Populism and demagogy

The word populism is back in favour. It appears frequently in editorials and books, and is often mentioned on talk-shows and in media commentaries. The term - derived from populus the Latin for people – is quite recent. It was adopted by popular political movements in the US (People’s Party) and Russia (Narodniks) at the end of the 19^th century, and was claimed by a French literary movement in the 1920s. At about the same time it became associated with rabble-rousing demagoguery that was proving to be politically successful across Europe and elsewhere. The word demagogue comes from the Greek demagogos that means a leader of the people. Originally it did not have a pejorative connotation, but then Cleon managed to govern Athens as a despot thanks to his oratory skills (429-422BC). Thereafter demagogues were perceived as the instigators of mob-rule.

Populists wanted to educate and emancipate the people. Demagogues want to lead them. The first tried to publicise what common people were thinking. The second tell them what to think. Populism was short lived. It failed to give the people a voice. But then, the disparity of mass societies may have made that an impossible task. The rural and urban divide is the universal obstacle to a common discourse, alongside wealth inequality. Demagogues rely heavily on the opposition between “us” and “them”. The “us” is always the leader’s faithful followers. The “them” may, and often does, vary over time, but it usually starts with the degenerate, corrupt “elite”. This opposes the people (“us”) and those who govern financially and politically (“them”). However, the successful demagogue becomes part of that “elite” – if he did not belong there in the first place – and must change the “them” into something else. The easiest targets, held in second place until then, are religious, ethnic and gender minorities. The ultimate step is to make war on another nation, which will represent “them” in a concrete manner.

Populists believed even the humblest people should have their say on the government of society. The argument against this idea is that social mechanisms are too complex to be understood by the less educated masses. They can at best choose more knowledgeable representatives. This supposition installs a ruling class alongside the propertied class, and the two intermingle and collaborate. The elected few live in a different sphere, and their distance from those they are supposed to represent gets ever greater. That chasm that separates wealth and power from the people is where demagogues thrive. Blocking people’s aspirations to the control of their lives and communities, making them poor and powerless, and ignoring their experiences, produce a simmering violence that can erupt in collective and individual acts. Keeping the lid on the social pressure-cooker is the function of the security industry, whereas demagogues juggle with it. A successful demagogue knows how to play the people’s frustration and anger, how to let them go and call them back. He has practiced and perfected the techniques of swaying and galvanising a crowd. Conflating the populist and the demagogue is historically false, but it obstructs all attempts at letting the people have their say. If a call to the people to express their willingness for change is judged demagogic, alongside calls for violence against all that is deemed different, then the demagogues will always win, and all will change so that nothing changes.

Demagogues are not populists. They want to grab power for themselves, not give it to the people. They are potential tyrants, and the confusion with populist ideals leaves no room for popular movements to coalesce in opposition. Demagogues are the product of particular historical circumstances. At times when progressive, liberal politicians are in disarray and compromised, and when capitalism can no longer resolve the contradiction of profit with debt. The present is one of those periods. Both political sides have followed the same unpopular policies and have pandered the wealthiest few. And the stock market cannot be far from a steep downhill slide, with all the financial consequences of that fall. In these dire straits, capitalism can no longer be generous with the wider masses and fears their reaction. The demagogue is a perfect lightning-rod that catches and deviates the resentment, anger and violence. He knows how to fan the flames and direct the heat where he wants. And with the enthusiastic support of the political and financial aristocracy, who can stop him? This “resistible rise” pleases the dominant class that dreads a popular uprising, but the hand that feeds sometimes gets bitten.