Page Content
The People vs The Elite is a classic political war game
WHAT IS POPULISM? It’s a question well worth asking, given the wide array of current political leaders.
While attaching labels to political leaders is easy, answering the question is more difficult. In simple terms, populism is a style of politics that appeals to a mass audience—”The People”—in opposition to “The Elite,” who are viewed as a threat. This perceived threat may be economic, political, cultural or all three.
It would be wrong to suggest that all populist movements are equivalent. Canada’s own Social Credit and Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (the CCF) were the products of populist movements. Yet whether democratic or authoritarian and totalitarian, all forms of populism share some common characteristics.
At first glance, populism seems merely a variation on a conflict between “us” and “them.” But the notion of The People suggests membership in a sacred community, the defense of which is also a sacred duty. Conversely, members of The Elite are by definition outside the community; they are not of The People.
While the purported Elite are sometimes geographically outside, this is not always the case. Outsiders often live quite close at hand to The People. German Jews are the classic example. They were not recent immigrants to Germany when the Nazi persecution began; in most instances, they had lived in German towns and cities for centuries. But Jews also faced long-standing prejudice and suspicion. They were perpetual outsiders.
It is worth noting also that many groups targeted in populist discourse are far from elite members of society. The ongoing persecution in Europe of the Romani and demonization of Latino migrants to the U.S. provide two examples.
The real problem in defining populism, however, lies in the two opposing categories themselves. Who exactly are The People? In classical left-wing politics, they are the workers, the proletariat, those who have only their labour to sell; a group that, in strict terms, constitutes the vast majority of citizens in all modern capitalist states.
By contrast, The People in right-wing populist rhetoric are less easily defined. Often, membership in the group is based on race, ethnicity or religion. Historically in western Canada, regional identity has been the ticket to populist membership. The West (vaguely defined) as a place perpetually under attack from The East (equally ill-defined) is a long-standing populist trope. “Standing up” for The West is a sign that one is truly of and for The People.
Similarly, The Elite, as identified by populists, take on different names depending on time and place. Again, Jews have been a convenient proxy in western culture. The populist parties that emerged in the United States in the late 19th century and in Canada in the 1920s and 1930s often focused on bankers and railroad magnates, though once again Jews and immigrants, and sometimes Catholics, were included. A trusted hallmark of all populist movements is that, given time, no one is excluded from the ranks of those viewed as The People’s enemies. In Nazi Germany, unionists, socialists, communists, homosexuals and various national communities joined Jews on the verboten list. In present day Alberta, populist rhetoric tends to single out liberals and socialists, the federal government, Quebec, public sector workers, teachers, environmentalists and intellectuals as those threatening The People. Who populism decides to eat is a moveable feast.
In short, the constitutive elements of both The People and The Elite are vague and changeable. Likewise, the nature of the threat posed is often unclear. This is especially the case where the threat is not purely economic, though economic stress is often a factor in populist outbursts. But economic stresses frequently merge with political and cultural threats; ones bearing on The People’s way of life and even identity—an existential crisis.
Populism’s vagueness and changeability, combined with fears arising from a sense of threat, are a boon to political leaders, especially cynical ones, for it is such leaders who most give shape to the contours of populist discourse and light the fuse. If there is a genuine crisis, they fan its flames; if there is not, they create one. Populist leaders define who are The People and who are not, the cause and nature of the crisis—the “who” to be blamed—and its solutions. Populism is a political vehicle driven by leaders to mobilize The People toward what they portray as a moral quest: a fight for justice, a fight for a “fair deal,” as articulated by the leader.
Against fear and anger, hope and love can also motivate populist movements. Barrack Obama’s election in 2008 provides one example, as does Tommy Douglas’s career as, first, a Saskatchewan premier and, later, as an MP in Ottawa. But the poisonous chalice of fear and anger too often proves to be The People’s choice, and once swallowed, proves difficult to slake.
