Is Populism a Threat to The Future of The Modern Democratic State - Essay Example

IS POPULISM A THREAT TO THE FUTURE OF THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC STATE? Name: Course Instructor’s name Institution Date IS POPULISM A THREAT TO THE FUTURE OF THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC STATE? Populism is a term that has been in use for more than a millennial now. Populism attempt to suggest that the popular masses have the absolute authority to demand for their own needs or what they believe is right for them. It is a general and ideological manner by which people, mostly of lower class, are mobilized against a government or an identified institution to safeguard the interested of the underdog or the wronged (Kaltwasser 2012, p.187). The populism approach purports that human beings in their own capability must mobilize and demand for what they believe is right for them and that the masses have the absolute authority to decide on mainstream of the existing political system. However, some political proponents claim that the government in itself is for the mutual good of the public and therefore there is no need of the people to marshal against the government, which they exalted to power (Mudde, 2013, p.17). As some of the proponents propose that populism is challenges the democratic state of a nation, others deem that it is indeed of great necessity and for a common good of a democratic nation. The analysis in this essay attempts to find reasons that would unravel the perplexity. Certainly, populist forces are challenges to the democratic state and nations should work on ways of combating such a superfluous notion. Democracy points out that democracy is the process of by which people rule themselves through consensus where each and every individual is given the same opportunity to lead and contribute significantly on the leadership and development of the nation. The components of democracy are based on equality, equity, and rule by the majority (Bale et al. 2010, p.414). Abraham Lincoln is his perception, defines leadership as the rule of the people, for the people and by the people. Lincolin points out that on the face of democracy, every person is equal and liable for national development. With this regard, people are empowered to support, criticize and even alter the way the governmental affairs are undertaken. The people are given power by the point of their democracy to select leaders they deem fit to lead them by meeting their demands, boosting economic growth and maintaining national integrity. People select leaders that they regard truthful, loyal, and honest and committed to meeting whatever they deem fit for themselves (Pasquino 2008, p.16). Doyle (2011, p.1461) states that democracy aims toward equalizing the gap between the “little guy” and the affluent and powerful. It takes interest in improving the social and economic conditions of the indolent and the poor so as to boost their living standards and bridge or reduce the big gap between the underdogs and the opulent. Failure to meet such conditions shall aggravate the people, especially the destitute and the indolent to criticize and protest against the existing government or the concerned institution, leading to the notion of populism (Bugaric 2008, p.197). With increased modernity, it is evident that populist forces are revolting against the existing established political institutions. International cases of populist forces have been seen in the various cases such as the True Finns in Finland, the Tea Party movement of America and the Sarrazin-Upheaval (Brug & Mughan 2007, p.43). According to the structuralism approaches, populism has been caused and propagated by macro-phenomenal factors such as spread of globalization, rise of neoliberalism, and multiculturalism. The extremism in populist forces began from the European countries where various oppositional parties arose to raise complains on job insecurity, social housing and welfare states (Acemoglu, Egorov & Sonin 2013, p.779). Then Bexit concern which aimed at having Britain exit the European Union furthered the issue around populist forces. The Britain Exit took concern on reducing immigration to Europe and increasing the value of the pound. Such concerns had been a great threat to the union which, with respect to the union’s laws had minimal constraints on the immigration. Hawkins (2009, p.1051), defines populism “as a set of ideas rather than a set of actions isolated from the underlying meanings for leaders and participants”. Further he offers insights into the dualistic vision on how populism goes against the will of the people as provided in democracy using Venezuela as an example. Populism has been as direct result of poor social economic conditions and dwindling democracy in most states globally. Thus, this has triggered leftwing politicians and activists to champions for a ban on immigrants who they feel are encroaching on their nation resources and this as proven to be a democratic nightmare for most leaders globally ( Hawkins 2009, p.1043). For instance, the effect of populism is being felt in the USA as its leaders seek to build a wall and send away undocumented migrants from their country. Populism has over the years lead to xenophobic attacks in countries like South Africa. Often than not populism has indeed been a threat to democracy having that in most consolidated democracies there has been cases of election absenteeism as well as voting apathy which is evidently a threat to most democratic nations (Rooduijn et al. 2014, p.571). The Brexit was a clear indication on the momentum that populism is having over democracies more so its citizens in recent years, despite the British government advancing a NO vote, the populist voted yes, a clear indication that politicians have lost touch with the electorate and as a result of that vote the prime minister had to resign. This was a populist resurgence and a vote of no confidence on the British government however, of concern is the fact that the reason cultivating this vote were wanting. With differing points and the opposition between “the many” and “the few” becomes the norm in most countries, then their democracy will be tasted and challenged. Doyle (2011,p. 1451) argues that citizens who undergo social stress and intensifying economic disparities, see their leaders and representatives indifferently and deem them puppets of the rich in this case the socially privileged. Gidron & Bonikowski (2013, p. 28) contends that populist politics can reshape repertoires of political mobilization, especially in forms of mass social movements and socially engaged party organizations.” He argues that populism is an antagonism between the people and the elite where the will of the general people is contrasted to the moral corruption of the elite. Thus, he claims that politics is a contrast between morals and ethics amongst the people. Oppressed citizens see populism as the only surest way to counter a destructive government. Nonetheless, the threats posed by the populist rhetoric on democracies has been felt in most third world countries where inflation has hit an all times high (Mudde 2013, p.11). Acemoglu, Egorov and Sonin 2013, p.800), state that the populist threat brought about by problems like the globalizing of financial capitalism that has played a major role in weakening the decision-making supremacy of autonomous state, for instance the grip and influence of the G8 nations on the decisions made by IMF and world bank has led to resurgences against democratically elected governments in most states. Sanctions and regulations implemented by this institution lead to pariah states which in turn lead to populism which eventually cripple economies (Bos et al. 2011, p.201) Moreover, international labour flows brought about by restructuring recommendations in order for states to receive loans and grants undercut the social-democratic compromises between capital and labor. Advanced democracies like the US and the UK have in recent years been accused of dominance, for instance, vacillating state sovereignty and the influence of multinationals on the economies of various states leads to unnecessary tax breaks which can provoke citizen to demonstrate and ask their governments to act, hence, the threat posed by populism has always linked social redistribution to protectionist politics (Bugaric 2008, p.196). Thus, most populist movement tend to focus more on the negative effects brought about by transnational economic forces undercutting their access to jobs, wages as well as remunerations. Religion has also be skeptical in populist movement and in most cases Muslims have been targets solely because most extremist groups as well as terrorist come from Muslim dominant countries (Kaltwasser 2013, p.481). For instance the terrorist threats in the US led to most of its citizens to question the liberal civil rights and sought to elect Trump so that he can use their cultural and religious homogeneity to protect the United States against externalities. Hence, once elected and sworn in trump made major resolutions and one of them was to ban citizens from some Islamic states entering the US a clear violation on the democratic liberties enshrined in the American constitution. Kaltwasser (2013, p. 478) asserts that populist leaders make discussion and promise the masses more power, he further proclaims that populism is a democratic pathology. Thus, populism seeks to establish a political system that turns a blind eye to the rule of law. Kaltwasser (2013, p. 477) further argues that populism tries, “to uphold an ambivalent relationship with liberal democracy but the manner in which it does this fails to consider the legitimacy of the questions drawn by the populist supporters”. This has been a concern in many democracies, they understand the will of the people is strong but, some agendas are misguided and not viable economically nor politically. Kaltwasser (2013, p. 475) highlights two dilemmas that populism solves, none which can be solved through democracy. In a way, this indicates that populism provides alternatives for problems with no democratic solutions and therefore not a threat to the concept of democracy however, the opposite is true. One of these problems is the boundary problem that seeks to define people while the other involves limits of self-government which seeks to establish the means by which the people in power are to be controlled. Nonetheless most countries practicing this in South America face challenges from drug lords and petty offenders who do not subscribe to the rule of law. In conclusion, populism indeed is a threat to democracies because it plays two roles: firstly it decries social disparities and belittles the comforts of the privileged few, secondly, it advocates for national unity centered on people power. Most proponents have tried to argue that populist highlight the democratic popular sovereignty, as it exposes weaknesses of many liberal-democratic norms while showing the downward side of modern democracies. Many politicians are populists in nature and they only abandon their populism tendencies once elected. Thus, in my opinion I think populism stretches power to the extreme, leading to resurgence of demigods and unfettered strong-man rule in the pretense of the majority, while attacking the minorities but in the long run these leaders turn out to be autocrats case in point Zimbabwe, Libya, Egypt, Gambia, Iraq and Tunisia. These leaders were popular but power drowned them and they turned out to be autocrats References Acemoglu, D., Egorov, G. and Sonin, K., 2013. A political theory of populism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(2), pp.771-805. Bale, T., Green-Pedersen, C., Krouwel, A., Luther, K.R. and Sitter, N., 2010. If you can't beat them, join them? Explaining social democratic responses to the challenge from the populist radical right in Western Europe. Political studies, 58(3), pp.410-426. Bos, L., Van der Brug, W. and De Vreese, C., 2011. How the media shape perceptions of right-wing populist leaders. Political Communication, 28(2), pp.182-206. Bugaric, B., 2008. Populism, liberal democracy, and the rule of law in Central and Eastern Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 41(2), pp.191-203. Doyle, D., 2011. The legitimacy of political institutions: Explaining contemporary populism in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 44(11), pp.1447-1473. Gidron, N & Bonikowski, B 2013, ‘Varieties of Populism: Literature Review and Research Agenda’, SSRN Electronic Journal, vol. 13, no. 4, pp.1-33, Hawkins, K 2009, ‘Is Chávez populist? Measuring populist discourse in comparative perspective’, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 42, no. 8, pp.1040-1067, Kaltwasser, C 2012, ‘The ambivalence of populism: threat and corrective for democracy’, Democratization, vol. 19, no.2, pp.184-208, Kaltwasser, C 2013, ‘The Responses of Populism to Dahl's Democratic Dilemmas’, Political Studies, vol. 62, no.3, pp.470-487, Mudde, C., 2013. Three decades of populist radical right parties in Western Europe: So what?. European Journal of Political Research, 52(1), pp.1-19. Pasquino, G., 2008. Populism and democracy. In Twenty-First Century Populism (pp. 15-29). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Rooduijn, M., De Lange, S.L. and Van Der Brug, W., 2014. A populist Zeitgeist? Programmatic contagion by populist parties in Western Europe. Party politics, 20(4), pp.563-575. Van der Brug, W. and Mughan, A., 2007. Charisma, leader effects and support for right-wing populist parties. Party Politics, 13(1), pp.29-51. Read More