases, participate in demonstrations (Anduiza et al., 2018).
Since the elections are a formal political institution, populist mistrust can discourage casting a vote, especially if populist leaders and movements are not represented among the candidates. On the contrary, individuals with populist attitudes are more willing to partake in direct democratic procedures, such as online petitioning and referendums (Zaslove et al., 2020). In certain circumstances, populist attitudes can mobilize support for traditional elections and put particular parties or candidates into power (Huber and Ruth, 2017). However, these parties and candidates are often unable to govern efficiently and keep their seats and offices since all their experience is based on criticizing and being in opposition.
Therefore, populism is appealing to the individuals with lower levels of income and education, who believe in direct democratic institutions rather than in representative elite and often possess greater political awareness than non-populist citizens. Populist-backed parties and candidates can achieve electoral success but are often unable to develop it. Given that background, should populism be considered an issue for democracy, a possible threat, which must be addressed? On the contrary, the surge of populism should be seen as a warning signal for democracy, as populism seeks to return “power to the people from the excesses of pragmatic politics” (Canovan cited in Zaslove et al., 2020).
Populist attitudes are mainly strong among the underrepresented and unprotected social groups, and populist movements provide them a chance for inclusion into politics and equal representation. As a result, a simple condemnation of all populist movements and ideas would be a case of fighting a symptom instead of curing an illness. Moreover, that would be a sign of weakness and neglection from the established democratic institutions and their unwillingness to compete against the populist agenda in the democratic framework.
In conclusion, populism in the non-extreme manifestations is not a significant issue in itself. However, it can serve as a sign of growing tensions and conflicts within society. To some extent, populist agenda comes from the natural wish to be accepted, protected, and represented. Therefore, if existing democratic institutions do not provide mechanisms for inclusion and equal representation, resorting to populism can remain the only political instrument available to vulnerable or marginalized social groups. As long as it does not deliberately encourage violence, the populist discourse should be viewed as an acceptable means of political struggle for social equality rather than a threat to society and liberal democracy.
Reference List
Anduiza, E., Guinjoan, M. and Rico, G. (2020) ‘Populism, participation, and political equality’, European Political Science Review, 11(1), pp. 109–124.
Bang, H. and Marsh, D. (2018) ‘Populism: a major threat to democracy?’, Policy Studies, 39(3) pp. 353–363.
Huber, R A. and Ruth, S P. (2017) ‘Mind the gap! Populism, participation and representation in Europe’, Special Issue: Populist Mobilization Across Time And Space, 23(4) pp. 462–484.
McDermott, R. and Hatemi, P K. (2018) ‘To go forward, we must look back: the importance of evolutionary psychology for understanding modern politics’, Evolutionary Psychology, 16(2), pp. 1–7.
Rico, G., Guinjoan, M. and Anduiza, E. (2020) ‘Empowered and enraged: political efficacy, anger and support for populism in Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, 59(4), pp. 797–816.
Zaslove, A. et al. (2020) ‘Power to the people? Populism, democracy, and political participation: a citizen’s perspective, West European Politics, 44(4), pp. 727–751.