What is Populism

I agree. Anybody who has ever been to an open meeting of a parish/town council can see that happening. People all have some complaint about potholes, wheelie bins, street lighting, litter, graffiti and loads of other grievances. They shout to have their voices heard, but as soon as somebody asks what should be done about it, they don't have any answers.

Yes, DD populism is picking up on the atmosphere of dissatisfaction with "life" (much of which is to a large extent a part of a the human condition and very complicated and intricate global interaction and competition going back centuries) and simplifying it into "Your problems are all caused by the background of your leaders. Get rid of them and there will never be poverty, discrimination, recession, illness, unhappiness of any kind, ever again". Well, not until the next batch of leaders have tried and failed to untangle the many knotted threads of circumstances and causes.

Castro was a bit of an enigma. He almost certainly started off as a populist - or rather a nationalist opposed to the US - but he was also a Marxist. Marxism uses a highly centralised state to achieve its aims.

Problems also occur when the populist press attempts to undermine the law (judges) and civil servants. The alternative is anarchy, which leaves a vacuum to be filled by some force, over which the 'people' have no control. That's how anarchists (usually portrayed as 'left wing') and libertarians ('right wing') come full circle.

I think one way to look at that is to ask what populist movement that has actually got into power has genuinely assisted the common people for a sustained length of time?

I suppose some might argue Castro.

Yes, Elegran, that's what I was trying to say. That's why I think current popular populism is hypocritical. I don't think it's genuine grassroots revolution. It's exploitation of disaffection for a wannabe alternative elite's ends.

"no way that anything other than a very small society can function without some form of hierarchy" which in our system is achieved by the whole population voting for representatives.

The populism currently popular () is just a way of hopeful politicians saying "Don't vote for the elite in power at the moment, vote for me instead" - so as to get themselves into the "elite" slot instead.

If they push that hard enough, they don't need to bother forming alternative policies, strategies and tactics and calculating what the results of all the possibilities would be. They just have to say "We know what you all want, and we will make it all happen"

Once they get the power, of course, they find that it is not as easy as they thought to create Eden.

Why don't you think Corbyn or momentum are populist, Ankers?

Nice succinct analysis at 9.44, GG2. Thanks

It is when elites dont listen to people, and can be visibly corrupt, that problems occur.

I dont think Corbyn or momentum are populist.

'Being fed up with elites' is rhetoric fuelled by those who wish to exploit populism for their own ends. There is no way that anything other than a very small society can function without some form of hierarchy, which creates an elitist class. A directionless rabble cannot rule. Conflicting views on how the hierarchy should be formed is often what trips up populist movements.

Even meritocratic societies produce an elite class to replace hereditary nobilities.

Hi daph

gg yes I absolutely agree with that. I think that what happens that as I argued populist ideology is too thin to sustain it as a viable political party, and in order to sustain itself it needs to accept mainstream ideology. So from classing itself as outside the mainstream and elites v common people it finds that in order to survive it will become part of one of the mainstream parties. It will become part of the very establishment it maintains it hates.

At the time I was growing up in Scotland the SNP were a tiny right wing party often referred to as "tartan tories". In the 1970s it became more popular by shouting repetedly "it's Scotland's oil!"

When Margaret Thatcher deliberately shut down mines a steelworks to
create unemployment and weaken trade unions, then imposed the hated poll tax on Scotland most Scots, who were already Labour voters, became more strongly left wing. Thatcher became the focus of a huge emotional reaction and it was possibly at that point that the SNP realised it could never suceed without adopting left wing policies.

In the recent years the SNP have gained most of their support from former Labour voters by talking about social injustice, encouraging a sense of victimhood and offering things that voters in England do not have such as free university tuition and free prescriptions

I believe that David Cameron realised that the SNP could be useful to the Tories by damaging the Labour party in Scotland. When he allowed the Independance referendum he bent over backwards to help the SNP by letting them chose the timing and the wording of the question, giving them the advantage of campaining for YES. Of course he never believed the result would be as close as 45 to 55 and towards the end of the campaign got quite panicky and started to attack the SNP which was probably counter productive.

The new leader of UKIP has seen the sucess of the SNP by fostering discontent, blaming scapegoats (in their case immigrants) and targeting Labour voters in the most disadvataged and neglected areas which have been blighted by the disappearance of traditional industries and have been ignored and left behind by the "metropolitan elite" . As the Corbyn-lead Labour party is so unpopular they may well succeed.

At their heart, both the SNP and UKIP are populist parties They each have a single aim . The SNP wants to destroy the UK. UKIP wants to destroy the EU.

It is an interesting question though when looking at Corbyn and the way his support has grown from the ground. If you accept the argument that he is indeed a populist, it is interesting to compare his supporters with those of Farage and his supporters.

Farage has an identifiable party machine in the form of UKIP that stands in general elections. So we can argue that both Farage and his movement are populist, as they appear to met the three criteria.
Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party, with a far more complicated party machine that stands in elections. The Labour Party is definitely not a populist party. Interestingly though he also has support from what could be described a populist movement which calls itself momentum, but their difficulty is that by supporting a Labour Leader they need acceptance by the Mainstream Labour Movement, and this they have been clearly unable to achieve to date. So is Corbyn a populist, as I said there's the conundrum. The movement is arguably populist although to be honest it is a movement I have not looked at so can't comment on its rhetoric, but does it fulfil those three criteria. I think I would argue that no it doesn't.

Does populism have to be a movement? I dont see why it has to be.
To me, it is just people in some countries getting fed up with elites.

Think of 'Animal Farm' - a populist movement, which turns into a corrupt dictatorship and eventually the pigs morph into humans.

It seems to me there are three outcomes for a populist movement.

1. It fades and possibly eventually disappears
2. It morphs into a political party by becoming wider in its offering and 'establishment'
3. It take power by force

This makes me feel you cannot have a populist 'party' for anything but a very short period of time.

I'll hold you to that rose

I thought this thread was about exploring populism of all kinds and from both the left, and the right .It seemed to start off that way and has now morphed into only discussing anything considered right wing.As somebody from the middle ground, I find this boring so will bow out of the thread now.

rinouchka yes. I think why people are a tad nervous about the rise of right wing populism in Europe is that it comes with so much historical baggage. Many of us (not me) lived through the result of one of these movements.

ankers this thread is about exploring a particular political movement. Now you may see it as agenda ridden. So I suggest that you start a new thread exploring another political movement like say socialism, or Liberal democratic movement. I for one would be happy to support you in this endeavour.

Just returned from other life and returning to it after the musings below:

Should we not recall in this sub-debate about which side of the political spectrum populism is most present that the two ends of the wave/movement do meet eventually and become one? And much of it depends on the extent of power accorded to the leader, once elected.

Another point: disturbing as populist waves can be, they do not always lead to disaster. A populist movement in late 19th century America led to the creation of the Democratic Party( remember that Lincoln was a Republican), another led to FDR's New Deal.

Just musing.....

OK let's look at Corbyn, and ask yourself this question, is his rhetoric nationalistic, anti-establishment, or authoritarian? Then look further and ask yourself from which mainstream political position does he emanate? You must then decide if he can be seen as a populist. If the answer is yes, then you have to look at see if the political party he represents is a populist party, by looking at those three main characteristics.

Clearly in this case the answer is no. So there is your conundrum.