Populism and Populists - New English Review

by Paul Austin Murphy (May 2019)

Le Masque Arraché, James Ensor, 1915

Everyone should be a little suspicious of the platonic Forms which go by the names the People and the Elite. This phenomenon of the reification of political or sociological entities is well captured by the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard. (In this case, he talked about the Platonic Form the Workers.) He wrote:

[The Marxist/socialist] says: ‘the mass of the workers.’ But the mass is never that of the workers, nor any other social subject or object… The mass is without attribute, predicate, quality, reference. This is its definition. It has no sociological ‘reality’. It has nothing to do with any real population, body or specific social aggregate.

So leftwing activists and politicians have taken to these two words like ducks to water. Forget the words “neoliberal”, “Zionist” and “far Right”—they’re so passé. What we now have now are such words as “populist Right”.

For example, the former Mayor of London and former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, has been described as a “right-wing populist” by Prospect and others. Jacob Rees-Mogg has also been described with exactly the same words by the Economist. Then again, these Conservative politicians have also been linked to the “far Right” by many of the very same (leftwing) commentators (e.g., by Hope Not Hate, the Guardian, etc.). In addition, The New York Times classed Ukip as “the largest right-wing populist party” in the United Kingdom.

Having said all that, in terms specifically of the academic use of the words “populism” and “populist”, they are neither new terms nor newly relevant.

Definitions

“should be abandoned by academics”. More specifically, the “political theorist” Margaret Canova wrote:

political term. That is, a tool of activism through words, rather than a term about politics. Not only that: it’s often a term which expressly puts an anti-populist position. So it’s no surprise that hardly any political groups or politicians have ever described themselves as “populists”.

to those who feel

neglected, even held in contempt, by increasingly distant and technocratic political and economic elites.

Leftwing Populism

“general will”, for example, can be deemed to be view about the virtues of political populism. In addition, any leftwingers who focus on “far-Right populism” should also bear in mind Jeremy Corbyn’s hero: Hugo Chávez. The Venezuelan leader argued that an “economic elite” had sabotaged his reforms—speak for himself on this:

All individuals are subject to error and seduction, but not the people, which possesses to an eminent degree of consciousness of its own good and the measure of its independence. Because of that its judgement is pure, its will is strong, and none can corrupt or even threaten it.

Take also the example of the political theorist Ernesto Laclau, who sees populism as being an “emancipatory” phenomenon which enables “marginalised groups” to challenge “elite powers”.

Furthermore, in the 20th century the term “populism” was often applied to leftwing and “anti-authoritarian” political parties and groups which were active in Western democracies and in Eastern Europe. And in the 21st century, the term was also used to refer to leftwing groups in the Latin American “pink tide”. It must also be added that Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain were deemed to be populist.

To take another tack on this.

“For the many, not the few” meant to express the “voice of the people”?

To sum up: if populism is indeed a real or substantive political reality, then it belongs just as much to the Left as it does to the Right—let alone only to the “far Right”!

Keir Starmer was explicit when he used the buzzword “populism”. Basically, Starmer believes that “populists” work against socialist “internationalism”. Or in Starmer’s own words:

Let’s hope 2019 is a year where long-established values of internationalism, cooperation and collaboration overcome populism across Europe and the World.

at least he did so until he became the Leader of the Labour Party in 2015! Of course Corbyn has now toned things down a little, lest he split the Labour Party in two.

populist Left.

More detail.

He went on to say:

The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Living standards are stagnating or falling. Insecurity is growing. Many people feel left behind by the forces unleashed by globalisation. They feel powerless in the face of de-regulated corporate power.

Basically, the leader of the Labour Party offers us a traditional Marxist analysis of the current situation. Thus:

Utopia in the UK will flourish.

. . . unless progressive parties and movements break with a failed economic and political establishment, it is the siren voices of the populist far right who will fill that gap.

Prince Hussein

Now take the case of Prince al-Hussein

“demagogues and political fantasists”. Mr Hussein did so while addressing a security conference in The Hague.

Prince al-Hussein included Geert Wilders, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage in his very broad and very political generalisations. However, he singled out the Dutch leader, Geert Wilders, as an especially bad “bigot”.

Peace, Justice and Security Foundation. Firstly, he said that he was speaking directly to Geert Wilders and his “acolytes”. Indeed he was speaking to all the “populists, demagogues and political fantasists” who inhabit Europe and America.

Prince Hussein continued:

Mr Hussein also warned his audience that such racism and populism could easily and quickly descend into “colossal violence”. So Prince al-Hussein finished off his speech with the following words:

Are we going to continue to stand by and watch this banalisation of bigotry, until it reaches its logical conclusion?

Yet the only places in which there is colossal violence nowadays is in largely Muslim countries.

The People and the Elite

“homogeneous and virtuous”. (As already hinted at in the introduction.)

Stand Up To Racism/Socialist Workers Party, etc. are always saying “don’t let [x] divide us”. In other words, the Left, like the Right, often stresses the people’s homogeneity and virtue at the expense of vices of the elite. However, the Left and Right will of course select different groups to homogenize.

the people are sovereign”.Yes, it is right and proper that the state/government’s decisions should take account of the population as a whole and “the people” should not be ignored. However, this too, admittedly, is a vague position to advance.

So despite the fact that “the people” is an abstraction, we can still ask:

If the people aren’t sovereign, then who (or what) is?

Read More in New English Review:
• Much More than a Trade War with China
• Rock Around the Clock: Dance Mania of the Left

The elite? Yes, here we have another abstract noun. Nonetheless, there are indeed institutions and individuals who treat the People with contempt and suspicion. And this has been the case throughout recorded history.

The Elite

no matter how pure and democratic they were before gaining power.

So some level of elitism, in that sense, unavoidably comes with political power. And then we must also factor in the fact that power corrupts.

«Previous Article Table of Contents Next Article»

__________________________
. His Twitter account can be found here.

Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast

Back to Home Page