POLITICAL THEORY

POLITICAL THEORY

The rise of political parties affiliated to populism is gaining momentum across Europe in recent years. Such parties have wielded significant force in terms of electoral success since the end of World War II. Populism has become a salient component of most European political systems, creating a new political dimension deemed to represent a principle challenge to contemporaneous democracy. Parties that have embrace populism theory have recently made it to the ruling coalition government such as Freedom Party In Australia. The effect of this is that populist parties influence democratic parties in their policy development. Laclau defines populism as political articulation, rather than an oriented ideology; Laclau is one of the first scholars to come up with a theory explaining the relationship between contemporary democratic politics and populism. He argues that it is because of the continuous expansion of populations and needs that another system to address the minimum efforts of a democratic government is needed. It has led to two opposing sides hence a conflict. Populist ideologists throw support from the people deemed to be politically handicapped to those that seemed to be on the elite team. It is this conflict, and at the same time, the relationship between democratic representation and populism, that populism has been branded to be a mirror of the latter. However, the populism movement does rely on the political image of the people; hence, populism itself cannot be a full form of political set up.

Laclau and Panizza (2005) asserted that several factors have led to the sudden rise of populism, souces of discontent have increased.these are socio-cultural, political, and economic factors. These factors exist in a parallel dimension to each other.regressive taxation as an economic factor has led to increased poverty rendering the states to be less secure and lower pensions. Also, globalization has created an unfair ground which encouraged de-industrialization, creating a sense of insecurity to citizen worried about losing their jobs. Globalization has caused a shift in the manufacturing of goods from advanced to developing countries, causing the developed countries to feel left behind. Also, the populists are fueled by neoliberal globalization and increased immigration; this has created a xenophobic field where people are afraid to do business due to competition from foreigners. Lastly, political discontents have contributed to this; people feel that their voices are not heard. Stavrakakis (2004) conquered that citizens feel that they have lost control through new political stands such as Europeanization, where influential people make decisions affecting the lives of the familiar people.

A democratic government, on the other hand, is a system having a government that the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them indirectly through a delegate representation or directly. Dryzek, Honig and Phillips (2008) stated that this form of governorship has existed for several years; many countries in the world use this form because of its organized system. The emergence of new scholars has resulted in the coming up of several ideas that have defied the norms of democracy.McCormick (2011) noted that capitalism and communism are two earlier forms of ideas that have emerged but vanished almost immediately due to a lack of clear policies that were deemed detrimental to the welfare of the people. Populism has proved to be persistent, gaining massive support from the majority of the people; this makes it hard to throw it away because it fights for grievances that are expressed by ordinary people.

McCormick (2010) stated that the interest of the people is a common notion that any political association is affiliated. Populist movements have taken this narrative to be a personal initiative since they have made people see themselves as a single unit against an oppressor. None the less, in modern politics, all speeches made by leaders directly appeal to the people will be making it almost impossible to differentiate between populist from non-populist political alienations. In this context, it is clear that the notion ‘the people’ applies to both populism and democratic political movements. We only interpret it to suit our ideologies from the viewpoints of both populist and democratic political mind.

Stavrakakis (2004) showed that during the nineties, history has shown that the people were living one entity that acted popularly through collective agreement or a trusted spokesman. These people felt oppressed by those in power. This created insurgency to fight for their grievances .having no formal education and political rights, and these people rose into political life through uprisings and riots, such as uprisings threatened the standard democratic order rendering it to be partial in its administration. Populism, as a form of the governorship, has widely been speculated to be an alternative to the democratic government. Laclau and Panizza (2005) asserted that with the democratization of politics, there arose a paradigm shift in the imaginations of the people. The people became the sovereign holders of democracy, making it hard for the elite to impose their wishes on them. However, the notion of the people as dangerous still lingers in today’s politics, making them both noble and vulnerable. A populist identification is the mirror of the fullness of the people in the left wing of a political system.

Both democratic and populist governorship have leaders as an essential feature of the systems. On the contrary, populist does not entirely depend on a leader; the presence of a leader does not make populism less open to conflicting meanings. People tend to identify themselves with leaders through firm stands and accommodating ideas the leader possesses. Stavrakakis (2004) stated that populism is a variety of rational arguments, myths, symbols, and ideological themes reminding people of their conditions and how to channel their grievances with a promise of better days ahead; to realize this, a politician portrays himself typically to the people as one of them. Democratic politics thrives absolutely on the presence of a leader chosen bt the people or a delegate system. The leaders have a limited period in which they can seek re-election if they have not exhausted the stipulated terms. Also, a leader in a liberal dominion can get dismissed because of incompetence and severe breach of work ethics.

In a populist dissertation, politicians and political parties avenues that create division and hence should be eliminated or freed from personal interest of those steering them. Populist believes that democratic leaders claim to fight for the will of the people only to betray them once in office. On the other side, the populist leaders claim to have an established rapport with the people allowing him to advance their needs without being tied to the dominant political parties. Dryzek, Honig and Phillip(2008) Populist leaders use alternative political discourse to present morals using universal separation to contrast the high grounding of his /her message. To achieve this, the populist leaders use corruption and betrayal of political establishments. By preaching against corruption, populism offers a message of salvation after many sacrifices the people have undergone.

Populism form of governorship has risen to impose a challenge to the liberal democracy. Populism is not an emotion-dragged expression of disappointment over partial rules, special interests, and discouraging economic expectations. Dryzek, Honig and Phillips (2008)argued that although it lacks a formal canonical text that defines its mandates, populism nonetheless has a logical structure. It makes it regarded as an illiberal democracy with the ability to translate popular options into public policy without the right channels employed by liberal democracy to deal with such systems. It is not a corrective deficit; instead, it is a direct attack on freedom; such threats undermine the typical trust that people have on liberal governments.

The phrase ‘the people’ is deemed to mean all citizens, heedless of social, religious, and economic backgrounds. Agamben (2000) said that people are the coordination of individuals who enjoy a mutual political status. Liberal people have shared common descent, and ethnicity, populist, on the other hand, have frequently defined the people in a divisive context in terms of classes. Rich people are seen as ‘elites’ and are a threat to the existence of free political representation, whereas those without power are ‘the people.’ It creates opposing sides that the populists depict to having different agendas. Populists see the elites as corrupt and the people as virtuous hence, there is no reason why people should not govern themselves and their societies without the rule of law. Such an approach itself raises difficulties because of its divisive nature. Stavrakakis(2004) notes that dividing a state’s population into the people and the elites implies that populism is not inclusive. Elites may, therefore, be barred from equal citizenship violating the customs of democracy.

A revolution wave of populism has made many to lose faith in democratic leadership. Could this be the ideal reason why some people see populism as a legitimate discourse? Reflecting on a vision that unites all the people, it is possible to have a society that strives towards re-creating the real concerns of representation in the community. Populist need to adjust their ideas to fit and accommodate all the people. Stavrakakis (2004) stated that a society where people exist on the same level is ideal for representation.liberal democracies tend to be democratic in the sense of not wanting to give anyone a prerogative position in society. Agamben (2000) asserted that the main difference between this populism and democratic politics is that public legitimacy as a prerequisite for leaders to be considered equals. Passion is another important aspect of representation, should public legitimacy, and one who wishes to develop an actual political society must embrace it. In contrast, if the legitimacy of populism gets full support, it would allow for the induction of discriminative doctrines; some people may set up legal frameworks based on their traditions. For these reasons, populism needs a complete overhaul and reforms to the liberal democracy implementations.

Democratic representation as a parent political system is the primary source of populist politics. Divisive characteristics of elites create the conditions for an exclusive public sphere giving a partial image of people’s ideas. It seems unreasonable to criticize the beliefs of populism because they voice the grievances of the people against the elites. On the other hand, populists tend to turn strangers into enemies that need to be actively opposed; they achieve this magnifying their concern. Liberal politicians also do use populist slogans, creating confusion, which makes it hard to differentiate them from populist leaders completely. Others passive populism to be an as good form of democracy as it mobilizes the neglected section of the society. This point of view implies the interpretation of constitutional laws in the way of politics of the majority and the minorities to be silent. Moreover, populism gets dominated by the idea of separation. It breeds dangerous divisions in a society where there is no dialogue due to hatred between the people and the elite

McCormick, J.P., 2011. Machiavellian democracy. Cambridge University Press.

Laclau, E., and Panizza, F., 2005. Populism and the Mirror of Democracy.

Agamben, G., 2000. Means without end: Notes on politics (Vol. 20). U of Minnesota Press.

Dryzek, J.S., Honig, B., and Phillips, A. eds., 2008. The Oxford handbook of political theory (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Stavrakakis, Y., 2004. Antinomies of formalism: Laclau’s theory of populism and the lessons from religious populism in Greece. Journal of Political Ideologies, 9(3), pp.253-267.