The right amount of populism can even help democracy, says political scientist Paula Diehl. In this interview, she explains why it can still be dangerous and how it can be countered.

Question. Paula Diehl, what is populism?

Answer. Populism is a certain way of doing politics, and it is centred on the sovereignty of the people. This means that democracy is important to it, which is why the people must have the power. This element can be located very well within democracy.

But beyond that, populism divides society into two power camps: the elites, who have the power, and the people, who do not. Populism says that the elites have betrayed their promise to represent the people to favour themselves. Political institutions such as established parties or the state apparatus are always suspect to populism because, in its view, they do not reflect the will of the people. The same applies to the established media, which populism accuses of distorting the will of the people.

Q. Is populism always bad?

A. Populism can fulfil an important function, namely to demand more democracy. As long as the associated political ideology still functions within the framework of democracy, it can be a good instrument.

The advantage for democracy is that you can mobilise people very quickly with populism. But populism has a divisive effect: problems are always presented in black and white, grey areas are ignored. Therefore, it is not suitable for finding common solutions.

Q. Populism comes from the Latin word ‘populus’, ‘people’, and the suffix ‘-ism’ indicates a strong emphasis on the people - as opposed to a ruling caste. Is that true?

A. In this sense, populism would be very compatible with democracy because it demands that democracy be restored. However, with populism the question is always: who belongs to ‘the people’?

[destacate] “With populism, people get the impression that no discussion is needed since solutions are simple”[/destacate]This is why researchers also speak of a “thin ideology”. A strong ideology shows the way, as if on a large map. The narrative of “the people against the elites” is not enough. That is why we are dealing with many different populisms, each of which defines the deceived people differently.

Q. Can  you give examples of this?

A. Left-wing populism defines the people as those who are excluded from the capitalist system and are economically and socially disadvantaged.

Right-wing populism draws its ideology from the extreme right - not from the conservative right. It views the people as a homogeneous block that must not mix because any foreign component could destroy this “body of the people”, as fascist movements call it. It must be protected from invaders.

[destacate]“Politicians need to act much more as those who point out concrete courses of action instead of just presenting polarising positions”[/destacate]At the centre is an anti-democratic core: the people are exclusive, hierarchies exist between people. This stands in contrast to the promise of democracy and universal human rights as well as equality between people within a political organisation.

Q. You have said in the past: “Populism is a bit like the salt in the soup. If you have no salt at all, you have no mobilisation and politicisation. But you shouldn’t take too much, otherwise you won't be able to eat the soup”. So, does a little populism add the right flavour to the debate?

A. Yes, populism is definitely always part of democracy. Even more so in times of crisis: as soon as representation no longer functions properly, doubts arise as to whether the people are being adequately represented. This is because populism tells the story of the betrayed people who are supposed to regain power with the help of a leader.

There is always a gap between the representative and the represented, because the will of the people can never be enforced one-to-one. We always have to live with the reality that a political decision, even if it is made in my favour, is not congruent with my opinion. That’s why there’s always room for populism.

Q. Has populism become stronger in recent years?

A. There has been more populism worldwide since 2000. Right-wing populism has grown significantly since around 2010. In Germany, it was a little later than in Austria, where the FPÖ achieved success at the end of the 1990s.

Q. Why?

A. It has to do with the crisis of representation: The population has the impression that their concerns are no longer being recognised. Political science studies in Germany have asked whether the population feels represented by the parties. And some of those surveyed said they did not.

[destacate]“Populists always get a lot of attention, regardless of whether they are on the right or the left”[/destacate]There is also a crisis in distribution: the gap between rich and poor has been widening, especially since the 2000s, not to mention all the other crises - the climate crisis, migration problems and the war in Ukraine – and, of course, the rise of social media.

For the past five to ten years, depending on the country, we have seen an increase in radical right-wing and anti-democratic ways of thinking circulating within the democratic public sphere, some of which have also been adopted by established parties.

Q. What can be done to combat harmful populism?

A. We must always ask ourselves how far populism can go. As citizens, we have the right to demand an explanation from those in power that does not appear emotionalising, overly pointed or funny.

Instead, we want an explanation that soberly presents facts and explains behaviour. Populism is not bad per se. It can also expose problems. Politicians need to act much more as those who point out concrete courses of action instead of just presenting a polarising position. It is also important to remain self-reflective and critical in order to avoid adopting anti-democratic, radical right-wing positions.

[destacate]“Right-wing populism views the people as a homogeneous block that must not mix because any foreign component could destroy it”[/destacate]Q. What role does the media play in the rise of populism?

A. Populists have always used the media of their time. In the case of former US President Donald Trump, this is social media and ‘reality shows’ on TV. They follow the general rules of the mass media’s attention-grabbing logic, which is often very abbreviated when selecting news.

They want to reduce complexity, emotionalise and dramatise. Populism and mass media have a strong compatibility. Those who are not populist are therefore always at a disadvantage. Populists always get a lot of attention, regardless of whether they are on the right or the left.

This is the case with Trump as well as with Beppe Grillo, the leader of the Five Star Party in Italy, who always refused to give interviews to the established media - but at the same time appeared most frequently in these other media platforms.

About Paula Diehl

Paula Diehl is Professor of Political Theory, History of Ideas and Political Culture at Kiel University, where she is also Director of the International Network for Populism Research. She has been researching the topic of populism since 2011.

This interview was first published by Pro Medienmagazin, and translated with permission.

[analysis]

[title]One more year[/title]

[photo][/photo]

[text]At Evangelical Focus, we have a sustainability challenge ahead. We invite you to join those across Europe and beyond who are committed with our mission. Together, we will ensure the continuity of Evangelical Focus and Protestante Digital (Spanish) in 2024.

Learn all about our #OneMoreYearEF campaign here (English).

[/text][/analysis]