Are the populists taking over?

And how much should we worry about them?

The populists: how scary are they? I’ll look at some significant elections, describe what populism actually is, and then ask what problems it seems to be addressing – and causing.

Two seismic political events – in India and Europe – are the main focus here.

But first I’ll detour to look at the approaching presidential election in Iran, occasioned by the death in a helicopter accident of former president Ebrahim Raisi. Iran has elections, but its system doesn’t fully represent the Iranian people, as candidates are vetted in advance by senior clergymen to ensure the perpetuation of religiously conservative patriarchal rule – meaning also the oppression of women. According to Dr Parisa Kooshesh, who was formerly a journalist in Iran, now an NZ citizen:

“Disqualification of candidates for the snap election was wide but not surprising. The most highly ranked disqualified candidates were the two former presidents Ahmadinejad and Rouhani. Also Ali Larijani, the former Speaker of the Parliament who is close to the Supreme Leader, has been disqualified for the second consecutive term. Low turnout will be likely for the coming election at the end of June with very limited competition.”

Now there’s a system that’s truly rigged.

In India’s election, prime minister Narendra Modi and his BJP party got an unexpected punch on the nose. Modi, as the face of Hindu nationalism – and of violence against Muslims – has been seen as a major figure in the rise of populist authoritarian government. His leadership style has often been described as a “cult of personality” – a phrase that gets applied to the worst of history’s dictatorships.

Modi was aiming to win a parliamentary super-majority sufficient to amend the constitution to suit his nationalist agenda and to augment his power. In the recent election, however, the BJP lost 63 seats – many in its heartland provinces – and hence lost its parliamentary majority. Modi continues as prime minister, but now needs a coalition, which will necessitate compromises. He’d taken for granted the people who were suffering from unemployment, poverty and rising inequality. Divisive identity politics found its limits. And a frequently cited exemplar of authoritarian populism was strongly rebuked by “the people” themselves.

Before we draw conclusions, however, the other seismic event was the election for the European parliament. In this case, far-right parties – often described as populist – made gains, while socialists and greens lost seats, although results varied between individual EU members. There were, however, gains also for the centre-right Christian-democratic bloc which, along with liberals and social democrats, will continue EU business as usual.

The earthquake was felt most acutely in France where Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) led the field with 31% of the vote. In response, President Emmanuel Macron immediately dissolved the 577-seat Assemblée Nationale and called a snap legislative election. Was that a bold or a foolish move? Was he thinking he had to act decisively before the RN got even stronger? French voters may follow their Italian neighbours and hand the nationalist right a win in early July anyway.

Quite a different outcome is anticipated on 4 July when the United Kingdom goes to the polls. Predictions aren’t normally advisable in politics, but, in this case, the governing Conservative Party has set itself up for a thrashing by Labour. To deepen Tory misery, that class-A populist Nigel Farage took over the leadership of the Reform UK party on 3 June. He’s boosted their polling at the expense of the Conservatives by tub-thumping about “record mass immigration”, “Brexit betrayed”, “woke ideology” and so on. If this works for Reform through to the election, it could mean that Labour wins even more seats in the UK’s antiquated first-past-the-post system.

In 2016, following the Brexit referendum, Farage predicted a global populist revolution, but the trajectories of right-wing populists have been mixed. For example, Bolsonaro was thrown out after one term in Brazil, but then Argentina elected Milei. The tectonic plates of world politics are shifting in different directions.

What is populism anyway?

The term populism is described in differing ways by political scientists, so I can only offer my take on it.

Populism isn’t a political ideology in the sense that, for example, liberalism, socialism and feminism are. It can be found left, right and centre. Socialism breeds populist styles of leadership, as do the off-shoots of fascism. NZ First is a centrist populist party.

Populism arises from a contradiction within representative government. The multi-party systems are called “democracies” in large part due to the universal franchise, along with other features such as the free press. But the problem is that they’re not really all that democratic. Why not? Representation by election isn’t a bad thing, but it means that the many choose the few (indeed a relatively tiny few) to make law and to govern on their behalf. Aside from a large cohort of career public servants, “the people” play no direct part in day-to-day government. They can “vote and forget”, or not vote at all, and then get on with other important things like making money and enjoying their private lives. For most people, politics happens only on TV or social media, if they pay any attention.

That’s fine, but … only until enough of “the people” start to notice that things around them are changing in ways that they don’t understand or don’t like. Their grievances may range from kooky conspiracy theories to realistic assessments of economic inequality and rapid social change. Realistic or not, there are things that a large proportion of the population is unhappy about, and they lay the blame on their country’s leaders. They sense that changes are occurring without their consent. And yet weren’t the politicians promising to make things better?

The populist leader addresses that discontent. He or she gains political capital by blaming an out-of-touch elite and their lackeys in the media who’ve been hoodwinking “the people”. The populist claims to speak directly to and for “the people”, so a lot rests on how they define “the people”. Often their definition is relatively narrow and exclusionary.

Populism needs to be understood rather than feared. Many academics and journalists assume that populism, almost by definition, is bad. The populists are accused of deceiving the people with lies and misinformation – as if others don’t do that – which further inflames those who are tired of being talked down to rather than listened to.

But I’m not giving populist leaders a free pass. The measures taken, for instance, by Victor Orbán in Hungary to dominate media and undermine judicial independence are wrong. His anti-Semitic obsession with George Soros is indefensible. And I was shocked to hear a Hungarian social-democratic politician talk about how afraid he was to campaign openly against Orbán.

Nonetheless, populism may address some genuine social and economic problems and discontents, including an undemocratic flaw in the concept and practice of political representation. But the authoritarian manifestations of populism – from the right or the left – have been destructive of the common good, although they claim to do the opposite, and hence they need to be resisted. It was probably for the best that Modi was thwarted by India’s voters, even though he still leads the country.

Centrist politicians who see themselves as responsible defenders of democracy have little to gain from blaming the people if a radical populist party gains the balance of power, or even leads an election. That would be akin to a business blaming dissatisfied customers for switching to a competitor.

Populism is a symptom of representative government not working as well as it could. And populist policies tend to be too one-sided or simplistic to provide effective solutions on their own. Some contemporary populist parties have fascist historical roots, and some have done harm while in office. Even in opposition, they often inspire hatred and discrimination. But, to combat that trend, it pays first to understand how and why they grow: they exploit a flaw that’s inherent in representation.

Marine le Pen.