We are the People!

[Nentsia]

This year, there has been a remarkable sighting in my country, the Netherlands. A politician was standing on trial. Geert Wilders, an MP and the leader of the Party For Freedom (PVV), was accused of incitement of hatred and incitement to racism when at a party rally he asked the crowd ''do you want less, or more Moroccans in the country?'', upon which an ecstatic crowd chanted ''less! Less! Less!'', after which Wilders responded with ''then we're gonna arrange that.'' That scene reminded many people of Hitler's beerhall speeches in Germany against the Jews in the 1920's. During the trial it turned out that Wilders had asked the crowd beforehand to respond with ''less''. Thousands of people went to the police to accuse Wilders of inciting hatred - which has been banned since the 1930's in this country. I am not writing this to have a discussion on discrimination or whatever. What I found interesting was Wilders' speech in the courtroom before the judges.

In an fiery speech, Wilders warned the judges that if they convicted him, it would be a defeat for the freedom of expression. ''I ask you in the name of the Dutch: set me free! Set us free!'' Then Wilders carried on, ranting that the prime minister, the government, the office of prosecutors, were all involved in a ''witch hunt'' against Wilders. In the beginning of the speech, Wilders speaks of the 1 million people he allegedly represents. Later on, that number grows to 2 million. Then he warns the judges that if they convict him, they convict ''half of the Dutch people''. Eventually, Wilders' rhetoric suggests that he represents the entire Dutch people. To be clear, his party won 10% of the votes the last parliamentary election, and 13% in the most recent EU parliamentary elections. The largest share of the vote Wilders has ever won is 15%.

A similar rhetorical device, the so-called Pars pro toto, was once used by the Hungarian politician Viktor Orban. When he lost an election, he blatantly exclaimed that ''the nation cannot be in the opposition''. I was myself struck by the words of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the protests at the Taksim Square against his plans to remove the Gezi Park. Erdogan unashamedly declared that those protestors ''were not Turks''. I saw the same mechanism at work when the British EU referendum ended with a 2% victory for the Brexit-camp, upon which a proud Nigel Farage proclaimed that ''the British People'' (singular entity) had rejected the EU, and had taken ''their'' country back, completely ignoring the fact that it was not even half of the British population that voted Brexit. When a British court decided that the Brexit decision had to be passed by the British parliament, an elected representative institution (a sovereign institution in fact), the British newspapers denounced the judges as ''traitors'' and ''enemies of the people'', and supporters of the Bremain camp were denounced in similar fashion as national traitors. When Trump won the US presidential elections, and demonstrations and riots broke out, Trump blatantly argued that the demonstrators were paid by Soros. Meanwhile, Trump's supporters openly demanded the arrest of the other presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. This follows the same logic, that apparently not everyone belongs to ''the people'' anymore. Political opponents no longer exist: they are enemies in today's Western society.


It strikes me how easily people fall for such demagoguery every time again, which according to Jan Werner Muller - a leading expert from Princeton - is the defining element of ''Populism''. All politicians thrive on conflict, all politician try to appeal to the people, but what sets Populists apart is that the view, and treat, the people as a singular, uniform, and morally superior entity, in opposition to the corrupted groups that dominate and exploit the good, authentic, true people. This ''authentic people'' is usually defined by its enemies who have supposedly exploited and dominated them, usually the ''Elite'', ''criminals'', the ''unemployed'' (profiteers), and ''immigrants'', and usually there is also a foreign power that participates in this oppression of the ''People''. A Populist movement then believes there ~is~ such a thing as ''the People'' (singular), and that it can properly discern the ''common good'' and represent the singular ''will of the people''. The problem with their approach then, is that they develop a movement that treats its supporters and followers as the morally superior ''Will of the People'', while denying the -legitimacy- of political opponents, rejecting them as traitors, servants of the corrupt, enemies of the people, etc.

The principle is so obvious that I cannot get my head around that people do not realize they are being tricked by a demagogue. Although there have been 19th century populists as well, the most famous example is perhaps Juan Domingo Peron in Argentina. As a minister of industry in a military government, Peron discovered the discontent among the Argentine urban masses, particularly the workers. Peron wrestled the workers and Unions support for the Argentine Communist Party away by reforming the labor unions and implementing a social program that improved the conditions of the workers. To a group of people who had previously considered themselves the unheard victim of exploitation and oligarchic corruption, Peron - who praised them as Argentina's heroes and most virtuous people and who seemed to care about their interests, must have been a dream come true. Appealing to the working class, mobilizing a forgotten segment of the electorate, is not Populist. What made Peron the very embodiment of Populism was his equation of his followers (Descamisados) with the Argentine nation and the Argentine common good. Peron presented himself as the sole representative of the Argentine people, implementing the popular will against the corrupting influences of capitalist oligarchs, American imperialism, and Communist traitors.

The inherent authoritarian nature of Peron's populism, by pitting the ''good people'' against its enemies, became apparent when Peron was in power. Populists believe that they alone represent the popular will, thereby they are entitled to everything. In fact, they can even replace democratic institutions because what is more democratic than that the representatives of the Popular Will have everything in their hands? Peron proceeded to fire anyone, including teachers, judges, union leaders, journalists etc, who disagreed with him. The media were censored, opposition rallies were attacked, and opposition leaders were denounced by Peron as traitors. This behaviour leads naturally from the idea that only one movement, or one man even, can represent the unified popular will. The implication is that all forms of dissent are treasonous. The same behaviour has been displayed by other populists in power, such as Hugo Chavez, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Aleksandr Lukashenko.

Populists however, seldomly managed to win more than 50% of the popular vote. If they are succesful, they manage to mobilize a significant section of the electorate that has been neglected by the established political parties. All populists indulge in large amount of flattering their own followers because they not only believe in the moral superiority of their followers (as opposed to the corrupt other groups) and by constantly repeating the flattery, the populists give their supporters a new sense of confidence. Populists are most succesful if there is a significant group within the electorate that feels neglected (which is not to say dominated). When a populist emerges, that voices their frustration with the groups that have neglected and dominated them (political elites, financial elites, immigrants), and this populist also fuels their self-esteem, he becomes an attractive leader figure for them. The populist element however lies in the Populists' reductionism by presenting their group of followers as the true people, the heart of the nation, and their movement as the single representative of the common interest and the popular will. What follows is a rejection of all outsiders as being traitors, corrupt, agents, all of them somehow linked in a great conspiracy against the true people. The populists do not believe in legitimate differences of opinion. Whoever disagrees with them is either paid by foreign interests, serving a corrupt or criminal elite, or belonging to a treasonous cause or even the enemy of the nation.

Journalists too are by definition liars, for writing critically, judges are accused of partisanship if their verdict opposes the wishes of the populists, and rival political parties are by definition the vehicles of the corrupt elite, designed to mislead the people. And those who vote for them are not part of the honest, hard-working, good, patriotic and proud people: no, they are either paid to vote for the criminals, or they are immigrants and thus part of the conspiracy to enslave the common people, or they are in some other way an accomplice to the evil system. Real voters, of independent thought, of good and honest heart, vote Populist.


One of the most blatant examples of populism was Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. The Milan-based media-tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, whose media channels targeted ''ordinary'' Italians, deliberately decided to buy the football club AC Milan. Berlusconi wanted to use the club for his political career. He pumped millions into the club, and in the subsequent years it became the most succesful football club in the world. Berlusconi used the club to create an aura of success around him. The political party he formed in the early 1990's was literally an Italian football slogan: ''Forza Italia!''

The message of Berlusconi was quite similar to that of Trump in America. What Berlusconi claimed was that he had taken a declining football club, and turned it into the biggest club of the world. He was a succesful Italian - of modest background, and he was going to make Italy a great success. Forza Italia! The fact that he entered an alliance with a movement that still described itself as Fascist and adored Mussolini did not harm Berlusconi's appeal. The reason that it worked was that Berlusconi was the new kid on the block, while the established parties (Social Democrats and Christian Democrats) were being resented after decades of ineffective government, crime, and corruption. Berlusconi positioned himself as an ordinary Italian, who knew who to achieve success. Berlusconi deliberately exploited his reputation of a self-made man by bleeching his teeth, tanning his skin, dying his hair, plastic surgery, wearing expensive jewelry and surrounding himself with young women. One of the tactics of Berlusconi was to denounce the Social Democrats and their coalition partners as Communists, and papers such as The Economist, which criticized Berlusconi as being unfit to rule any country, were denounced as accomplices in a Communist conspiracy to overtake Italy.

Berlusconi used his media empire to convince some 18 million families that watched his channels that Berlusconi would create millions of jobs, reduce crime, increase pensions, and cut taxes. By the end of his term, while enjoying a solid parliamentary majority, Berlusconi had broken all of his promises - except increasing the pensions. The economy was in ruins. The power of the Mafia was slowly recovering under Berlusconi - who enjoyed an interestingly high number of votes from Sicily.

In his governing style, Berlusconi continued to display his populist tendencies: he virtually ruled by decree, ignored the parliament, denounced court judges as Communists because they investigated his corruption affairs, and he preferred to announce his political decisions (such as withdrawing from Iraq) directly in his own TV studios than in parliament. His behaviour followed once again from the erroneous idea that there is such a thing as the Popular Will, and that he could represent it, and therefore there was no need to waste time on debating decisions in parliament. Berlusconi rather presented his decisions directly to the audience in their living room, presenting himself as the effective leader who implements to the popular will, and serves the common interest, without the interference of any bureaucratic or institutional process. A movement that believes that it embodies the popular will sees democratic processes as needlessly sluggish and bureaucratic.

Threatened with electoral defeat in 2005, Berlusconi attempted to change the voting rules, but was defeated in a referendum in 2006. In 2008, the failures of the Social Democrats, helped Berlusconi to become prime minister for a third time. Berlusconi deliberately sided himself with the ordinary people, the true Italians, in opposition to all the corrupted and crooked who had ruined the country over the decades. Everything was blamed on the Communists, and everyone who criticized Berlusconi was accused of being one. Berlusconi once went as far as to claim that the Communists were jealous of him and lacked a good taste in women. Right wing women were more attractive than left wing ones, according to Berlusconi. It became so obvious even, even to Italians, that it became the running gag to reject any criticism as Communism. Berlusconi's friends have later admitted that Berlusconi never had any political visions or ambitions, and that he simply decided to enter politics to protect his business from criminal investigations. Journalists in similar fashion faced the threat of being fired by Berlusconi if they criticized him. Berlusconi nearly controlled all the private tv channels, and when he came to power he held control over the state channels as well. The magistrates and judges who were investigating Berlusconi's corruption, were denied any legitimacy by Berlusconi. In typical Populist fashion, he claimed that they had no right to judge Berlusconi, who was elected by the ''People'' and they were not. Then followed the accusations that they were partisan, communist, or corrupt.

In 2013, Berlusconi's game was over. He was defeated in parliament, his party split, he was forced to resign as prime minister, and the courts convicted him for various crimes such as corruption, and tax fraud. In similar fashion, Hugo Chavez left his country in a state of anarchy after decades of Populist demagoguery - dividing the population into Chavistas and traitors, enemies of the people, agents of the American Imperialists. Chavez' followers seized democratic institutions as their own, censored the media, used state funds to satisfy Chavez' electorate, and currently under Maduro they continue to use all necessary means - even violence - to deny the mounting opposition any influence. Erdogan, appealing to the ''Great Turkish people'', will not hesitate to remove almost a 100,000 people from their professions because they political views have been confined to the realm of ''treason'' by Erdogan. Among them are elected mayors. Erdogan, asked at a political rally of his supporters whether they wanted the death penalty back. When the crowd cheered in favor of the death penalty, Erdogan humbly accepted this as ''the Will of the Turkish People''. For only Erdogan voters belong to the true Turkish nation... the rest are just Kurds, terrorists, PKK, ISIS and whatnot you can think of.

And every time the voters fall for it again. An obvious political opportunist (therefore an outsider, he is a new guy) drops by, denounces the corrupt and evil, and promises to implement the will of the people/nation/workers/hard-working people/common people/etc whom they flatter as being the embodiment of pure morality, goodness etc. And of course the political establishment has no other story than to accuse their new opponent of populism, which then further encourages the public to move toward the populists - for nothing turns the voter more off than arrogance. I needed to get this off my chest. I'm not a politician, so I dont fear the consequences of labelling something populist. I detest Populism not because of its aims, not because it appeals to the people (every politician does and should do), but because it is what one scholar has called ''anti-parliamentarist''. It's not anti-democratic, but it rejects parliamentarism, with its separation of powers, political pluralism, and checks and balances. The Populists, with their firm belief in the supremacy of the unified popular will/common interest, tend to view parliamentarism as useless, and inferior to a direct rule ''of the people'', but never by the people, but through a movement or a single leader. Populists prefer to rule by decree and occasional referendums, but only if the referendum favors their side. It is however the anti-pluralist character that I detest. The ease with which Populists divide our society in ''people'' vs ''elite'', ''good'' vs ''corrupt'', and ''patriot'' vs ''traitor'', makes me itch all over my body. I am also of the People. I've had it happen on this forum here that people, because I disagreed with them, started to insinuate I was either an anti-semite, or against ''the working class'' (honestly wtf..?) or in some other way connected to the liberal establishment because I happened to point out some factual errors being said about the EU.

So as a reminder to everyone in this forum who is inclined to support Populists nowadays, and you are free to do so - Im not judging: please remember than although your great leaders pretend that you have the moral right always on your side and that you therefore can always claim to be correct even if the facts don't support you, please be aware that this does not mean others are having some sort of an evil hidden agenda, even though your leaders claim so. They do that just to get your vote - as every politician is not much more than a salesman of political programs.