The rise of modern populism - Takis S. Pappas

In the mid-1970s, after decades of
political turmoil,

Greece finally seemed to be
on the path to stability.

With the introduction
of a new constitution

and negotiations underway to enter
European institutions,

many analysts expected Greek politics

to follow the pattern of the
larger Western world.

Then in 1981, a political party
called PASOK came to power.

Its charismatic leader Andreas Papandreou
railed against the new constitution,

and accused those in power
of “national betrayal.”

Opposing Greece’s membership in NATO
and the European Economic Community,

Papandreou promised to govern for the
betterment of the “common people"

above all else.

He famously declared, “there are no
institutions, only the people exist.”

Papandreou’s rise to power isn’t a unique
story.

In many democratic countries around
the world,

charismatic leaders vilify political
opponents, disparage institutions,

and claim the mantle of the people.

Many critics label this political approach
as authoritarian or even fascist.

However, this style of politics is
actually democratic,

and goes by the name of populism.

The term populism has been around
since Ancient Rome,

and has its roots in the Latin
word “populus” meaning “the people."

But since then populism has been used
to describe dozens of political movements,

often with counterintuitive and sometimes
contradictory goals.

Populist movements have rebelled against
monarchies, monopolies,

and a wide variety of
powerful institutions.

It’s not possible to cover the full
history of this term here.

Instead, we’re focusing on one specific
type of populism.

The kind that describes Papandreou’s
administration

and numerous other governments
over the last 70 years: modern populism.

But to understand how political theorists
define modern populism

and why it’s so important, we first need
to explore what it’s responding to.

In the aftermath of World War Two,

many countries wanted to move
away from totalitarian ideologies.

They sought a new political system that
prioritized individual and social rights,

aimed at political consensus, and
respected the rule of law.

As a result, most Western nations adopted
a form of government

called liberal democracy.

In this context, “liberal” doesn’t
refer to any political party,

but rather a type of democracy that has
three essential components.

First, liberal democracies accept that
society is full of many,

often crosscutting divisions
that generate conflict.

Second, it requires that society’s many
factions

seek common ground
across those divisions.

Finally, liberal democracies rely
on the rule of law

and the protection of minority rights,

as specified in constitutions
and legal statutes.

Liberal democracies helped bring stability
to the nations that adopted them.

But like any system of government, they
didn’t solve everything.

Among other issues, an ever-increasing
wealth gap

created a divide between the general
public and their political leaders.

In some cases, this led to corruption that
further damaged the public’s trust.

Growing suspicion and resentment around
these politicians

primed citizens to look for
a new kind of leader.

A political candidate who would challenge
established institutions

and put the needs of the people
first: a modern populist.

Like any type of democracy, populism
prioritizes the “will of the people.”

However, modern populism places those
interests

above even the general institutions
of liberal democracy.

To the modern populist, society is divided
between

a vast majority of virtuous common people
and a self-serving ruling minority.

Rather than seeking compromise,

modern populists consider this
divide irreconcilable.

As a result, politics is no longer about
finding consensus

through democratic institutions.

Instead, modern populists seek to overturn
what they see as a broken system.

This means that where a liberal democracy
has the utmost respect for institutions

like courtrooms, free press, and
national constitutions,

modern populism disparages any
establishment that disagrees

with the so-called “common will."

Modern populist parties have
arisen in many places,

but the leaders of these movements
are remarkably similar.

They’re often charismatic individuals

who identify themselves as embodying
the “will of the people."

They make exorbitant promises
to their supporters,

while casting their opponents as traitors
actively undermining the country.

But whether these leaders are sincere
believers or manipulative opportunists,

the dynamics they unleash

can be profoundly destabilizing
for liberal democracy.

Even when modern populist leaders don’t
follow through

with their most extreme promises,

their impact on political discourse,
the rule of law, and public trust

can long outlast their time in office.