Austria's new Chancellor Sebastian Kurz gives the press conference after meeting at European Commission HQ in Brussels, Belgium on 19.12.2017. Wiktor Dabkowski/ Press Association. All rights reserved. In the
past, when a country was suffocating, it could be aired by opening the windows
to neighboring countries. But now we do not have this resource any more. In
neighboring countries the air has become as unbreathable as in ours. José Ortega Y Gasset
The concept of ‘left-populism’ that has been attributed
to emerging democratic and justice-based political movements throughout the
world, including such entities as Podemos, Syriza, France Insoumis, the Five
Star Movement, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour and Bernie Sanders' alternative
political agendas, involves a misconceptualisation. We offer a new concept
called “left-transformation” to explain the policies of those movements and
argue that they are not populist, and that their programs are in fact anti-populist
and based on justice. In this first piece, we will focus on the concept of
populism, elaborate its origins and invite the reader to rethink the concept. Our
second article will explain why we use the concept of ‘left-transformation’ and
why it is a more radical way of forming a political strategy for those
movements.
It is apparent that global society is experiencing
a severe oscillation in its political, social and economic spheres. This
oscillation stems on the one hand, from inequality, precarity, poverty, the
resurgence of racism and the rise authoritarian regimes throughout the world;
on the other hand from democratic and justice-based movements whose goal is to
ensure equality, liberty and fraternity in their societies. That is to say, the
polarization is deepening and societies can now be divided into basically two
camps: conservatives and progressives. "The tyranny of the majority"
which is becoming the hegemonic power in many countries threatens the notion of
“plurality” and targets minorities, intellectuals, democrats and migrants as
enemies. Under these circumstances, the uncertainty of the future both
politically and economically rattles the everyday life of people, inhibiting
any expectations they may have of prosperous lives.
The aura of the current era has created an illusion
in academic and political debates, which has led to its being described as "the
age of populism". However, we argue that populism is just a morbid symptom
of this age. In his famous work Prison
Notebooks, Antonio Gramsci argued that "the crisis consists precisely
in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this
interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear ." Today, once
again humanity encounters a crisis while capitalism is in its death throes and
the new order cannot emerge. However, we believe that as Milton Friedman opined,
" only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change.” The history
of the world has witnessed progressive movements arising from periods of
crisis, resulting in gains for basic human rights and producing democratization
waves.
Today, there are similar signs of the emergence of
new progressive movements throughout the world such as Podemos, Syriza, France
Insoumis, the Five Star Movement in Italy, the Labour Party under Jeremy
Corbyn's leadership and Momentum, and Bernie Sanders's alternative political
groups in the US. These movements are based on issues of justice and equality.
However, they have faced two dangers: (1) the fusion of populist politicians
and international mainstream institutions and media, and (2) academic
mischaracterization of such movements.
With regard to the first threat, populist and
mainstream leaders often label newly formed democratic movements “utopic” or
“politically impossible” in the political realm. The movements headed by such
figures usually base their power on fear and anxiety and often successfully
persuade the masses into believing that “there is no alternative”, to inhibit
the spreading of hope and courage. As for the second threat, in academia, those
movements are described as “left-wing populist”. Using the notorious concept of
"populism" for these movements undermines their progressive ideas and
capacity to change. Hence the need, spelt out in our second article for the
concept of “left-transformation”.
What
is populism?
Today, populism is addressed as a dominant
political phenomenon throughout the world. We argue that populism is a real
threat to the consolidation of justice and democracy, deepening polarization in
the society and manipulating information. Although it is a very popular topic
in academia and a rising phenomenon in politics, the literature on populism is
scattered. Theoretical debates on populism have not reached a consensus over
the definition of the concept: instead there is a consensus on its vagueness
and elusiveness. Thus, to define the anti-populist and progressive
characteristics of left-transformation movements we will explain our approach
to the concept.
Populism is mainly explained in the literature as a
political strategy, discourse, ideology, and kind of policy.[i] Prominent
academics like Benjamin Arditi, Benjamin Moffitt, Cas Mudde, Chantal Mouffe,
Ernesto Laclau, Margaret Canovan have explained the concept in various ways. We
will elaborate populism as a kind of policy-making rather than a well-structured
ideology. However, such policy-making, it is generally agreed, is a pathology
of democracy.
The existing literature on populism has consensus
on three main characteristics: First, populism divides the society into two
camps: “the people” and “elites”. Second, the people and elites are in an
antagonistic relationship as two homogeneous groups: "the pure
people" versus "the corrupt elite". Third, populists argue that
people should be the sovereign in politics and all obstacles against this
notion should be removed.[ii] However, is it possible to label any political
movement a populist one just because it is against the establishment and refers
mainly to “the people” in its discourse? How can we distinguish the inclusive
and justice-based political programs of the transformative movements under this
general heading?
In this respect, we believe that Jan-Werner
Müller’s comprehensive conceptualization is helpful to define the distinct
characteristics of populism. In his book, “What is populism”, which was
published in 2016, Müller argues that populists divide society in two but attribute
legitimacy only to themselves and the people who support them. By people,
populists refer to "people like us"; others are illegitimate and a
potential enemy. Populist politics asserts that the main source of the existing
problems in society lie in those intellectuals, journalists, academics, judicial
members and terrorists and whoever else are captured by them into one very
large spectrum. Thus, populism is based on an exclusionary perception towards sections
of society. It is a moral way of imagining the political world, and this kind
of politics of morality cannot as such be consolidated. [iii]
Muller points out that not everyone who criticizes
elites are populists. Populists are anti-pluralists by claiming that they alone
represent the people and all other political competitors are essentially
illegitimate and not part of "the people". According to Muller,
populists do not aim to create a participatory democracy. Their resort to referendums
is not a path taken to encourage the participation of people in government, but
arises from their wish to be confirmed by “the people” for their acts of power.
Populists argue that only they can determine the will of the real people.[iv]
Muller asserts that when populists govern, they engage in occupying the state,
mass clientelism and corruption, and suppress civil society. They can write
constitutions but those constitutions are designed to keep them in power in the
name of the popular will. [v]
It is obvious that populism is a pejorative term in
the sense that it is accepted as “a pathology of democracy”, and populist
leaders are recognised as political manipulators who act on behalf of their own
interests by using “the common people” to their own ends. On the other hand,
there are also ongoing debates on the necessity of populism as a catalyst for
ultimate democratization, and on populism as the “inevitable product of
democracy”.[vi] Muller argues that populism is not a corrective for liberal
democracy but that it does help us to understand the reasons for the current proliferating
problems of the existing system. Furthermore, we believe that the rise of
populism heralds the simultaneous emergence of progressive movements in politics
which can recognize the sources of populist tendencies in society.
The
origins of populism
We believe that there are two main reasons for the
emergence and rise of populism: bogus-democracy and capitalism. While the
former creates and deepens political inequalities, the latter attains the same
end in the economic realm. These two aspects are not interdependent from each
other but interrelated. The rise of populism mainly stems from people's search
for a new form of representation as a result of a political and economic
impasse. However, populism does not offer a solution for these inequalities and
insecurities: instead it deepens the existing problems. Furthermore, populist
movements have prompted the suppression of basic rights. Populists in governments
combine with contagions of bogus-democracy and capitalism to create countries
where people are more precarious, fearful about their future, frustrated,
lonely and angry.
We argue that populism is based on a very specific
way of reading social conflicts to use them to disseminate and consolidate
their ideas. Albert Hirschman defines two kinds of social conflicts: one is the
conflict of “more or less”-“divisible”, the other is the conflict of
“either-or”-“non-divisible”.[vii] It can be argued that until the 1980s, class
politics still had an influence in the political arena. Class politics is based
on the conflict of “more or less” and this conflict can be overcome with a
politics of redistribution. To be specific, working classes demanded a more just
distribution and equality in both politics and economics by using their unions
and political parties as intermediaries. Although class politics has a conflict
at its roots, it does not terminate the political discussion on such conflict.
However, “either-or” conflict does not allow any discussion. In politics and
society, this conflict can be formulated as: “you are religious or not, you are
like us or not, you will participate like us or you will leave the country.”
This strict division of society is the highest level of identity politics. The
demise of class politics and the rise of identity politics since the 1980s has severely
narrowed the political spectrum. Worse, identity politics has been turning into
a politics of finger-wagging morality under the impact of populism.
The predominance of identity politics has created a
political and social crisis and triggered populist movements. Populism as a
kind of policy-making pursues “either-or” divisions and does not attempt to
create a policy agenda that gets rid of conflicts. Furthermore, today we have
reached a stage of bogus-democratization, whereby the democratic principle has deteriorated
and the participation of people in politics has been constrained to a democratic
shell. By bogus-democracy we refer to a political system where democracy is confined
to a voting mechanism, checks and balances in the system are undermined and
political and economic power is in the hands of the establishment, the barons
of the established order, a fusion of plutocrats and political elites.
However; the reason for populism is not confined to
identity politics and the politicians who exploit it. Another important cause
is the capitalism which creates severe inequalities and insecurities which are
reflected in everyday life. Rent-seeking barons who dominate the economic and
political areas benefit from profits; but the burden of the loss is carried by ordinary
people. Each person carries this burden of financial and political crisis in
their everyday lives. Although there is some amelioration after crises, the
continuity of systemic crises, the never-ending passion for rent-seeking and
the remorseless commodification of basic resources have created and deepened
poverty, resentment, frustration and exasperation in society – feelings that
soon turn to anger.
The commodification of basic needs and the expansionist
notion of a rent-seeking capitalism as well as political inequalities within
and across countries create both domestic and regional wars. Politicians and
international institutions who are expected to prevent those wars either
support the wars, or become incapable of preventing them. As a result of this,
people have to leave their home countries and become refugees.
Migrants are exposed to exclusion in host societies
that lack social and political justice. The future which is on offer from the
populists promises people an image of better living conditions by getting rid
of the refugees, minorities or any possible perceived threat to their future.
The idea of “sharing the bread which is already too little with the strangers”
is used by populists as a fear that underpins the unequal and unjust hegemonic
order of the current age. Moreover, the increasing flow of migration and
governments’ failure to provide inclusive migration policies exacerbates the
polarization and racism in host societies. Migrants are specifically targeted as
the source of those inequalities and conflicts in society.
There is another story in the non-western
countries. This time it is not the refugees but the opposition labelled as
terrorists who are coded as the source of all problems. While the migrants are
coded as the source of social and economic unrest by western populists, the
progressive opposition become the targets of populist demagogues in the non-western
countries by being labelled ‘terrorists’. Intellectuals, journalists, academics
are marked out as the main reason for insecurity, precariousness, poverty, and
exclusion in society.
Seeking those who are guilty for the existing
crisis is a recurring historical phenomenon. After the Great Depression of 1928,
fascism raised and created violent consequences for humanity as a whole. Today,
in the lack of inclusive and alternative agendas to cope with problems, people
embrace populist ideas throughout the world. Even the developed countries which
are known as the front-line of western democracy experience the rise of
populism such as Trump’s leadership in the US, the National Front in France, the
Freedom Party in Austria, the Alternative for Germany.
To sum up, the world is in a systemic stalemate.
The reality of racism, hatred, anger, insecurity and inequalities is spreading irresistibly.
There is no way of escaping from all these daily phenomena unless there is an
alternative systemic project to challenge it. However, these inequalities,
which stem from bogus-democracy and the dynamics of capitalism have
simultaneously established the ground for alternative movements that have the potential
to transform the daily lives of people and show them the possibility of an
alternative perception of a just society where they can live prosperously as
equal and free members. Their programs focus on the establishment of social and
political justice. Although they are coded as left-populism both in academia
and in the political arena, we insist that they are not populist. In the second
article, we will explain why we refuse to apply the term to these alternative
movements and why this distinction is a must for all people who desire to live
in a just future society.
[i] Yunus Sözen(2017) Demokrasi, Otoriterlik
ve Populizmin Yükselişi, p.10.
[ii] Yunus Sözen (2010) Politics of the People:
Hegemonic Ideology and Regime Oscillation in Turkey and Argentina, Unpublished
Dissertation, New York University, Department of Politics. pp.237-238
[iii] Jan-Werner Müller (2016), “What is Populism”,
University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 38.
[iv] Ibid. p. 101
[v] Ibid. P.102
[vi] Christa Deiwiks (2009) “Populism.” Living
Reviews in Democracy. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrd-2009-3
[vii] Albert O. Hirschman (1994). Social Conflicts
as Pillars of Democratic Market Society. Political Theory 22 (2):203-218.