Populist Bingo

 Recent political waves have shown us that the people are ready for wide scale change in political hierarchy. People are tired of being overlooked and have grown to distrust traditional political institutions and figures. While this in itself is not inherently bad, it provides a space that allow for political outsiders to gain a foothold and eventually wrestle power from the traditional figureheads. 

If you’ve been paying attention to, or have some interest in global politics, there is a chance that you have seen the term populist, or populism being thrown around. 

Contextually you can probably tell that there is a weight to the word that implies the need to distinguish it, and the noted figure from the traditional political class. In a convoluted way, perhaps due to the various and almost irresponsible way the term populist is used, agreed definitions can be hard to come by. In its simplest form, populism can be understood as a political approach that appeals to the common man. It is easy to understand that populism does not exist on the fringes of the political spectrum, but perhaps through the whole thing. In fact, populist rhetoric is somewhat of a mainstay in democracies.

While the term has been around for nearly 200 years, it has, like global pandemics, come back in vogue. The last 10 years of global politics has provided many great examples. From political figures to environmental activists. Populist rhetoric seems to be everywhere. But I suppose in a world where everything is commodified, and the common man becomes aware of their socio-political and economic situation, should it really be a surprise?  

In a word that continues to be extremely polarising, it’s important for us as political beings to be aware of our own biases and how politicians can and do exploit these biases to turn us into (un)informed voters.

Because populism is seen as the political scope and stance that in which the will of the people opposes those of the opposition– who in many (but not all) cases is the established elite– it is easy to feel as though a novel politician, or political approach speaks to and for you.

We need to remember that the populist claims to be the voice of the people. The voice of a collective and unheard group that opposes the establishment due to some perceived failure or grievance. In fact, if you take a long look around, you can see that this landscape that we inhabit is especially conducive to the rise of populism, and of people who use populist rhetoric to push an agenda.

Not too long ago were we hearing chants of ‘build the wall’ and promises of ‘drain(ing) the swamp’. On the other hand, we we’re hearing a passionate and dissident ‘how dare you’ at the incessant failure to protect our planet. In fact, a couple days ago we even heard that men were tired of being portrayed as ‘monsters’.

Although populism in itself is neither good nor bad, the ideals and approaches attached to those who qualify as populists have agendas that, depending on the majority they appeal to can be classified as either. On one side, populism can promote idealism and lead to reforms; on the other it places blame and incites reactions.

Democracies are built on its citizens ability to vote and voice their opinions.  Populism as a discourse is inherently democratic – through conformational biases, it does appear to represent the people. As we have continuously seen, populism focuses the struggle as a dynamic between the powerful elite and the common people. If you scratch the surface, you begin to see populism it is anything but democratic, populists in power breed authoritarianism. They spread mistrust for the political establishment. This advocation for the people and mistrust for the elite, morphs into a stubborn charge that ignores minor and competing opinions, and undermines our representative democracies.

If you’re looking to become more informed, or aware of whether a politician is a populist, or uses populist rhetoric, I’ve made a simple bingo card of common tropes to look out for:

 

~M~