Tõnis Saarts – What is Populism?
It would be a lot easier to say what is not populism. Populism is not the making of popular, but otherwise problematic political decisions. The politician who offers a fast growth in pensions or free public transport is not a populist, says Tõnis Saarts, lecturer of politology at the Tallinn University School of Governance, Law and Society.
It would be a lot easier to say what is not populism. Populism is not the making of popular, but otherwise problematic political decisions. The politician who offers a fast growth in pensions or free public transport is not a populist, says Tõnis Saarts, lecturer of politology at the Tallinn University School of Governance, Law and Society.
A populist is someone who offers to “give the state back to the people” and always talks in the name of the people, in opposition to the so-called corrupt elite that currently holds power.
If we try to define populism, the first characteristic would be the illusion that there are two contradictory homogenous groups in the society: the “people” and the “elite”. In addition, even though a democracy should be governed by the people, the corrupt elite has grabbed power and abuses it to further their own interests.
The objective of the populist is to give the power back to the people and they are certain that they are the ones who represent the vox populi in politics.
The “people” and the “elite” are defined by populists in many different ways. Sometimes the people are the 99% not in power, sometimes they are a certain ethnic group (e.g. Estonians or “real Estonians”), etc. The “elite” is usually the politicians in power, who do not care about the people’s will and grab everything they can to themselves.
More often than not the populist brings forward a “magical solution” by talking that complicated problems actually have simple solutions that the greedy elite does not want to apply. The migration crisis can be solved by building walls, poverty can be cured by over-taxing the rich, etc.
Is populism dangerous to democracy? In fact, populism is a two-edged sword – on the one hand it is essential, but it can be lethal in large volumes.
Zero-populism, or the complete lack of populist rhetoric would definitely be a problem in democracy. Democracy suggests power belongs to the people. The moment when politicians stop to address the people, and become “excel-people”, a social explosion is bound to happen.
On the other hand, populism strongly undermines trust in democracy, as when populists gain power, they quickly become the same “elite” and “establishment” that they recently fought. Furthermore, they will switch their “magical solutions” for dealing with everyday politics in their complicity.
In addition, populists tend to ignore the power balance in democracy, and eagerly attack the institutions that form it. The leaders of the people must interact with the people directly and make their will happen. There should be no interference by institutions such as the parliament, the court system, free media, etc. This is why democracy would shatter, not improve, when populists gain power.
Thus, populism is not a sustainable strategy. Instead of curing the ails of democracy and making people happy, it destroys faith in democracy and keeps disappointing the crowds.
The levels of populism have been researched in Estonia, and compared to other Baltic states. The comparison shows that Estonian parties are much less populist than their Baltic counterparts. The situation has probably changed a little, as the research was conducted before the emergence of a few new parties in Estonia.
Populism will keep transforming into different shapes, and as long as there is democracy, there will be some form of populism and populists.