The rise of modern populism - Takis S. Pappas

View full lesson: https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-rise-of-modern-populism-takis-s-pappas

In many democratic countries, charismatic leaders vilify political opponents, disparage institutions, and claim to be for the people. Some critics label this approach as authoritarian or fascist, while others argue that these leaders are manipulating voters. This style of politics goes by the name of populism. Takis S. Pappas explores the phenomenon and the lasting impact it can have on a country.

Lesson by Takis S. Pappas, directed by Patrick Smith.

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.

Some critics label this approach
as authoritarian or fascist,

and many argue that these leaders
are using emotions

to manipulate and deceive voters.

But whether or not this style of politics
is ethical, it's certainly democratic,

and it 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 this phenomenon

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 longstanding 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.

Taken together, these ideals propose

that tolerance and institutions
that protect us from intolerance,

are the bedrock of a functional
and diverse democratic society.

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

led to underserved communities

who distrusted both their wealthy
neighbors and their political leaders.

In some cases, political corruption
further damaged the public's trust.

Growing suspicion and resentment
around these politicians

primed citizens to look
for a new kind of leader

who would challenge
established institutions

and put the needs of the people first.

In many ways, this reaction
highlights democracy in action:

if the majority of a population feels
their interests are underrepresented,

they can elect leaders to change
that using existing democratic systems.

But this is where assertive, modern
populist candidates can subvert democracy.

Modern populists identify themselves
as embodying the "will of the people,"

and they place those interests

above the institutions
that protect individual and social rights.

Modern populists argue
these institutions

are run by a self-serving ruling minority,

who seek to control the vast majority
of virtuous common people.

As a result, politics is no longer about
seeking compromise and consensus

through tolerant democratic institutions.

Instead, these leaders 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 populists disparage
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 politicians 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.