Introduction on populism and populist parties

In this chapter the characteristics of populism and populist parties will be attend to the matter. There are several opinions, visions, etc on what populism is, what feature is typically populist or not and so on. The reason that there are so many opinions and articles about populism is because of the vagueness in the definition of populism (Mudde, 2007: 11). This chapter will give an overview of the different angels.

Mudde, mentioned that authors who write about populist parties seldom agree on terminology. In his case he refers to populist radical right parties, which brings up the assumption that there are different kind of populist parties. Jagers and Walgrave use a definition of populism as a political communication style in which they use a thin and a thick conceptualization (Jagers & Walgrave, 2006: 321-325). The thin part has no political colour and can be of the left and of the right. Populism is then strictly a strategy to mobilize support. Jagers and Walgrave call it a communication technique to reach out to the constituency and using populism as a device to connect to the voters (2006: 323). Specifically, they understand thin populism as displaying closeness to the people by talking about the people (2006: 323). The thick part is the thin definition in combination with the anti-establishment element and homogeneity and/ or exclusion: "When political actors talk about the people and combine this with an explicit anti-establishment position and an exclusion of certain population categories, one can speak of thick populism." (Jagers & Walgrave, 2006: 323). Also Jagers and Walgrave use different streamlets of populism. Where Mudde talks about the populist radical right parties, Jagers and Walgrave mention the agrarian populism, Latin-American populism and new-right populism. In this article the focus will lay on the new-right populism which is a streamlet that focuses on issues such as immigration, taxes, crime and nationalism (Jagers & Walgrave, 2006: 322). Specifically, new-right wing movements in western-Europe.

Taggart defines populism as a feature of representative politics (2003: 2). Also Abts and Rummens mention that populism and democracy both contain a central reference to the sovereign rule of the people (2007: 405). Some authors have hailed populism as the purest form of democracy, others have denounced it as potentially tyrannical and disruptive of some of the core elements of a democratic regime (Abts & Rummens, 2007: 405). There is a slight contradiction between it which could be explained, according to Abts and Rummens, by the ambiguity of the concept of democracy (2007: 405). They also mention that advocates of populism conceptualize democracy as the direct rule of the people and, therefore, tend to identify populism with democracy. Opponents of populism, on the other hand, hold a more constitutional conception of democracy, emphasizing the importance of representation, individual rights and the balancing of powers and interests (2007: 405). Reybrouck points out, that a typical characteristic of populism is that populists willingly plead for more direct forms of democracy (2008: 1). Examples of those forms are plebiscites (referenda) and internet opinion polls. Reysbrouck thinks that it shows the feeling of suspicion populists have towards the momentum representative democracy (2008: 1).

Abts and Rummens (2007: 407) summarise the populism debate briefly in their article. In short they describe that a first approach of populism suggest that populism is "a strategy of political mobilization using a typical style of political rhetoric". They refer to well-know authors on populism as Betz and Canovan. In this strategy the leaders of populist parties, and the parties self, appeal to the power of the people. In that way the labour union FNV in the Netherlands has a populist approach to recruit new members, in their advertising they use the slogan: 'Power to the people'. But, back to the subject. The populist parties and their leaders appeal to the power of the common people in order to challenge the rightfulness (legitimacy is the exact word Abts and Rummens use) of the present political establishment. Other members of the debate (like Taggart; which will be discussed later in this chapter), analyze populism as a type of organization and a style of politics (Abts & Rummens, 2007: 407). The explanation of that notion is as follows:

"Populism refers to a mobilization characterized by a politics of personality centered on a charismatic leader who is said to embody the will of the common people and who is able to speak on their behalf. Thereby, this populist mobilization is characterized by a particular style of communication (Taggart, 2000;Tarchi,2002, pp. 126-30). Populists offer simplistic solutions to complex political problems in a very direct language, appealing to the common sense of the people and denouncing the intellectualism of the established elites."

However, Abts and Rummens do not agree totally with these outcomes of the populism debate. They recognize that political mobilization, charismatic leadership and simplistic language are typical and important characteristics of populism, but criticise if that is representing the core of populism (2007: 407-408). In their opinion these features are symptoms or expressions of an underlying populist ideology. They refer to Canovan, which developed the approach that populism needs to be understood as a thin-centered ideology and that populism does not provide a comprehensive vision of society (Abts & Rummens, 2007: 408). Additionally, Abts and Rummens suggest that populism should be seen as a streamlet that provides a thin-centred ideology concerning the structure of the power in society (2007: 408). This because of the fact that populism mainly focuses on concepts such as 'the people', 'democracy' and 'sovereignty'. This ideology contains, according to several literatures, three elements (Abts & Rummens, 2007: 408-409):

Populism revolves around a central antagonistic relationship between 'the people' and 'the elite'. This means nothing more than a hostile/ opponent position towards the other side. Mostly, the people against the elite, whereby the current political establishment (and its rank and file) is attacked for its alleged privileges, its embezzlement and, moreover, their lack of accountability to the people. These because they are said to only represent their own interest and not the interests, values and opinions of the common man.

Populism tries to give power back to the people and restore popular sovereignty. Politics should be based on the will of the people. Therefore, populist ideology, advocate more direct forms of democracy like majority rules, referenda, etc. The will of the people is, in populist opinion, accessible if only you are willing to listen to the "vox populi". Populism emphasizes the need for a politics of will and decision.

Populism conceptualizes the people as a homogeneous unity. The transparency of the will of the people is possible because of this. In populist opinion, the people are united and share an identity. They form a collective group, which is capable of having a common will and a single interest and which is able to express this will and to take decisions: "In populist ideology, 'the people' function as a central signifier which receives a fundamentally monolithic interpretation. The people are united and indivisible, fully formed, self-aware and identifiable by the majority of numbers."

Some critique that comes from Abts and Rummens on the latter feature is that populist ideology only implicate that the people are homogeneous. However, its ideology does not fill in what this identity is or should be (2007: 409). I myself, question if that is a feature of populist parties or political parties in general. Not one political party describes exactly what kind of rank and file they have. It just happens and changes through time. Abts and Rummens also disagree with the definition of Cas Mudde who defined populism as "an ideology that considers society ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the 'pure people' versus 'the corrupt elite', and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale of the people" (Abts & Rummens, 2007: 409). They do not only disagree, but also provide a proposal to define populism more plainness (or 'frugally' as they had called it their self) as "a thin-centered ideology which advocates the sovereign rule of the people as a homogeneous body" (2007: 409).

Earlier in this article, it has been implied that there are different kinds of populist parties or streamlets within populism. Abts and Rummens suggest two variants (Abts & Rummens 2007: 409): a leftist version of populism that identifies the people in socioeconomic terms as the working class exploited by a bourgeois elite; or a rightwing populist movement that refers to ethno national characteristics to identify the people with the (ethnic) nation.

Besides it, Abts and Rummens distinguish not only streamlets but also the image of the people that populist parties have. The latter could include the fitting in of, for example, cultural and economic elites, foreigners, minorities, welfare recipients or others, in the homogeneity (2007: 409). Abts and Rummens already referred to a publication of Cas Mudde, in another publication Mudde describes these different streamlets (Mudde, 2007). He starts by pointing out that it is hard to define what, often called, the 'extreme right' party family is. One solution for that could be to adopt the concept of family resemblance, which means that no party is exactly the same, but each family member will have some features in common with all other members (Mudde, 2007: 13). The assignment is thus, to find the similarities and then score a political party on those similarities. Additionally, Weber's famous ideal typical model could be used. This means that no family members resemble fully, but all will look like in one way or another (Mudde, 2007: 13). At the end of this chapter, a global ideal type and the common similarities will be painted, because a detailed one is impossible to sketch (Mudde, 2007: 13).

Mudde's uses a minimal and a maximum definition which shows that Mudde has used two different approaches (2007: 15-23). The minimal definition is based on what the features are that all individual members of the populist family have in common. The maximum definition is defined by using the approach on the ideal type in the populist family. Mudde calls it looking for the greatest common denominator (2007: 14). Mudde mentions, that both definitions have to be seen as different and that the maximum group is a subgroup of the minimum group. He likes it to see it as individually shaped coat hangers on which additional concepts may draped. Both definitions are core concepts in that way. According to Mudde, the core concept of populist parties is 'nation' (Mudde, 2007: 16). The core goal of the nationalist is to achieve a monocultural state, it is because of that, that nationalism has not been used often to describe populist parties. Mudde interpretation of populism is nationalism combined with internal homogenization and external exclusiveness (Mudde, 2007: 17). Another component which is mentioned by Mudde is nativism. This means "the return of the power of the natives of a colonized area and the resurgence of native culture, along with the decline of the colonizers." (Mudde, 2007: 18). These kind of populist parties are also known as anti-immigrant parties and anti-alien movements (Mudde, 2007: 18). Mudde, calls out that nativisme is a suitable term for the larger party family and he uses it as a minimum definition (Mudde, 2007: 19). In comparison to the broad term nationalism, nativism has the advantage of excluding liberal forms of nationalism. Nativism could include racist arguments, but can also be nonracist. Another argument Mudde gives for the these that nativism is a core minimum definition of new-right populist parties, is that, while acknowledging the tremendous importance of xenophobia and opposition to immigration to the parties in question, nativism does not reduce the parties to mere single-issue parties, such as the term anti-immigrant does (Mudde, 2007: 19). The maximum definition of Mudde has come into existence after analyzing five parties who are known as populist: the Flemish Block in Belgium, the German people's Union, The republicans in Germany, and the Center Democrats and the Center Party '86 in the Netherlands. The central concept of these parties should be revised into a combination of three core ideological features (Mudde, 2007: 22):

Дата добавления: 2015-07-10