To understand populism, it helps to turn on the lights. In the 1960s, the percentage of the vote received by populist parties in Europe averaged 5.4%; in light of the results of the European Parliament elections on 9 June, today more than 20% of voters trust them.
Some of its manifestations, a small minority in terms of numbers and representation, are located in the ideological family of the left. These are the cases of La France Insoumise and the German Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance. More relevant, however, are right-wing populist parties, which put the homeland at the forefront of their discourse and which discriminate against the “other” defined in ethnic, national or religious terms.
Ultranationalist formations such as the National Rally in France, Alternative for Germany or Vox have become relevant forces in the Strasbourg parliament. Its representatives have won seats in France, Italy, Austria and Hungary and have come in second in Germany, Poland and the Netherlands.
In the case of those parties that seek to return sovereignty to the states, the consequences for the EU appear to be existential. Think without moving forward, about a future full of obstacles to measures to stop and reverse climate change, the greatest challenge of our civilization.
Explosion of right-wing populism
The electoral explosion of right-wing populism in recent years has taken us by surprise. In reality, although undoubtedly very relevant, neither the economic crisis of 2008 nor the migration crisis of 2015 alone accounts for the depth and breadth of this phenomenon. There are long-term structural reasons that explain it. They have to do with our postmodern relationship with time.
We live in a fast-paced world in which everything moves at breakneck speed. The revolution in our daily lives confirms this: we eat Fast food -fast food- and we wear clothes fast fashion -fast fashion-; we listen to voice messages and podcasts at 1.5 speed; we want our order at our doorstep, if possible tomorrow; the slightest doubt or curiosity is satisfied instantly by a search engine, avoiding any type of personal interaction to satisfy it…
On the other hand, the capitalist economy, given by nature, has long since decided its course at the click of a button from Wall Street, London or Shanghai. Not to mention the changes in the family or the workplace, areas where contingency and transience prevail. Wherever we look, the principle that time is money reigns; governs the acceleration of vital rhythms.
Right-wing populism takes advantage of the fact that democracy is by definition slow and that it seems incapable of establishing regulatory frameworks that promptly address the problems that trouble citizens. No other ideological current has paid attention to the extent of desynchronization between democratic politics, its long decision-making times, and the economy and society, its short, and even instantaneous, decisions. Exploiting this vacuum has given populism a wealth of votes.
For decades, various demographic studies such as the European Values Survey have been sending worrying signals for the future of liberal democracy that we have hardly noticed. More and more citizens agree that a strong leader who does not have to worry about parliament and elections is a “good” way to govern the country. Voters of far-right parties are the ones who agree the most with this authoritarian drift. The fact that it is the younger generation that largely bets on a “strong man” is an additional cause for concern for the future of democracy.
The right-wing populist response to lagging policy involves offering shortcuts. In a context where new communication technologies make patience a rare virtue, populism is committed to a policy of haste and simplicity.
Faced with migratory flows, they offer the quick solution of sealing the borders; in reality, gender violence, they say, would be an invention of the elites, and what does not exist does not need treatment; or, now in the Spanish key, the remedy for the challenge of peripheral nationalism is the prohibition of “separatist” parties, a measure that Vox contemplates in its program, as if the dog died and the rabies ended.
When he baptized the populist formulation of his posthumous dystopia everything is going to get better In the form of “Citizens’ Movement Solutions Now!”, the writer Almudena Grandes glimpsed this spirit of populism. Populism’s promise of urgency and its renunciation of the party label, which, for the extreme right, is a bastion of “partyocracy”, “caste”; these are the two keys to this ideological family that the Madrid novelist has exposed in the literary record.
Referendum and consultation for everything
In the context of speeding up political decision-making times, the proposal to hold referendums and citizen consultations makes sense. This is a measure of “popularizing democracy” that populist right-wing parties include in their programs, and implement when they govern, such as in Hungary with the “national consultations” or in Poland when it was governed by Law and Justice.
In Germany, its programme advocates holding “referendums according to the Swiss model”; Marine Le Pen proposes calling an annual “great referendum” if she becomes president of France, thus effecting a “proximity revolution” that would make it possible for “the people” to control government decisions; Vox appeals to Article 92 of the constitution, which opens the door to consultation with citizens to vote on immigration, gender violence laws or the illegalisation of pro-independence parties. It is no coincidence that issues subject to referendum always have a high emotional component.
Right-wing populism has found a key to success that fits like a glove to the accelerated times of our society. Deliberation, an inherent element of liberal democratic politics, appears to a large part of citizens as a kind of luxury that hinders decision-making.
People who think and feel this way nourish the extreme right. Reversing the democratic regression that this ideological current promotes is a major challenge today that needs urgent attention. Any remedy involves trying to speed up the time of political decision-making without undermining the constitutional values that underpin liberal democracy, such as popular sovereignty, human dignity or respect for the people.