The Populist Parties on the European Political Scene. Introductory Comments
After giving a theoretical account of the phenomenon, the author
looks at the reasons that have led to the rise of populist parties in
Europe; these include the crisis of the Fordist model of industrial
output and the resulting changes that have broken up the old classes,
introducing an ever more noticeable fragmentation of the great social
groupings on which the mass parties were founded. She underlines,
on the one hand, how we are faced with political forces that have
quickly understood the emerging unease; on the other hand, she
shows how the populist parties have promptly occupied the political
vacuum left by the traditional ones. However, what they offer is inadequate
to the challenges they are faced with and that require the recovery
of the function of aggregation the parties once performed, with the aim of offering once again a prospect that can give faith in the future.
Populism’s Challenge to Liberal Democracy
Starting from reflections on the success of populist parties in Europe,
which have recently been part of the government in various countries,
including Italy, this article discuss the challenge they involve for the
fundamental principles of liberal democracy, which can be summed
up in the principle of «limited (restrained) majority rule». By analysing
some parts of a questionnaire circulated among members of the Northern
league and the Swiss Svp we can evaluate the importance the
question of immigration/«security» and «identity» questions like the
defence of dialects and traditions have recently had in attracting some
sectors of the electorate towards populist parties. On the basis of the
questionnaire, the article also examines what the supporters of populist
parties think of their actions on these topics when in government.
In conclusion, the article claims that, while the concept of «representation
» is compatible with populist ideology, the same cannot be said
as regards the fundamental principles of liberal democracy.
Austerity and Authoritarianism: Unpopular Popularism in the United Kingdom
The essay starts from the enigma of the contemporary forms of
populism expressed by the Uk’s coalition government: how do we
interpret an unpopular populism? It highlights some principal features
of the discourse and practice characterizing the Coalition’s policies,
defining a somewhat unstable mixture of strategies aimed at legitimating
the government itself and the austerity polices of cuts in public
spending and reform of the public services. It suggests that the
populist aspects are part of a wider repertoire, which speaks in particular
the language of making a virtue of necessity and social
authoritarianism. This mixture of austerity, populism and authoritarianism is linked to analyses of the past on Thatcherism and «authoritarian populism» in the Uk. The final section of the essay reflects once again on the enigma of an unpopular populism, bringing out how the Coalition’s populism does not seem to receive support. Does this mean that the Coalition project is to be interpreted as a political mobilization
that has failed or as a demobilization that has succeeded?
Crisis of modernity. The case of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National
The emergence of populisms in Europe in the 1980s reveals a particular
socio-political context that is the background of the crisis of
modernity. Contemporary democracies manifest problems and contradictions
that touch various levels, from the economic to the specifically
political. In this scenario various movements and populist
parties arise and propagate themselves, with similar characteristics and
specific features linked to their national contexts. J.M. Le Pen’s Front
National is an emblematic example for its importance, support and
duration. It plays on some basic concepts: appeal to the people, both
as a means of protest and as a badge of identity, hostility to immigration,
fiery nationalism tending to xenophobia, and the celebration of
French purity and grandeur. Sarkozy’s Presidency, which is now
coming to an end, has used several themes of the populist discourse
on the problems of security, immigration and national identity, thus
achieving a sort of institutionalization of populism, cleansed of its
more extreme and unacceptable features.
Phoenix populism in post-communist Romania
In the last twenty years Romania has been striking for the remarkable
number of political parties that make up the heterogeneous populist
forces in the country. In an attempt to explain the capacity of this
genre of populism to reinvent itself in various forms, the analysis
sketches out a classification of the various populist formulas of Romanian
post-communism, looking both at the genealogical aspects and at the mechanisms of post-communism that encourage its growth.
It points to an osmosis between populism’s strong roots and the
weaknesses of democracy, in the sense that we cannot define what is
the cause of what. It seems that the mixture of post-communist democracy,
which is still being consolidated, and the populist genre has
achieved a certain balance. There is a symbiosis between dêmos and
éthnos and the visibility of the leader as strategies for going beyond
the classical forms of mediation. Although populism is subject to
constant criticism, no structural obstacle can be found, and populist
deviations have now become mainstream procedures.
Nordic Countries: New Right, Social Representation and Welfare
The «parity» between capital and labour is the basis of the European
social model, particularly the Nordic one. It ensures social representation,
distinction of interests regarding identity and ideology, and a
process of regulation of society and the economy. As representation is
less pervasive in parity, this has allowed the new right to play on
questions of fear, identity and anti-politics, presenting itself a champion
of these questions, which are seen in terms of ethnic identity.
But despite what is proclaimed, both by the national-populists and
some sterile socio-political models, it was never the (mythological)
Northern uniformity that produced the regulated social model of
Nordic Countries, but the exact opposite: the social model has produced
identity, inclusion and regulation. Inverting cause and effect is
to misunderstand the Nordic countries and their populism.