Populism Flashcards
(34 cards)
What are demand-side explanations of populism? (Sheri Berman)
Demand-side explanations focus on the changing frustrations/grievances that voters have.
What are supply-side explanations of populism?
Supply side explanations focus on the unwillingness or incapacity of elites to respond to changing concerns’ of voters.
What are the economic factors that have driven populism (demand-side)?
Neoliberalism, technological change, globalisation, rising inequality.
This has made life less secure for working and middle classes and privileged those living in urban areas over those in rural areas. Dramatic increases in wealth and income inequality. Wealth inequality in USA higher than at any other point since the Census Bureau started recording it. Top 1% of the USA now own more wealth than the entire middle class.
Volatility of family incomes has increased, this has made life less secure for most people.
Social mobility has fallen, increasing divide between have and have-nots.
Those economic have-nots are more likely to live in broken communities, and fall prey to alcoholism and addiction.
These key economic reasons have made voters resentful and vulnerable to politicians who vilify and scapegoat elites.
USA and UK among the most unequal of Western democracies.
The 2008 financial crash accelerated the shift towards populism and the disillusionment with the political status quo.
There is strong evidence for the economic grievances hypothesis at the macro level. Particularly the sharp rise after 2008 suggests that economic issues are central.
At the micro level, the evidence is not strong. Scholars have been unable to find evidence that links individuals economic status with populist voting.
Some argue that it is individual’s perception of the future that is most significant, or the broader society (sociotropic).
This is mostly applicable to Western developed economies.
What are sociocultural factors that have driven populism? (demand-side)
Rising immigration, decline of traditional values, the rising position of women and minorities.
This has led white men to respond, voting for populist parties who promise to defend their interests.
In Europe, the refugee crisis of 2015, and high levels of immigration, from non-Christian and non-western countries led some to fear the decline of Western culture and identity.
Historically high immigration, accompanied by demographic shifts that are projected to become majority non-white by the middle of this century.
Strength at the micro level for the theory, but there is weakness at the macro level for the sociocultural theory. At the micro level, views on immigration are a strong predictor of support for right wing populist parties.
Scholars have found that attitudes surrounding ‘blacks, immigrants, Muslims’ are the best predictors of support for President Trump.
It is difficult to explain why populists are now successful, considering that racism and xenophobia are deep-seated and longstanding. Obama -> Trump.
How should populism be conceptualised and its success be quantified?
Populism should be considered a thin-centred ideology and its success should be quantified by considering electoral success.
Summarise the strengths and weaknesses of economic and sociocultural reasons at the micro and macro level. (demand-side)
The economic theory is strong at the macro level, as post-2008 there was an observed increase in support for populist parties. However, it is weak at the micro level, there is little evidence found that links individuals economic status with voting for populist parties.
The sociocultural theory is weak at the macro level, as racism and xenophobia have been longstanding. However, there is strong evidence for a link at the micro level.
How can this be reconciled? We might suggest that the economic conditions laid the groundworks for the rise in support for populists. It created the conditions for resentment and blaming of elites. The sociocultural reasons are a response by some to the economic decline that they have experienced. However, not everyone accepted the populists diagnosis of the problem. Those who blame immigrants have done so. However, others have responded perhaps by supporting left-wing parties that are not obviously so populist. Others might have responded with apathy.
How might the sociocultural and economic reasons be reconciled?
Some scholars have looked to combine these explanations to produce more complex but more convincing analyses of the rise in support for populism. Sociocultural factors are the more proximate cause, but this has been enabled by the decline in traditional values and rising economic insecurity. Status anxiety, declining status of blue-collar workers has left them susceptible to populist rhetoric.
Resource scarcity can be argued to be the key driver of the ethnic conflict. Thus it might be argued that a large part of the sociocultural grievances stems from economic decline.
Political scientists have found that when economic times are difficult, people are more susceptible to xenophobia, racism, anti-immigration.
What is the logic behind supply-side explanations for rising support for populism?
Social and economic changes are not necessarily causes of populism, they only become so if incumbent governments and the status quo are unable to deal with them.
The supply-side arguments focus on reasons why democratic institutions have become less responsive to citizens’ demands, leaving fertile ground for populism.
Decline of responsiveness and effectiveness of democratic institutions.
Supply side explanations present populism as a symptom of institutional decay.
What are the supply side-explanations for rising support for populism?
- Increase in private funding for campaigns, inability of working class to stand for office in the United States, due to being unable to raise their own campaign funds.
Interest of elites and political organisations powerfully shape policy, while ordinary citizens have an increasingly small role in doing so. Congress members spend more time talking to big business than to mass membership groups. - In Europe, the EU has reduced the number of policy choices on which parties compete. Voters have more control over the policies of their governments than of the European Union. There is also an increasing power of European courts which can be seen to undermine national democracy and sovereignty. “Judicial reform” to “prison conditions” to “pension reform, taxation, social security systems, and corporate governance”
Accountability was lacking on the EU side due to the Commission having too much power. - Increasing trend towards technocracy. For example, central banks are now independent in many Western countries. These central banks have embarked upon policies with immense distributional consequences, such as QE. There is a question about whether these policies are legitimate. The power wielded by central bankers fits neatly into rhetoric from populist leaders about restoring power and sovereignty to the people.
- The decline of mainstream political parties, such as lower membership, loyalty and weaker ties to civil society. Decline of social democratic parties left a void that could be filled by populist parties who promised to give a voice to the voiceless.
What is the distinction that Michael Oakeshott made between the ‘politics of faith’ and the ‘politics of scepticism’?
Oakeshott argued for a distinction between ‘politics of faith’ and ‘politics of scepticism’. The former takes politics to be a mechanism for achieving perfection or salvation in the world. The latter is sceptical of government and power, its main function is to keep order and reduce occasions for conflict by maintaining fundamental rights e.g. to property. The rule of law is crucial for this style of politics.
Both components are necessary to check each other. Alone, the politics of faith risks slipping into authoritarianism. Alone, the politics of scepticism risks slipping into political quietism.
How does populism link into this distinction between the politics of faith and politics of scepticism?
Populism emerges from frustration with the politics of scepticism, promising a vision of politics of faith, of clarity, certainty and control.
‘I have argued that reflections on populism illuminate the inescapable ambiguity of democracy. The tension between its two faces is a perpetual invitation to populist mobilization. But attempts to escape into a purely pragmatic interpretation of democracy are illusory, for the power and legitimacy of democracy as a pragmatic system continues to depend at least partly on its redemptive elements. That always leaves room for the populism that accompanies democracy like a shadow.’ (Margaret Canovan), who adapted Oakeshott’s distinction, calling it the politics of redemption/pragmatism.
Why is there confusion with the meaning of ‘populism’?
It is seldom claimed by the populist parties themselves. Is it a movement, an ideology, a syndrome, a strategy?
How should populism be conceptualised?
Populism should be conceptualised as a ‘thin-centred ideology’ which involves an exaltation and appeal to ‘the people’ and are all in one sense ‘anti-elite’. It can offer neither complex or comprehensive answers to the political questions that society generates. Populism can take many different shapes. It is not a coherent ideology. There is no canon of key populist texts.
What are similarly thin-centred ideologies to populism?
Elitism shares the division between the two groups but takes opposite views.
Pluralism emphasises the strength of diversity and different ideas and interests.
Populism and clientelism are commonly conflated in the literature on Latin American politics. Clientelism is a strategy, while populism is an ideology. Both are orthogonal to the left-right distinction. (498-9)
What are the core concepts of populism?
‘A core concept is one that is both central to and constitutive of a particular ideological community to which it gives inspiration and identity.’ Populism has three core concepts: the people, the elite, and the general will.
What is the concept of ‘the people’ and how can it be employed?
‘The people’ is a construction and its emptiness as a concept is what makes populism such a powerful political ideology and phenomena. It is typically used in at least one of the following ways:
- The people as sovereign
- The common people (socioeconomic status with specific cultural values)
- The people as nations (xenophobia)
What is the distinction between the elite and the people?
The distinction between the elite and the people is fundamentally a moral one. The corrupt elite and the pure people.
What is the concept of the ‘elite’?
The elite are defined based on power, with the exclusions of populists themselves. Distinction is moral not situational, which means that it is theoretically possible for populists to sustain their power.
Populists can define the elite in economic terms, which can be a useful device once the elite have gained political power. Post-communist Eastern Europe and in Latin America, e.g President Chavez.
How can populism be merged completely with nationalism?
Populism can be merged completely with nationalism when the distinction is both ethnic and moral.
What is the general will?
The concept of general will shares the Roussearian critique of representative government. Populism appeals to Rousseau’s republican utopia of self-government. Notion of the general will can lead to a risk of authoritarianism.
What is the relationship between democracy and populism?
Populism is democratic but not liberally democratic. Populism can play an important role in the establishment of a democracy but the reluctance to allow any restrictions on the general will means that a liberal democracy cannot develop.
How can the electoral system be significant in determining the electoral fortunes of populists?
If the electoral system is more proportional, this offers more opportunity for populist parties, while a more majoritarian system sets the bar higher.
High electoral volatility and space in the electoral arena (e.g. mainstream parties have not differentiated themselves on immigration) allow opportunity for populists.
E.g. Macron vs Marine le Pen, Reform Party in the UK
How can populists be impactful even if they do not win elections?
Even if they only win a small share of the vote, they put issues such as multiculturalism and immigration near the top of the agenda. E.g. the impact of Nigel Farage on British politics.
How do left-wing populists operate in South America?
They accuse the corrupt elites of stealing the nation’s resources at the expense of the poor.
