Rise of populism in contemporary world: boon or bane?

Following the Russian-Ukraine war (February 2022) and global economic recession, democratic norms are seen to decline in most of the world.

Populist forces (both left and right) led by populist leaders have resulted in authoritarian forces rising in Brazil, Hungary, Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent (India and Pakistan). There is animated debate on the phenomenon of populism and its main variants (right and left).

Democracy gets emasculated when illiberal (often populist) figures win elections and use the state to weaken the opposition. Populist strongmen have subverted democratic governance contributing significantly to “democratic recession.”

Broadly, then, the argument reinforces the fairly standard view that the political right, more than left, currently poses greater threat to democracy e—- at least in the short term.

Populism holds that common people are ‘pure’ versus the ‘corrupt’, exploitative, and self-seeking elite. Not only fledgling democracies in the developing world believe in same but right are against immigration and globalization while the left is against globalization.

Fledgling democracies are also under the emerging threat: these threats emanate from accusations of electoral fraud, identity issues, poor governance, refugees, and conspiracies forming the populist’s staple rhetoric. This bears implications for democracies in many countries.

Democracies get enfeebled when illiberal (often populist) figures win elections and use the state to weaken the opposition. Populist strongmen have subverted democratic governance in Hungary, Venezuela and elsewhere, contributing significantly to the much-discussed “democratic recession.”

Broadly, then, the argument reinforces the fairly standard view that the political right - more than left - currently poses greater threat to democracy in the West, at least in the short term.

In truth, most politicians of all persuasions employ some degree of discursive populism, even, haltingly in their narrative. This acts as corrective to democracy and brings new actors and issues in governance.

Furthermore, radical populists pose only a limited threat to democracy if they are electorally marginal or lack a committed base that will stick with them through policy changes and personal or political scandals.

Populism only becomes problematic when it becomes full and aggressive and when public support for it grows widespread, intense, and robust. If it disturbs normal civil life and leads to acute intolerance, violence and heightened civil unrest it can become a cause for worry.

Globally, left populists are as likely to subvert democracy as the right populists, and in Latin America, contemporary left populists have undermined democracy to a greater degree than the right populists of the 1990s.

This is, in part, because of being more numerous, alienated, and committed followings. But in the West, the most un-welcome form of populism exists on the right against the immigrants. Thus, not only are they more capable of putting their leaders in power, they demand (or at least countenance) an angrier, more full–fledged brand of populism from these leaders.

This confluence of factors – not merely greater electability of the right makes right populism bigger threat to democracy in the advanced West today.

Besides populists, non-populist forces may also gain prominence in future. Forecasts, albeit speculative and highly fraught, mention that there is growing evidence supporting the possibility of strong performance of Green parties and Liberal Democrats (UK) in the recent EU elections and Corbyn’s un-successful tenure as Labor leader and Joe Biden’s victory over Bernie Sanders in the 2020 US Democratic primary elections.

When in France, Emmanuel Macron defeated Marine le Pen in 2017, it was a stunning repudiation of the mainstream parties that had governed for long in France.

While street fights between opposing populist camps threaten democracy, so does a status quo in which most alienated, dissatisfied sectors of the population belong (or flock) to one side of the partisan divide (e.g., the side of Le Pen in 2017). Rising anger and grievances on inflation presage political instability.

How to cope with emerging genres of populism? Left and right populists have their defenders and critics. That democracies are being challenged today by populists reflects a deeper malaise. Crisis of market- based liberalism requires richer and more varied experience of human experience and needs than prevailing image of Homo Economicus, technology cult and unbridled economic growth that are legacies of the 19th century crass self-interest, creating disadvantaged, angry people, and socio- economic disparities.

‘Progressive populism,’ it is argued, is a better option for democracy. The answer of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to populism, as alluded to in the title may not be feasible, given the varying contextual perspectives of populism and their respective consequences for democracy. For instance the populism witnessed in Western nations is different from Latin America, South East Asia or South Asia.

The Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand are types of left-wing populism where racism is not pronounced. In the US or the Nordic nations it carries a trademark of racial attacks against immigrants and minorities alleging that traditional ways of life embedded in Judaic-Christian norms are under threat.

The immigrants and minorities are often used by politicians as scapegoats against real socio-economic issues that need attention.

Hence populism, which aims at the true realization of democratic principles, such as good governance, equity and rule of law can be considered a boon for any democracy rather than posing a threat. After all, both populism and democracy establish and uphold the same principle of ‘people’s power’.

Populism is called the ‘child of democracy’, and if it does not veer towards extremism, it can prove a boon rather than a bane.

Liberal democracy is not the end of history: everything human being’s experiment is subject to erosion, contingency and change. Liberal democracy can be fragile, threatened and in need of repair and reform.

However, democracy is intrinsically strong to a greater extent than any other political forms: it has resilience for innovation and self-correction. Not only do real liberal-democratic institutions protect citizens against tyrannies and concentrations of power, they also provide mechanisms for channeling grievances and unmet needs into reforms.

To be sure, this power of self-correction is not always enough to prevent liberal democracies from crumbling under pressures. For example, during the 1920s and 1930s the combination of public stress and strong undemocratic movements proved to be irresistible, especially for newer democracies.

Yet the analogy between those decades and current situation obscures more than it reveals. For, today’s economic ills pale in comparison to the Great Depression of the 1930s and the present-day autocratic regimes lack the ideological attraction that fascism and communism once espoused.

Still, one cannot be complacent and deny the current ills of liberal democracy which are getting deep and pervasive. Surmounting them will require intellectual clarity and sagacious political leaders who are willing to take risks in serving the long-term interests of their people.

Human choice, not historical inevitability, will determine liberal democracy’s fate. For now, democratic publics want policy changes that offer hope for a better future. Left unmet, their demands could evolve into social discord, populist upsurges or regime changes.

In summary, due to socio-economic stresses, negative effects of climate change and an uncertain shifting global political order the phenomenon of rising populism will most likely continue to pose a challenge to many nation states in future.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023