(More on that March-of-the-populist-penguins hoo-ha)
A recent Newsweek report says there is an alarming rise in populism the world over because of globalization (or the hunger and inequality brought about by the global economy), and the article claims that the popular measures being made around the world to address the problem are "inefficient and ineffective." My inevitable commentary is: Just what do they mean by 'populism'? And is it so bad? For example, what is so bad about workers wanting to have a decent life? Or poor folks dreaming of a life out of poverty? Haven't you heard yet that poverty drags us all down eventually, while progress keeps us all afloat and enriches all of us in the long run, whether we speak globally or locally? Do you realize how many businesses an economically well-off person can support in his lifetime? Populism is often associated with both the right and left (extremist?) wings of the political divide, but when we say populism, two other closely associated terms come to mind: democracy and socialism. And we all know how diametrically opposed these two high-minded concepts are. Where do we draw the line between democracy and socialism?
There's no mistaking how the article uses the word populism: in the pejorative sense, as though to imply that populism is the worst form of socialism, which if I understand correctly, is the automatic redistribution of wealth and power, which, in turn, is often interpreted in the positive sense as nationalism and often regarded in the negative sense as faux democracy (note how any country with the name "Democratic Republic of..." is automatically a communist state).
Populism thus can also be misinterpreted as democracy, or at least its bad variant, where the majority tyrannize the rest of society, whether they are the ruled or the ruling (unlike, say, in a representative or consensus democracy, which observes 'majority rule,' which includes respecting 'minority rights').
Populism thus goes both ways. It can be used as a blessed buzzword by people who prefer to use "democracy" as a political concept or "socialism" as a socioeconomic-political concept. But to be fair, we can say that capitalism (under a representative democracy) is actually the true opposite of socialism. The trouble with capitalism, especially when interpreted as a Eurocentric/American invention, is its ethos of heartlessness, concept of limitless wealth acquisition, and denial that some resources are finite or exhaustible. And let's not even get started on its parody, crony capitalism.
Apparently, the hazy notion of populism has this inherent danger of reducing difficult technicalities to even hazier, though glittery, generalities. And the danger is spreading like wildfire throughout the world, if we are to be alarmist about it.
***
Populism, socialism, democracy... what's the difference? Well, if all else fails (or in the absence of professors, who are themselves clueless), let us try to sort out these terminologies, Wikipedia-style.
Populism, according to Wikipedia, is:
...a political philosophy or rhetorical style that holds that the common person's interests are oppressed or hindered by the elite in society, and that the instruments of the state need to be grasped from this self-serving elite and used for the benefit and advancement of the people as a whole. Hence a populist is one who is perceived to craft their rhetoric as appeals to the economic, social, and common sense concerns of average people. Most scholarship on populism since 1980 has discussed it as a rhetorical style that can be used to promote a variety of political ideologies. Leaders of populist movements in recent decades have been both on the Left and Right (Canovan, Kazin, Betz).
Leaders of populist movements have variously promised to stand up to corporate power, remove "corrupt" elites, and "put people first." Populism incorporates anti-regime politics, and sometimes espouses, especially among the right wing varieties, nationalism, jingoism, racism or religious fundamentalism. Many populists appeal to a specific region of a country or to a specific social class, such as the working class, middle class, or farmers. Often they employ dichotomous rhetoric, and claim to represent the majority of the people.
Socialism:
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. [1] As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of markets, capital, and labor as a commodity.
It is difficult to make generalizations about the diverse array of doctrines and movements that have been referred to as "socialist." The various adherents of contemporary socialist movements do not agree on a common doctrine or program. As a result, the movement has split into different and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and communists. Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production to implement their aims. Others have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property.
Democracy:
Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The methods by which this rule is exercised, and indeed the composition of "the people" are central to various definitions of democracy, but useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.
The word "democracy" has acquired a highly positive connotation in much of the world over the second half of the 20th century, to such an extent that even many dictatorships claim to be democratic and often hold illiberal elections to garner legitimacy, both internally and internationally. Most contemporary political ideologies include at least nominal support for some kind of democracy.
See also:
Liberal democracy
Consensus democracy
Now that everything makes a lot more sense (do they?), let's survey the "politics of fear" around the world, or at least according to the Newsweek report (as minimally paraphrased by me).
Russia's Vladimir Putin, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez: "want to steer the wealth from the rich and the foreign to the poor and the homegrown."
Bolivia, Ecuador: (ditto)
France's Dominique de Villepin: espouses a new buzzword: "'economic patriotism'"
Cas Mudde (Antwerp University (Belgium) political scientist): "The populist zeitgiest is dawning, and it will be permanent."
India's PM Manmohan Singh: The (affirmative action-ish) National Rural Employment Guarantee "is the most significant legislation of our time."
China: "doubles monthly taxable income, and abolishes agricultural levies"
Japan's Junichiro Koizumi: "under similar pressure to debate the income gap"
Germany: "announces a new 'rich people's tax'"
Spain: "offers subsidies and tax breaks to urge companies to make temp jobs permanent"
Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia: "populists came in a close second in recent elections"
Poland's Lech Kaczynski: "promises a 'new republic' against 18% unemployment and rural poverty"
In much of Europe, the blame is pinned on the formation of the European Union and the resulting global threat to local jobs. The results: (a) a quickening of the "egalitarian impulse" and (b) "defensive response to popular unrest."
Asian Development Bank (Manila): "The old paradigm in East Asia's newly industrialized economies no longer works."
'Democracy,' er, populism (direct democracy?), is clearly seen as a 'culprit' in the rest of the world.
ADB: "In the rest of Asia, the challenge is the same and it will grow."
Surprisingly, another 'culprit' has been identified: television.
Mohammad Yunus, founder of microlender Grameen Bank in Bangladesh: People "are increasingly well aware of what they're missing." (And is that such a bad thing?-R.O.)
Austria's Jorg Haider (far right), Netherlands' Pim Fortuyn (late libertarian): their formerly radical ideas have "filtered into" centrist forces.
Germany and the rest of Western Europe: "Soc. Dems. start a 'capitalism debate,' in which Labor Minister Franz Müntefering railed at foreign 'locusts' who bought German companies and rendered them 'empty shells' before seeking new victims." (Sounds a lot like KGB lingo, right? -R.O.)
"Populists on both the left and the right routinely deride 'Anglo-Saxon methods' or 'American conditions,' by which they mean more market competition and fewer welfare guarantees."
Cas Mudde (Antwerp Univ.): "...argues that the new 'populist style' embodies a loss of faith in the elite, a decline in party loyalty, and a media tendency to flock to charismatic outsiders."
Now, here's the big However....
"Economists say widening income gaps must be addressed, but the current proposed measures are inefficient and ineffective."
And the alleged result of all that? Middle-class revolts:
Thailand: PM Thaksin Shinawatra made way for rural subsidies, "but helped trigger a rebellion among urban elites, who forced him to step down last month."
India: "Doctors, lawyers, and Bollywood actors say no to" [affirmative action]. (Personally, I find it very hard to sympathize with a civilization (an ancient one, too) that still regards (in this day and age) some sectors as "untouchables." Thank God I'm not an Indian.-R.O.) [Oops, I'm taking this out because I realize I have lots of Indian colleagues - online, that is.]
Chávez of Venezuela: His allies are "losing ground in elecoral battles, from Mexico to Peru."
**
I'm all for "[Making] poverty history," and I'd even add, "Right now!!!", but I am not sure if all these cataclysmic changes are very exciting to go through. Not in my lifetime, please.
Posts
