There has been much discussion in recent years concerning the rise of populism, and the threat that this may or may not pose to our current way of life; but are we really sure what it is?  I for one do not believe that there exists a consensus on this, and I would suggest that we should know what something is before we can attempt to gauge its impact on our society.

Populism is defined in the dictionary as those “political activities or ideas that claim to promote the interests and opinions of ordinary people”, and as such cannot be applied to any one specific field of political opinion.  The term Populism then, can be considered as representing many different political positions, all of which appeal directly to a group of people considered to be ‘non-elite’, i.e. ‘ordinary’.  For the purposes of this description, the ‘elite’ are defined as those who take part in the political, cultural or economic control of the country.  It is further assumed, that the ‘elite’ in this context are always a minority of any population (although I personally would argue that those involved in the political, cultural and economic management of a state need not be a minority).

Populism then aims to represent the ordinary voter as opposed to representing a favoured few.  Now, I might be wrong (for wrong read naive?) here, but shouldn’t that be the role of EVERY politician in a democracy..?

When Populism is referred to in today’s world (in the political context at least) it is seen to be a negative term.  This strikes me as odd, since I cannot understand why the idea of representing the views of the majority should be seen to be negative.  Perhaps this is because Populism is often equated with the idea of mob-rule and dis-organised politics, as opposed to the calm organisation of the establishment politics.  If this is the case, and the term Populism is equated with mob-rule, surely there is cause to wonder if the term itself is being misused?    Perhaps we should examine to whom (and by whom) the term is routinely applied.

In terms of ‘to whom’ the term is applied, it is evident from its application to politicians on the right (Donald Trump) and on the left (Bernie Sanders) that politicians from all sides of the political spectrum can be labelled as ‘Populist’ – therefore  that in itself cannot be a discriminating factor.  According to some, Populist politicians can be identified by their behaviour and their speech; as they adopt a pattern of speech to which people can immediately relate – something which is close to that of how the ordinary person speaks.  Furthermore, such politicians do not necessarily follow the recognised (diplomatic) pattern of behaviour, and they are often seen out amongst the ‘people’ rather than governing.

Beyond these linguistic or behavioural elements however is for me the more pertinent fact that the politicians which are described as ‘Populist’ often represent views which conflict with the views of the establishment.  The ideas they espouse are rarely what would be described as mainstream, and they tend to be clear, identifiable and often uncompromising.  This for me, is ultimately the principal factor – the ideas of populists are not supported by the ‘establishment’.

To turn to the question of by whom the term is used – I think that it would be fair to say that the term is only ever used by those who form part of the ‘establishment’.  Once the label has been applied, the modern media machine then springs into action and the label is reinforced by political commentators and journalists.  In terms of its use therefore, it seems to me that the term is nothing more than an exercise in name-calling; and one that is designed to permit the immediate dismissal of political opponents and their ideas.  In a political landscape such as the United Kingdom for example, there are 2 major political parties, who between them hold 85% of the Members of Parliament.  At every election, in order to win they aim to grab as much as possible of the ‘centre-ground’ from each other.  This has led to a closing of the gap between the parties – and is an approach that cannot tolerate the more radical ideas.  This explains the ease with which populist politicians can be derided as extreme, or unrealistic – unimplementable even.  This then becomes self-fulfilling – unsupported ideas are politically unimplementable, so by not supporting them the politicians render the policies unimplementable!  Which allows the ideas to be derided as unimplementable…

Of course, it is also perhaps worthy of consideration, that labelling someone else’s views as populist – when used in a derogatory fashion – suggests very strongly that the person doing the name-calling is not populist.  From which we can perhaps infer that their own political opinions do not reflect the desires of the ordinary person… Hence, we can conclude that the current political ‘establishment’ is not populist…  in which case maybe the better question we should be asking is “Why (or even how) it is that most nations employ a system of democracy which does not actually represent the views of the ordinary voter?”

Perhaps this last point is the true malaise of our time, maybe the real issue is that our politicians do not represent the views of the ordinary voter.  Perhaps this is why there has been a move to more populist politics.  It is possible that people are starting to realise that our current political systems are not the democracies that they claim to be.  Politics today has become a world of compromise, a world where policies are implemented for the benefit of the establishment rather than the people.  It is an environment in which truly radical solutions are not possible, and where soi-disant ‘extremes’ from all sides are dismissed from the debate as impossible or unrealistic.

Surely that cannot be what democracy is…

We should redress the misconception of what populism is… let it become something to which all politicians aspire.