A look into the rise of populism in Europe

In the last 20 years (1998-2018), public support for populist parties in Europe has risen three times over. This has enabled their leaders to win key government positions in 11 countries and challenge the established political order across the continent.

Whereas in 1998 the populist parties accounted for only 7% of the electoral votes across Europe, this has increased to 25% in the most recent national elections. Consequently the number of Europeans living under governments with populists in their cabinets has increased 13 times over – from 12,500,517 in 1998 to 170,244,766 in 2018.

Also it has been noted that, of late, more support has gone to rightist (even far-right) populist parties than to leftist or left-leaning ones. For instance, left-wing populism is much less widespread in northern Europe (the Nordic countries), probably owing to the strong economies and generous welfare state system in place there.

Meantime outside Europe, populists have been elected to head the governments in five populous countries. They are Narendra Damodardas Modi (India), Rodrigo Roa Duterte (Philippines), Donald Trump (United States), Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (Mexico), and Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil). Of the five, only Obrador is considered left-leaning (although Duterte had proclaimed himself to be “leftist” and “socialist” during the electoral campaign and in the early part of his presidency).

The election of far-right lawmaker Bolsonaro in the largest Latin American nation presages a big shift in relations between Brazil and the US – from “uneasy” (under a Leftist Workers’ Party government) to close. Bolsonaro has appointed as foreign minister a diplomat who has called climate change as a Marxist plot (Trump also disparages it). He has suggested that Brazil could relocate its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as Trump has already done.

 The above-cited data have been culled from a research cum analysis of the electoral performance of populist parties in 31 European countries over two decades. It was done by the independent British newspaper Guardian in conjunction with more than 30 leading political scientists in and outside Europe.

 Matthijs Rooduijn, a political sociologist at the University of Amsterdam who led the research project, noted:

“Not so long ago populism was a phenomenon of the political fringes. Today it has become increasingly mainstream. Some of the most significant recent political developments like the Brexit referendum [Britain’s decision to leave the European Union] and the election of Donald Trump cannot be understood without taking into account the rise of populism.”

“Despite all the geographical differences throughout Europe,” he adds, “the breeding ground for populism has become increasingly fertile and the populist parties are ever more capable of reaping the rewards.”

Lack of space prevents me from elaborating on the differences in the character and performance of populist parties in the various regions of Europe.

Two views on populism were noted in the research project. Supporters of populism aver that it champions the ordinary people against vested interests, and therefore it could be deemed a vital force in any democracy. Critics, however, argue that populists in power often subvert democratic norms, whether by undermining the media and the judiciary or by trampling minority rights.

In tracking the performance of populist parties in Europe, Guardian has adopted the view of political scientist Cas Mudde (University of Georgia) that populism is often combined with a “host” ideology, which can be either Left or Right.

Mudde cited three main reasons why populism has advanced in Europe:

1) The Great Recession (2008-9) created a few leftist populist parties in southern Europe (such as Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, which combine their populism with a radical leftwing ideology) ;

2) The so-called refugee crisis (since 2015) catalyzed the rise of far-right populist parties (such as the Danish People’s Party, the Finns in Finland, the Sweden Democrats, and the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany); and

3) Non-populist parties were transformed into populists, as exemplified by Fidesz in Hungary and Law and Order Party in Poland.

Commenting on the Guardian project findings, Portugal social scientist Claudia Alvares wrote:

“The success of such politicians has very much to do with their capacity to convince their audiences that they do not belong to the traditional political system. As such they are on a par with the people to the extent that neither they nor the people belong to the ‘corrupt elites.’”

“Social media,” Alvares observed, “had a role to play in the rise of populism, its algorithmic model rewarding and providing adversarial messages.” The anger that populist politicians manage to channel, she added, “is fueled by social-media posts, because social media are very permeable to the easy spread of emotion. The end result is a rise in the polarization of political and journalistic discourse.”

Seeking to explain why populism is “suddenly all the rage,” research leader Rooduijn referred to recent academic studies showing that many European citizens think that “ordinary, virtuous people have been betrayed, neglected, or exploited by a corrupt elite.” Although those who harbor such attitude do not necessarily vote for populist parties, he pointed out, various circumstances increase the likelihood they would do so. He cited the following:

• When society is more individualized, and voters are more independent and emancipated, “electoral volatility tends to be higher.”

• A fertile breeding ground for populism arises when Left and Right parties converge ideologically. Many voters thus become susceptible to accept the message that “mainstream political parties are all one and the same.”

• Crises can more likely activate populist attitudes that the establishment elites have messed things up or are unable to properly deal with the crisis.

• Widespread corruption in mainstream political parties plays directly into the hands of populists, allowing them to claim that such parties of “inward-looking, condescending elites” exploit the people.

However, Rooduijn pointed out, for populism to thrive there should be a “credible populist challenger who offers an attractive alternative” to the status-quo parties. Such a challenger – who must be an “alluring leader” – should express a message that would appeal to a large number of discontented voters.

Weighing in on these developments, Mudde concluded: “In the short term, populist parties will probably stay roughly this strong, although they will be even more clearly radical right and there will remain significant regional and national differences.”

The main question, he said, is how non-populist parties are responding to the trend.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected].