Populism Ideology

Populism

Question One: Populism Ideology

Populism is a term often used in politics and media to represent a political ideology. Although this is the case, the term lacks a comprehensible definition. This is unlike other ideologies such as liberalism, socialism, or fascism. The lack of a clear meaning of populism has led to criticism of the term (Mudde and Kaltwasser, 1). Critics argue that the term is vague. They also dismiss it as a term used to denounce political opponents. Although this may be the case, some scholars have maintained that populism is an ideology that cannot simply be dismissed.

To elaborate on any political ideology, one must show its explanation or views of human nature and society. The same case applies to populism. However, this ideology is limited in its definition of these terms. Mudde and Kaltwasser attribute this limitation to the fact that populism is a “thin-centered ideology” (6). Such ideologies tend to attach themselves to full ideologies such as liberalism or fascism. For instance, populism borrows some ideas of liberalism. In other cases, it borrows aspects of nationalism from fascism leading to the classification of the ideology as right-wing. Despite these attachments to other ideologies, populism has unique concepts that set it aside.

Human Nature. It is difficult to have a full grasp of the concept of human nature in populism. The reason for this, as I see it, is that populism is mainly concerned with “the people” as a collective. In this way, it differs from liberalism which is concerned with the individual. Instead, it leans towards some aspects of the concept of nationalism that is embraced by fascists. This is not to say that populists share the same views of human nature as fascists. This is far from the case. Fascists view people as irrational beings driven by emotion and passion. This depicts human nature as unreliable. On the other hand, populists believe that people are reliable and capable of governing themselves. Hence, populism is closely associated with liberal democracy. Human nature in populism is mainly understood in terms of good and bad (Mudde and Kaltwasser 6). The common people are believed to be homogenously good while the ruling class or elites who hinder the wellbeing of the people are viewed as homogenously bad.

Society. All political ideologies have their explanation of society. From the liberals’ view, for instance, society is made up of individuals who look after their self-interests. Conservatives, in contrast to liberals, believe that society is like a fabric of interdependent individuals. Populism is no different. In this ideology, society consists of two main groups: the people and the elites. Populism postulates that the two groups exist in an antagonistic manner in society. On one side are the people who wish to exercise their general will. On the other are the corrupt elites who act against the general will of the people. The populist’s main agenda, therefore, is to dismantle the elites so that the general will of the people may prevail.

Populists’ View of Governance. To comprehend the views of populists on what politics should be, one must understand the three core concepts in populism. These are the people, the elites, and the people’s general will. As earlier mentioned, the populists aim to ensure that the general will prevails. There are two ways to achieve this aim. First, the “evil” elites must be factored out. They are accused of betraying the people by no longer fulfilling the functions for which they were appointed (Laclau 176). Identifying these elites presents a challenge. In other ideologies such as conservatism and fascism, elites refer to the few individuals who constitute the ruling class. In populism, the term takes the same meaning. However, it extends to those holding leading positions in the media, arts, and the economy. Interestingly, there have been situations where the president of a nation complains about the elites. Therefore, elites in populism appear as shadowy forces that are almost mystical. Given that identifying the elites is a challenge, the second way is considered. This involves allowing people to exercise their will directly.

Populism supports that people ought to exercise their general will. It is worth noting that liberal democracy advocates for the same idea, at least theoretically. However, choosing representatives based on the majority vote presents a problem for populists. This is because such representatives are not always keen to identify and promote the general will of the people. Populists offer a solution to this. Instead of having a representative government, the people should be allowed to exercise their will directly through mechanisms such as referenda and plebiscites (Mudde and Kaltwasser 17). They refer to this as direct democracy.
Question Two: Populism and Fascism

In Europe and the US, it is common for populists to be cast in a negative light. The reason for this, as I see it, is the populists’ criticism of representative democracies and the establishment. This factor casts populism towards the right side of politics. Although populism borrows some aspects of fascism such as nationalism, the two ideologies also differ in their views of human nature, society, and politics.

Human Nature. Populists’ and fascists’ definitions of human nature are different. Fascists, on one hand, view humans as being who cannot be depended upon to think rationally. They insist that people are simply driven by passions in their actions. This is one of the points on which they criticize liberalism. Also, they use this argument as a basis for elitism. This is a concept that populism is heavily opposed to. According to fascists, elites are necessary to exercise rule over the people (Ball et al. 194). Populists, on the other hand, hold that people are capable of rational thinking and governing themselves collectively. In populism, elites are considered as corrupt and immoral. They work to advance their interests while suppressing the will of the people.

Society. The subject of society is mainly where comparison of populism and fascism begins. First, populism recognizes the society as made up of the people as a collective, rather than individuals. This appears similar to the dismissal of individualism by the fascists. However, I argue that this is not the case. The collectiveness of society in populism is aimed at advancing the common interests of the people. In this case, the people are defined as the sovereign, the common people, and the nation (Mudde and Kaltwasser 9). The collectiveness of people in fascism is aimed at advancing the interests of the state. In such a society, the interests of the people are not of importance. Instead, everybody is expected to sacrifice themselves and find fulfillment in advancing the nation’s agenda (Gentile 292). Unfortunately, such an agenda is dictated by one individual or a group of elites.

Another point of comparison is nationalism. It is a concept that is synonymous with fascism and not strange to populism. The definition of the people in populism is flexible. However, it is commonly used to refer to the native people of a country. For instance, one might talk about the people of Mexico or Brazil. In such a case, the term is used to refer to those who are native to such regions and who share a common life. Using the term in such a way reveals a similarity with fascists. For instance, Mussolini was motivated by nationalism to bring the nation of Italy together (Gentile 296). The problem with the concept of nationalism is that it assumes that a nation should comprise of a common people who share aspects such as ethnicity. This may lead to discrimination of minority groups.

Politics. Governance in populism differs from that in fascist regimes. The major difference stems from the fact that populists advocate for the general will of the people while fascists promote the interests of the state. Hence, in fascism, power is concentrated at the top in a totalitarian setting (Gentile 296). Populism instead aims to give all the power to the people. There are mechanisms through which the people are expected to exercise this power such as referendums. Such mechanisms are a taboo in a fascist’s government. In such nations, the people are expected to obey the elites without questioning (Gentile 304). Populism, on the other hand, advocates for doing away with elites.

Question Three: Populism and Liberal Democracy.

In this case, there are two contrasting arguments. One is that populism is a fundamental threat to liberal democracy. The other is that this ideology acts as a correction to liberalism. Such arguments call for a closer analysis of populism and liberalism to inform a sound discussion of their validity. To begin with, it is important to address the aspects of populism that are accused of threatening liberal democracy. One of these is the lack of individualism. Liberalism views every individual as having their self-interests (Ball et al. 48). Populism, instead, talks about common interests. It is almost as if all people are expected to speak in one voice. This notion is unacceptable to many liberalists. They see it as a threat to the few who might disagree with the generally accepted common interest of the people. Such minorities are likely to be sidelined. Another aspect that threatens liberal democracy is the dismissal of representative government. Liberalists believe that people ought to govern themselves. To manage these, they elect representatives based on one man one vote. People, therefore, govern themselves through these representatives. Populism, on the other hand, maintains that people are capable of governing themselves without representatives. This idea is viewed by many as a threat to liberal democracy.

The opposing group argues that populism is a correction of liberal democracy. It is no surprise that most populists are found in liberal democracies. The problem that populism aims to correct is that of the general will of the people not being advanced. They argue that liberal democracies are not responsive to some segments of the population sufficiently. This is either because of the corrupt nature of elites, or the incapacity of the leaders to see the general will of the people. Populists critique the representative government for treating people as passive beings who are only called upon to act during election time. To correct this situation, populists call for direct exercise of democracy through means such as referendums. This empowers groups that do not feel represented by the political establishment adequately. Consequently, populism promotes popular sovereignty.

Works Cited

Ball, Terence, Richard Dagger, and Daniel I. O’Neill. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. Taylor & Francis, 2016.

Gentile, Giovanni. “The Philosophic Basis of Fascism.” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1928, pp. 290-304.

Laclau, Ernesto. On Populist Reason. Verso, 2005.

Mudde, Cas, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser. Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2017.