Introduction
Populism has proven to be a significant political movement in European and American nations. As populist politicians gain more support, populist movement and ideology rapidly and energetically surge to the center of attention. While some people perceive populism as a grotesque distortion of representative democracy’s objectives and practices, others view this movement as an approach for the majority to be heard. Indeed, populist parties are founded on concepts that emphasize the necessity to reclaim authority from corrupt and powerful officials. Such populist individuals advocate for abolishing liberal institutions and have an ideological framework that combines autocracy with a certain type of nationalism. As a result, populism, though it is aimed at convincing the masses to vote for the given party, accentuates society’s needs and interests, thus proving to comply with the ideals and procedures of representative democracy.
Populism
Considering the tendencies of populism to serve the public, this term is often utilized as a pejorative. This vilification replicates its initial flaw by diminishing truth to a demonological duality. This is the reason why it is vital to define and analyze the phenomena rather than simply give judgments. At this point, populism requires the integration of new views and beliefs. Depending on the circumstances, it coexists alongside other more broad philosophies. This is why populism’s strength and threat stem from its dual nature, in which it adjusts its exterior form to the situation and links with other political positions or beliefs. As a result, finding a political arena devoid of populist players, strategies, or sentiments is challenging.
When delving deeper into the essence of populism, it becomes clear that the nature of this phenomenon is represented by variations of populism. According to Riedel (2017), “agrarian populism, nationalistic populism, neoliberal populism, radical left-wing populism” can be identified in the broad spectrum of populism’s definitions. The researcher further defines populism as a collection of concepts or opinions that is captivating and appealing. This collection is based on emotional and illogical premises, the desire for easy answers to complex issues, and a direct link to the needs of the people (Riedel, 2017). It frequently presents itself in a simple, balancing democracy where the public’s voice is unconstrained. According to populist reasoning, the mass is always right, and their needs should be recognized. This idealization contributes to greater assertions that the groups are the sole basis for morality and truth.
Yet, populism cannot be reduced or isolated to a single definition. It is crucial to recognize populism as a tool for both the overall masses and separate nations. As for the first approach to defining populism, it should be viewed from the perspective of injustice. When a substantial number of people declare themselves “the public” and see themselves in an ethical war with the elites, the majority believe that ruling leaders ignore or even condemn their values and ideas (Mansbridge & Macedo, 2017). Therefore, the movement in question is democracy’s way of suggesting authorities to listen to the masses and take their words into account.
Though ordinary individuals are not policymakers and are not experts, they can assess how satisfied they are with their lives (Mansbridge & Macedo, 2017). Moreover, they can outline what types of concerns they have in terms of what dominant officials have failed to address successfully. Gathering in a demonstration is a logically and morally acceptable democratic reaction. Since voters are typically unaware of and uninterested in the complexities of government policy, democracy relies on ruling leaders to address rising concerns. Additionally, the leader is expected to hear and respond to what people desire to say and react with policies targeted at their actual needs (Mansbridge & Macedo, 2017). The movement of populism emerges when authorities refuse to listen.
From a historical perspective, democracy requires a populist spirit more than others. The ideals and procedures of democracy were and are frequently violated, leading to public outrage. Ruling classes often have priorities and attitudes that differ from those of the less affluent, less knowledgeable, and less fortunate who live outside of governmental, socioeconomic, and cultural hegemony centers (Mansbridge & Macedo, 2017). They frequently communicate with each other and support each other. In a sense, more authority only generates more control (Mansbridge & Macedo, 2017). The ideology of populism is the movements that people require from representative democracy when the more influential individuals ignore the goals and principles of those who have less control and power for a long time.
At this point, financial damage frequently causes the needed upheaval. Nevertheless, for economic harm, inequality, or social unrest to spark populism, the victims must see the reasons for these failures or the state’s reaction to these failures as unjust (Mansbridge & Macedo, 2017). The feeling of unfairness is important to populism’s moral dimension. It is most clearly shown when the administration is already regarded as dishonest. It can also occur when regulations pay insufficient attention to the political priorities of the ordinary person. As a result, from the overall perspective, populism serves as a tool to regain control of the democratic system.
In another definition of populism, it serves specific goals of every nation, protecting not only the majority but the minority as well. For example, in European countries, a right-wing populism began in the 1980s and has grown in strength since, primarily targeting immigrants and minority populations (Gidron & Bonikowski, 2013). Populism in South America, in contrast, has recently been connected with an inclusive and diverse model of society, pulling together multiple ethnic groups into common political structures (Gidron & Bonikowski, 2013). In the U.S., the movement of populism has been connected to a wide range of economic ideas and political groups, ranging from the late 19th century Populist Party to the New Left of the 20th century, via Southern segregation to traditional Republican dogma of unrestricted capitalism.
Regarding political structure, the movement of populism is better described as a campaign tactic. Through this tactic, an individualistic figure pursues or exerts government power via immediate, uninhibited, institutionalized endorsement from vast numbers of generally uncontrolled people (Gidron & Bonikowski, 2013). However, the most critical aspect is not the subject of policy or the manner of rhetoric adopted by political leaders but instead their connection with their voters.
Conclusion
Hence, populism cannot be perceived as a grotesque distortion of representative democracy’s objectives and practices since populism’s aim is to serve the interests of the masses. On a broader scale, the movement of populism emerges when authorities refuse to listen, necessitating the endorsement of a leader who will represent their interests. From a narrow perspective, populism serves as a political campaign. Yet, in both senses, the masses give endorsement to somebody that can address the community issues. While populism is considered a tool in a political game to obtain more votes, it transcends such a traditional definition. Populism is a conduit that is used to illuminate the injustice and contrast the elite and the public, encouraging the latter to take an active position in political affairs.
References
Gidron, N., & Bonikowski, B. (2013). Varieties of populism: Literature review and research agenda. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, 13, 1-39.
Mansbridge, J., & Macedo, S. (2019). Populism and democratic theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 59-77.
Riedel, R. (2017). Populism and its democratic, non-democratic, and anti-democratic potential. Polish Sociological Review, 199(3), 287-298.