|
September 1, 2010
The emergence of a hung parliament in Australia and the balance of power being held by three country Independents who articulate their concerns in a populist discourse suggests that it is time to revisit populism in Australia.
We no longer need to extrapolate from populism in America and the common response by the commentariat that the populism of three country Independents represents a threat to liberal democracy is undercut by the Independents calling for reform to our political institutions. Populism has become a regular feature of politics in Australian democracy and many people support populist ideas and politicians. What they oppose is being represented by an ‘alien’ elite, whose policies do not reflect their own wishes and concerns. Those polices, for the country Independents in Australia is neo-liberalism.
One place to start revisiting populism is Cas Mudde's 2004 paper The Populist Zeitgeist in Government and Opposition (Vol.39, No.3, 2004, pp. 541‐563.) In this paper:
a clear and new definition of populism is presented. Second, the normal- pathology thesis is rejected; instead it is argued that today populist discourse has become mainstream in the politics of western democracies. Indeed, one can even speak of a populist Zeitgeist. Third, it is argued that the explanations of and reactions to the current populist Zeitgeist are seriously flawed and might actually strengthen rather than weaken it.
Muddle says that populism is best understood as the people versus the powerful’. It 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 expres- sion of the volonté générale (general will) of the people.
He adds that the concept of the heartland helps to emphasize that the people in the populist propaganda are neither real nor all-inclusive, but are in fact an ‘imagined community’, much like the nation of the nationalists.
He adds:
In liberal democratic systems, where political parties are the main actors in the process of representation, it comes as no surprise that in the propa-ganda of populists, anti-party sentiments play a prominent role. In an often implicitly Rousseauian fashion, populists argue that political parties corrupt the link between leaders and supporters, create artificial divisions within the homogeneous people, and put their own interests above those of the people.
Underpinning this is the classic populist distinction between the corrupt, metropolitan, urban elite and the pure, hardworking , rural people.
Mudde says that populism can be either left wing or rightwing:
The populism of the New Left referred to an active, self-confident, well- educated, progressive people. In sharp contrast, the current populism is the rebellion of the ‘silent majority’. The heartland of populists [on the right] is the hard-working, slightly conservative, law-abiding citizen, who, in silence but with growing anger, sees his world being ‘perverted’ by progressives, criminals, and aliens. In short, the contemporary populist revolt is in many ways the opposite to that of 1968 and further. While the populists of the ‘silent revolution’ wanted more participation and less leadership, the populists of the ‘silent counter-revolution’ want more leadership and less participation.
By leadership they want responsive government, i.e. a government that implements policies that are in line with their wishes. The desire is for the problems of ‘the common man’ to be solved, according to their own values (often referred to as ‘common sense’), and they accept that this will have to be done by political leadership.
What is opposed is being represented by an ‘alien’ elite, whose policies do not reflect their own wishes and concerns. Those policies for regional populist Independents in Australia are identified as neo-liberal ones because a neo-liberal mode of governance has degutted many regional parts of Australia. The demand is that things can and should be better for regional Australia. Mudde ends thus:
The problem is, can they be ‘better’ (i.e. more democratic) within the system of liberal democracy? As soon as more radical demands are made, the answer from the mainstream politicians is often that they are not feasible because of constitutional provisions or international commitments. Thus, a vicious circle is created, which can only be broken by either giving in to the populists, and creating a more populist (and less liberal!) democratic system, or by resisting them, and instead explaining and defending the democratic limitations of the liberal democratic system.
A balance of power situation changes that duality.
|
|
In 'Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy’, in Political Studies, 47: 1 (1999 pp. 2–16) Margaret Canovan argued that populism is a critique of the democratic limitations within liberal democracies. In its extremist interpretation of majoritarian democracy, it rejects all limitations on the expression of the general will, most notably the constitutional protection of minorities and the independence (from politics, and therefore from democratic control) of key state institutions (e.g. the judiciary, the central bank).