What is Populism

I dont agree Elegran.
It is possible that he started off wanting good for the nation?

pogs I see what you are getting at now.
Personally I like the word populist.
whitewave, you are far more biased than I realised. I didnt spot it. Your post where you give your reasons for only quoting right-wingers when you speak of populism does not hold water.

pogs ankers

You are both unsettled in this argument because it would appear that my argument on populism largely focuses on what you term right wing politicians.

First let me distinguish the difference between populism and popular.

If you look at my op I outlined 3 main characteristics that cN be found in all populist parties.

So anti-establishment
Nationalistic
Authoritarian (ankers I know you don't like the word but bear with)

We then went on to outline various others characteristics etc. Now we need examples of the sort of populist parties we are talking about and as we sit in Europe I pointed to populist parties we can find currently within our sphere of influence. You argu that this is bias in my argument so I will also point to left wing populist parties

Syria has shown some populist traits in talking about the "people" but it does not contain other if the characteristics such as nationalism or authoritarian. You can understand this when you realise that the movement is not centred on a leading figure.

Podemas - has been successful in attracting votes from both the right and left, and has grown to the position it holds today. However, one of the reasons it has been able to attract so many votes is because it is not Nationalistic in its behaviour.

Other left wing populist parties can be found in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina.

Next I want to distinguish between popular and populist.

So 3 main characteristics are needed to be a populist movement.

So clearly popularity is not the same. May has the popular (well I was going to say vote but that's not right) support, but she is not populist.
Blair had the popular vote but he is not a populist.
Cameron had the popular vote but he is not a populist.
They are not populist because they come from political traditions that do not solely contain these 3 characteristics. From time to time some of this rhetoric may emerge, but it generally considered a tad extreme and whilst they may run for a while they largely get dropped.

Hope that clears things a bit.

varian interesting argument. I haven't given the SNP any thought.

I believe that the SNP has changed its stance over the years? From right to left. But I know very little about them to be honest . Must think about that one, as I don't want to give an off the cuff daft answer.

I am well aware that popular is not at all the same as populist.

And why hadnt you given the SNP any thought? Answer. It doesnt suit your agenda.

Welcome back Ankers .....

Corbyn and the people he surrounds himself with could be described as populist with the criteria that you give ww Momentum are now part and parcel of his entourage and are attracting a large number of anti-establishment and yet authoritarian types.
His rhetoric is very 'populist'.....so I think you could certainly include him as an example of leftist populism ( if you wanted to.)

Shame that people are suspecting 'agendas' in a thread which, I think, was meant to be just an exploration of the term 'populism' .

Do we have "agendas"? Not suggesting that as people of "mature years" we are incapable of influencing or having opinions, but this is just a discussion . No?
Anyway, liked this.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

I'll hold you to that rose

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hi daph

'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.

I dont think Corbyn or momentum are populist.

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