1
Understanding the Populist Signal A Policy Network and Barrow Cadbury Trust Project
Introduction Traditional solutions to stem the rise of populism have focused on tackling economic and socio‐cultural determinants. These remain central to the alleviation of the populist phenomenon; however the rise of populist parties across Europe also needs to be acknowledged more as being a product of political dissatisfaction and establishment fatigue. The crisis of representative democracy runs deep. Politics is no longer seen as a force for good, particularly among younger generations. Policy Network and the Barrow Cadbury Trust will lead a new project on how and why populism can be seen as both a threat and a corrective to liberal democracy and the health of political parties and public institutions.1 The populist threat comes through stirring reactionary and hyperbolic political debates on issues such as immigration, Europe and welfare, putting pressure on mainstream political parties to react and move in line with their discourse. The corrective comes in seeing the rise of populism as a warning signal to parties and governments to revisit their approaches to governance and political representation. As populism is a contested term, often misused in the media, it is defined here as a “thin‐
centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the ‘pure people’ and the ‘corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people.”2 It is important to emphasise that populism is a democratic argument that aims to change the institutions of representative liberal democracy into a direct, expressive form. The project emphasis is not on distinguishing between ‘good populists’ and ‘bad populists,’ as populism as an ideology is at odds with liberal democracy. The point is to dig deeper into why the phenomenon has gained so much ground in the European political landscape and explore what signal it sends about the health of modern day governance and political representation. 1
Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira and Cas Mudde. 2012. Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or Corrective for Democracy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ibid. p.8 2
2
Populism plays an important role in asking some of the right questions, which non‐populist forces need to answer from their own ideological backgrounds. Simply attacking and dismissing populist figureheads as demagogues confronts the symptoms, not the underlying problems. Representative versus responsible government One of the key promises that populists make is to support direct democratic mechanisms that would allow the “general will of the people” to take power back from corrupt and unrepresentative political elites. In this sense, the populist appeal can be seen as a reaction to the increasingly complex reality of governance in the 21st century and the pressures this puts on representative democracy. Under conditions of globalisation and European integration, the distinction between national and international problems has become increasingly blurred. This requires greater webs of multi‐level governance (global, regional, national, local). Furthermore, there has been a shift towards depoliticisation and giving responsibility to arms‐length technocratic agencies in overseeing key policy decisions. The growing complexity of the state and supranational institutions makes it increasingly difficult to work out who is in charge of what. In academic literature this tension is best explained by the late Peter Mair in his work on ‘Representative versus Responsible Government’. Traditional political parties were once representative, forged within communities through mass membership collectivist organisations such as trades unions and parties themselves. This conferred upon them a legitimacy to govern responsibility on behalf of a given electoral constituency. Structural changes and growing complexity in western democracies, as mentioned above, have however moved parties away from their representative role, enhancing, or being forced to enhance, their responsible governing role. This refers to the process of being prudent and consistent in government, as well as being accountable and conforming to external constraints and legacies. The key point is that demands for ‘responsiveness’ and ‘responsibility’ seem increasingly at odds with one another, and parties’ capacity to reconcile this tension has been undermined by their ‘professionalisation’ and decline as representative organisations.3 Writing in 2009, Mair uses Europe as a case‐in‐point to flesh out this dilemma: “Much of what keeps contemporary European governments busy is Europe itself – negotiating, understanding, transposing – and since Europe has become a large part of the administration of things, when there is opposition from outside the governing circles it is much more likely to take on a Euroskeptic hue. To mobilise against the government in this sense is also to mobilise against Europe, since Europe is, par excellence, the business of government. This is not only damaging for Europe, but also impacts negatively on national democracy.” In other words, Europe today has become both a lightning rod for populism and in many ways an indispensable governing institution for managing the complexity of the globalised international economic and political system. EU institutions have significant problems of 3
Mair, Peter, 2009. Representative versus Responsible Government, Max Planck Institute Working Paper. P. 16. 3
representativeness and legitimacy, but they make a contribution to responsible government. This tension goes to the heart of the modern crisis of representation and governance. Project aim The project will set out to understand how modern political parties bridge the increasing need for complex governing structures and the simultaneous demand for simplicity, belonging and engagement. It will seek to investigate to what extent this dilemma drives populism, considering how the mix of socio‐economic inequalities and concerns over identity, culture and belonging overlap with the collapse of trust in representative politics. As a means of digging deeper into populism and the crisis of representational politics it will explore two overarching themes – governing in an era of complexity, and political renewal in a populist climate. The key research questions are set out below. The project will consist of a series of seminars to explore these questions and open debate on pragmatic responses to populism, in collaboration with leading experts and practitioners in the field from across Europe. The project will also bring together a collection of expert briefings and interviews on key themes, alongside opinion polling aimed at better understanding the drivers of populist dissatisfaction. These will inform a final pamphlet that will synthesise our findings and their implications for policy. Governing in populist times 1. How to engage people again in a meaningful political project? The bankruptcy of the economic orthodoxy which prevailed over the last three decades has compelled many mainstream political parties, especially on the centre‐
left, to revisit their political and economic offers. Yet political trust in the offers of mainstream parties is extremely low. How can politicians repoliticse their offers along the Left‐Right axis to stop the drift from mainstream politics to populist actors and electoral abstention? What does a re‐energised electoral programme look like that repoliticises politics and economics, and meaningfully engages with the drivers of populism? 2. How can such a programme bridge the tension between making big promises and not being able to deliver them in government? There is an implicit danger of mainstream politicians using popular promises to win elections, raising expectations and failing to deliver. The challenge for the mainstream is how to beat populists in populist times. How far can re‐politicisation go in this era of complexity? How can politicians bridge the gap between representative and responsible government? 4
Renewing representative politics In addition to addressing the governing challenge, this project will also contemplate the following research questions about how to repair the democratic disconnect between politicians and citizens: 1. Do we need more decentralisation and new forms of institution‐building? i.
Traditionally, the UK has been a very centralised state, with little power devolved to cities and regions. However, there is now a growing agenda behind decentralising economic and political power. What potential does devolving powers to councils, cities, and regions offer in renewing representative politics? What can be learned from experiences in other European countries? What roles can mayors play in the fight against populism? ii.
There is a growing need for a new set of bottom‐up institutions that feed on people’s emerging individualism, as an enabling force to help them meet their own needs. What kinds of new institutions do we need given the diminishing commitment to traditional civic institutions like political parties and organised labour? What should the role of the state be in enabling bottom‐up institution‐building and new networked partnerships? Is the traditional political party model beyond repair? 2. Do we need more direct democracy? Should progressive politics push for more deliberative and direct democracy or not? Much of the unease expressed by populism is linked to a frustration with the complexities of the political process. On the one hand, it has been argued that citizens prefer a ‘stealth democracy.’4 They are generally uninterested in politics, but sympathetic towards direct democracy. On the other hand, the notion of ‘stealth democracy’ can be seen as inherently populist – their demand for greater direct participation is more likely due to this frustration with complexity rather than a genuine yearning for greater involvement in the decision‐making process. Moreover, it is argued that in the UK context, most people are ‘highly dissatisfied democrats’ who are politically interested and long for greater political participation.5 4
Hibbing, John R. and Elizabeth Theiss‐Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5
Webb, Paul. 2013. “Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the United Kingdom.” European Journal of Political Research 52: 747‐772. 5
3. Do people need a greater say in choosing their democratic representatives? To survive as legitimate forms of representation, should political parties reform the candidate selection process? Would a greater say in the choice of political leadership re‐establish a view that politicians represent their voters and that politics can be a force for good? Over the past 30 years, we have witnessed a rapid decline in the active membership of political parties. Modern politicians emerge from ever smaller selection pools of whom many would consider to be ‘elites.’ Although party membership has been falling, there has been a renewed interest in community organisation, suggesting citizens want to be engaged and help shape the localities in which they live. Do we need to revitalise the ’representative’ element of democracy and devise new ways of choosing candidates? What does the political party of the future look like? Project contacts Michael McTernan, deputy director, Policy Network (Mmcternan@policy‐network.net ) Claudia Chwalisz, policy researcher, Policy Network (CChwalisz@policy‐network.net )