World View:Populism is omnipresent these days, so much so that one wonders whether it is a valid term for analysis or simply a form of political abuse. This week it has been used freely in media accounts of Cristina Fernández Kirchner's election victory in Argentina, Hugo Chavez's constitutional changes in Venezuela, the strong performance of the Swiss People's Party, the continuing role of the Kaczynsky brothers in Poland, and a left turn by the German Social Democrats in response to competition from the new Left party, writes Paul Gillespie
These are but a small, if representative, sample of the phenomenon this year. What is it that allows the same word to be applied to Latin America, central and western Europe - and elsewhere too, such as in Thailand and Australia?
"Populist" is frequently used with condescension or denigration to describe what are seen as illiberal, demagogic or opportunistic methods of leadership appealing to spuriously pure and homogeneous peoples. It is a synonym for the gratuitously popular gesture to an over-simplified populace by those who should and do know better.
Thus it implies manipulation for ulterior purposes rather than a rational response to real circumstances. But that does not get us very far in understanding populism and explaining why it should have become so prevalent - indeed so popular.
Is it best seen as a transitional movement, as in the central and eastern European democratisation process, which has been historically so compressed compared to its western European counterparts that have already achieved sustainable liberal democracies? If that is the case, how is the growth of right-wing populist movements in so many of these latter countries to be explained, not to mention Germany's left-wing variants?
Populism is therefore better seen as a potentially constant feature of representative democracies. They may be especially prone to such movements according to changing relations between governing elites and mass electorates, subject to economic and social crises of various kinds.
Thus populism is one "way of constructing the political", as the Argentinian/UK writer Ernesto Laclau puts it in his recent book, On Populist Reason. It is a syndrome, an ideology, a type of movement or a style that can erupt at particular points in the histories of democratic states. While not a political position in the same way as conservatism, liberalism or socialism, it may affect any of these movements in particular settings.
To find out when this is likely to happen, it helps to use a definition put forward by Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde, who has just published a book on populist right-wing parties in Europe. He says demagogy and opportunism are better words to describe some of the aforementioned factors.
In contrast populism is "an ideology that considers society to be 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 general will of the people". He discerns a "populist Zeitgeist" in contemporary western societies.
Populism thus has two opposites: elitism and pluralism. Elitism and populism are mirror-images, sharing a mutual dislike of each other. Pluralism contests the false unity populism imposes on elites and peoples, seeing society in terms of a rooted heterogeneity in which groups and individuals often have very different views and interests. Because it denies this, populism is usually illiberal too.
Populism is also Manichean, in that it divides society into friends or foes. Opponents are evil, not different. Compromise corrupts the purity of a united people, while constitutionally entrenched safeguards for minorities and toleration of differences frustrate achievement of the popular will.
Rather than dismissing all populisms in consequence as backward/transitional, right-wing, xenophobic or neo-fascist movements that confirm the need for wiser elites - an attitude that tends to suffuse media and policy discussion - it is better to understand why they should re-emerge under such a variety of guises in democratic societies. As one writer puts it, "populism seems to become stronger the more intellectuals criticise it".
Just because populists say elites are corrupt or unrepresentative, for example, is no excuse for saying this is not true. And just because they say the people's will is not respected or expressed is not a valid ground for saying national democratic representation functions optimally.
There is plenty of evidence to show that political elites are increasingly removed from popular accountability, have low probity or are separated from democratic access. Such trends as public financing of political parties, policy convergence, falling party loyalty, monopolisation of political activities, embourgeoisement of activists, and Europeanisation or internationalisation of public policy-making with too little scrutiny readily tell such a story.
Political corruption is notoriously difficult to define and pin down (as we well know in Ireland), but media coverage now tends both to highlight and exaggerate it more than in the past. This is partly because media are less under party control and has much to do with their greater commercialisation.
Corruption may not be any more common than before, but it is now more difficult to conceal. Just because tabloids share a populist style is not to say they don't do a good job reporting shady political deals.
It is also true that most people in more mature democracies as well as newer ones are better educated, more emancipated and better informed than previously, making them expect more of politicians and more capable of criticising them. If liberal democracies fail to respond to such social change they can become more prey to "populist" attacks on their elites. The word is easily reached for by those elites as a disdainful defence against what they regard as unwarranted criticism. In these circumstances it can undermine elite legitimacy further by implying there is no alternative to elitist rule.
In fact many of these social changes both facilitate and necessitate alternatives to inherited elitism and ways to enable greater popular participation in politics for those who want to. It behoves critics of populism to challenge its simplistic accounts with achievable ones allowing for the pluralism and internationalism populists deny. The spectre of right-wing populism is often a warning that such alternatives have not been presented by their left-wing opponents.