While democracy is facing challenging times for a wide range of reasons at this point in our history, nothing is as potent as populis challenge facing it today. Populist movements are spreading not only in Europe and the USA but also in poor countries in Asia and Latin America. The rise of populist political movements is generally attributed to declining socio-economic wellbeing and an erosion of democratic legitimacy. These two factors have combined to encourage populist leaders and movements to try to capture state power. Populism denounces social and economic inequality and the privileges of the wealthy and calls for renewed national unity in the name of "the people''.
Populism is essentially divisive politics appealing to "the people'' against "the elite''. It creates an environment of perpetual state of crisis and imbibes a sense of victimhood to keep supporters mobilised. The idea of "the people'', to which we can analogously use the terms such as mass or mob. The singularity of the term blankets social complexity and difference. This homogenisation of the people enables a demagogue to espouse the totality of the people. In fact, a demagogue can invent "the people" through distinctive political acts and invoking a sense of victimhood to further his/her political interests. Therefore, demagoguery, in essence, is inseparable from populism. A demagogue by harnessing grievances of "the people'' is capable of articulating and coordinating actions to overwhelm the state and its order. Populism flourishes in democratic political systems. But at the same time populist leaders also present a threat to constitutional democratic institutions and processes by presenting themselves as leaders above party pluralism by claiming their right to rule in the name of "unanimous will of the people'' .
Populism is a synonym for extremism, racism and exclusionary prejudice of all kinds - the very antithesis of democracy. The rise of rightist political extremism clearly demonstrates these features today. Populism is fundamentally contextual and situational, therefore completely bereft of any ideology. Because it does not have any ideological mooring, it must have to be looked at in the historical context it arises. This is why populism always has homegrown dimension to it. Populism of Modi is not the same as Trump's.
However, history is replete with examples of extremists and demagogues exploiting insecurity, prejudices and fear in their bid to power and on many instances even succeeding. Trump in the USA, Orban in Hungary and Duda of Poland are politically successful examples in our contemporary time in the USA and Europe. Populism is now a Europe-wide Phenomenon. The leading populist figures in Europe now include Nigel Farage in the UK, Marie Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Heinz-Christian Strache in Austria, Matteo Silvani in Italy to name a few - in effect the paranoid populist politics is bubbling up in most the countries in the West. Such bubbling up of political and economic discontents provide the foundation for the rise and spread of rightist political extremism in the Western world today.
Trump's electoral success, indeed, energised the populist political forces in the West. Under the slogan "Make America Great Again'' (an American acquaintance of mine told me that many in the USA now read this slogan as "Make America Great Britain Again"), he is beefing up the military-industrial complex, stripping away regulative controls on corporations, even rolling back regulations imposed on financial institutions in wake of the global financial crisis (GFC). Trump, instead of focusing on the real causes of discontent, is flaring up anti-immigrant sentiments, ethnic and religious prejudice, thus leading the country to the extreme form of nativism and nationalism.
In a period when public confidence in democratic institutions is waning and the practice of democracy revolves round where power is systematically redistributed among the elites, the political consensus based on neo-liberal economic model practically leaves no difference between parties of the Centre, the Left and the Right. The rage of populist leaders is directed to the elite for their failure to respond to the concerns of "the people''. But their concerns go far beyond their rage against the political elite and legitimate economic grievances, rather they use those grievances to advance divisive manipulation of identity politics to gain electoral success. The cynical use of Us Vs Them becomes the catchword of political opportunism.
Populism as a political style also harnesses the strength of anti-democratic forces. Some voters do not share democratic values. These voters favour a system which favours their coreligionists, race or social status. In societies where the economic cake is small relative to the people who wish to share it causes resentment and that can lead to politics of exclusion. Under those circumstances people tend to take out their resentment on groups they consider do not believe in their way of life. Populist movements can push xenophobic ideologies that can open up the door to fascist regimes.
In our own neighbourhood, in India, we have Narendra Modi who is shaping up his country to be a Hindu nation (or more precisely, a syndicated Hindu state. Syndicated Hinduism is the title of a book by India's noted historian Romila Thapar which was originally published in 2010 and is also included in her latest book titled The Historian and Her Craft: Collected Essays and Lectures, published in 2018.) harnessing those very prejudices and hatred. India is a country of multitude of ethnicities, languages and faiths. Modi is leading a party openly contemptuous of plurality in politics. This is the man who oversaw the pogrom against Muslims while he was the Chief Minister of Gujarat. Till today he refused to express any regret or remorse. He not only harnesses the prejudices and economic grievances but also mobilises the violence of the young in particular, but also of the mob. He directs their anger and frustration towards Muslim religious minority, liberal elite and the people with cosmopolitan views. Public lynching of Muslims is now a regular feature in India.
India has very high levels of voter participation and they have definitely opted for the authoritarian Modi. Not only that. Many states across India are also now under the control of his party. He sees himself as a visionary and a new breed of politician who thrives on harnessing the hatred and prejudices of large sections of the citizenry and keeps those continually bubbling. It is hate that catapulted him and his party into power and it is hate that guides his political agenda. This is where majoratarianism leads a country to - Us Vs Them. Modi tried to shut down critical civic groups as he closed his eyes to intimidation and hate crime by his Hindu nationalist supporters against the Muslim religious minority. He is peddling a very dangerous idea that some people are less human than others. Thus institutionalising stripping away the humanity of the people he has been dehumanising them.
Many political analysts believe that the populist movement has become a permanent feature of the political landscape both in the developed and the developing world. No wonder mainstream political parties, on the right and the left and the centre, are increasingly embracing political rhetoric of the populist leaders by incorporating anti-immigrant and Islamophobia into their political agenda. At this critical time in our history, we need more deliberative democracy because democracy remains the counterweight to the dangers of populism. That requires a strong civil society and wider and greater participation of the citizenry in the democratic institutions and processes. At the same time, vigorous defence of human rights and the rule of law can further strengthen both the spirit and practice of democracy.
Muhammad Mahmood is an independent economic and political analyst.
