Populism

The accumulation of capital by a very small minority has reached such a disproportionate level that it is destroying social cohesion. This vast wealth in just a few hands gives them control of government, public institutions, media and production. And nothing is envisaged that does not bring in a profit and make that wealth greater still. But a nation exists because of its shared ethos and because citizens participate in the commonwealth. If these two essential bonds are broken, a nation splits up into its elementary particles. It ceases to be a nation and turns into a hierarchy of oppression. This is when populist politicians come to the fore, often out of the blue. They funnel the mass discontent and invariably aim it at two targets, the Establishment and a minority group. Behind closed doors, however, the Establishment negotiates a deal with the fire-brand and gives him support, which leaves the minority group(s) for whom words are followed by acts. This seems to be the standard procedure when societies fall apart, and the mass of believers and followers are always the cuckolds of history.

The lessons of the past are forgotten and populist leaders are back in favor, as a symptom and product of social decomposition. Unfortunately, demagogues never bring peace and cohesion. They can only thrive in a divided community, where hate of the other can be whipped up with words. Having made a pact with and been coopted by the powers of wealth, the populist turns on his other target, a minority that is culturally and/or ethnically distinguishable. Unfortunately, demagogues do not put right the growing inequalities of wealth. Instead they accentuate the inequality of a designated minority. In the past, populist movements led to Fascism in Italy, the Phalanx in Spain, National Socialism in Germany and numerous similar regimes elsewhere. This cannot be repeated because, since then, technology has transformed the world. But primary symptoms are clearly visible and the outcome with modern tools could be even more devastating.

Since the end of the Second World War there has been much hypothesizing on whether it could have been avoided, and what was the point of no return. The violence had been instituted in the First World War trenches, where generals would order many thousands of men to their deaths with hardly a qualm. By 1918, human life had been devalued to almost nothing, and killing had become the norm. Disband millions of post-traumatic stress disorder victims and anything can happen. Then there was the occupation of Southern Germany (Ruhr) and France’s insistence on reparations, which ruined the German economy and fermented resentment. But this did not concern the Italians who were on the winning side, yet Mussolini marched on Rome in 1922, while Hitler had yet to go to prison and write Mein Kampf (1924). Could one or the other have been stopped at the outset? Most probably so, but they were not and the crisis of 1929 brought fuel to all demagogues. By 1933 Hitler had taken power and soon Mussolini was invading Ethiopia. Then, in 1936, came the Spanish War. Germany and Italy had no trouble supporting the rebellious generals, their legionnaires and auxiliaries from Morocco and their Phalanx allies, whereas France and Britain were unable to support the elected government, because it was a Popular Front comprised of republicans, communists, Trotskyists, anarchists, as well as Basque and Catalan separatists. The war allowed the Germans to test a new weapon over Guernica and other targets, planes built to carry a heavy load of bombs. Thereafter bombing from the sky would be indiscriminate. The war in Spain demonstrated the pusillanimity of French and British governments. And by that time there was no going back, as the Munich accord, which followed the annexation of part of Czechoslovakia, was no more than a respite.

In today’s growing tensions and populist upsurge, the similarities with events eighty years ago are so numerous that the path seems set for a Second Cold War. After being defeated and losing its empire, Russia has rearmed and is back on the world stage with a very centralized government around president Putin. China came out of seclusion and, after a couple of decades, is now on a technological par with Europe and America with a very centralized government around president Xi. In the Syrian war al-Assad and his generals were opposed by a popular front which included al-Nusra and numerous other radical groups, and discouraged support from Europe and America. From the outset, Assad’s best troupes were the Lebanese Hezbollah units, and he soon had additional support from Russia in the air and Iran on the ground. And Turkey, an early member of NATO, seems to be drifting ever closer to Russia, whose annexation of Crimea only raised some symbolic protestations. Even the “red line” over the use of chemical weapons came to nothing.

Euro-American hegemony is being threatened by Russia and its rapprochement with Turkey, while China is anxious to maintain its supplies of Iranian oil. And on all sides populist leaders are beating the drums of nationalism. If one includes the financial crisis of 2008, these last ten years have been a remake of the 1930s, and though quantitative easing saved world finance from collapse, it cannot resolve the problem of ballooning debts. If one adds the new factors of extreme weather conditions induced by climate change, global pollution and mass extinctions, and a tripling of human populations, the situation is even more serious than it was eighty years ago. Charismatic demagogues can conceivably be contained, but runaway meteorology and demography cannot. Trump (whose art lacks an essential component: trust) and his poodles could possibly find a compromise with Xi, Putin, Erdogan and Kim, but no amount of bullying, cunning and deviousness can deal with hurricanes, blizzards, drought, natality and overwhelming debt.