The graphic above was presented in the 13th congress of the New Democracy party, Athens, 30 November 2019
At a glance. The story of populism in post-authoritarian Greece
The causes of populism
A detailed analysis of how the model of populist causality works is in my Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis (Oxford University Press 2019), pp. 123-130
A TIP-OFF: The present model does not apply to nativist parties, which are often, unfortunately, and erroneously (mis)classified as “populist.” It only applies to populist parties that have emerged strong, and ruled, in the “lands of populism.”
The image featured above represents the causal model of populism qua democratic illiberalism. It is the outcome of an intricate interplay of structural conditions, quasi-rational extraordinary leaders, and political mechanisms. No factor is independent from the rest, and each factor must be examined in sequential causal logic.
Continue reading “The causes of populism”The lands of populism
In the hype surrounding the global interest in populism, have you ever thought of, or wondered about, where exactly in the postwar liberal world have populists won office and been able to keep it for good periods of time?
The mapping above puts the lands of populism on display. In top and medium rows are the countries in which populist parties have won at least two (most often consecutive) elections. Bottom row includes the three most recent cases of populist rule.
Save the cases of Poland and Mexico, all other cases are examined in historical depth, compared and analyzed systematically in Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. Do have a look!
Do great social science scholars have exemplary lives?
I just read a post by Branco Milanovic, a prominent economist, in his (very good) globalinequality blog. In it, he makes an interesting point about the lives of famous economists. Those, he says, live orderly and boring lives, spent mostly within the cloistered walls of academia, with no real sense of the actual world out there. But, if their the great economists’ lives are not exemplary, how could they produce meaningful things, and suggest workable solutions, for our contemporary world? Milanovic asks: Don’t we need exemplary lives for greatness in the social sciences?
To be honest, I don’t know much about the great economists’ personal lives, but I know something about the lives of the great political scientists who advanced the field of comparative politics in recent decades – and I was lucky enough to have personally met, and learned from, quite a few of them. Continue reading “Do great social science scholars have exemplary lives?”
What is missing from most efforts to define populism?
This is an excerpt from my Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019)
The study of populism is evocative of the story of the blind men and the elephant. This story, in which some blind men are asked to touch an elephant to determine what that thing is, has been told numerous times and in many versions, but never to its very end. The known part of the story is about each blind man feeling only one bit of the animal so that, on comparing their thoughts, they may decide on the object. In typical versions of the story, the blind man who feels the tusk says it is like a big tree branch; the one who touches a leg says it is like a big pillar; he who feels the belly says it is like a big wall; the one who touches the ear says it is like a big hand fan; and he who feels the trunk says it is like a big pipe. In this part of the story, the blind men cannot reach agreement about the thing examined.
But our men are blind, not deaf. Therefore, they know that what they touch is a living animal that breathes, moves, and emits sounds. Here comes the untold part of the story. In it, there exists another blind man who sits in a corner without touching the animal, only listening attentively to what the others have to say. He finally asserts: From what you are saying, this thing must be the biggest animal on earth! With that declaration, our man offers an ontological definition of the thing under examination based on size as its core characteristic (“the biggest animal”) while also contextualizing it (“among all fauna”). And, as none could argue against that conclusion, this is how since then the blind men identify their animal—“the biggest one on earth”—and tell it apart from all other fauna. End of story.
Now, the moral: As with the fabled elephant, and all its other features notwithstanding, populism is the major historical phenomenon of our times, currently posing an elephantine threat to many of the liberal democracies that became dominant after the end of World War Two. And this is precisely the core point that no definition of populism can afford to miss.
Explaining populism to my son’s class
Originally published in Pragati, India, September 2018
The other day I ran accidentally into my son’s high school history teacher who, over other small talk, had an idea: “You’re an expert on populism,” he said, “so why don’t you come to our school class and tell us about it? Anytime this fall would be good for us and the kids, all of them with an international family background, are brilliant,” he smiled reassuringly. “Why not?” I smiled back, half out of politeness and half because I really like that teacher in particular. Alas, no sooner had we parted after our little deal was made that I almost regretted my carefree promise to him.
From thinking about planets to arriving at a theory of populism
Adapted from Sociologica 13:2, 2019
Many academic articles, but also op-eds in the popular press, about populism begin by lamenting the conceptual confusion surrounding the topic, then go on offering their own definitions and other clarifications, only to inexorably end up having further muddied the waters. What we need is a general theory of populism. The question then is: What does it take to build such a theory?
Continue reading “From thinking about planets to arriving at a theory of populism”
What makes populists and nativists distinct?
Originally published in Democratic Audit, LSE/UK, March 2018
The recent surge of various challenges to democracy in Europe has presented scholars, policy makers, journalists and other pundits with an empirical muddle. As we now try to make sense of Europe’s fast-changing political landscape, we are faced with the following predicament: still lacking well-defined concepts and, therefore, unable to classify our empirical cases into mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive, and empirically useful categories, the tendency is to lump together disparate challengers to contemporary democracy under the ill-defined ‘populism’ label. Yet, at the end, the result is data misgathering and the comparison of nonequivalent units under the erroneous assumption that they are equivalent. This amounts to wasteful research. It also eludes sensible responses to the various challengers.
Continue reading “What makes populists and nativists distinct?”
Ten characteristics of charismatic leadership
Originally published in RSA Journal under the title “Charm offensive: What is the allure of the charismatic leader?” August 2019
‘Charisma’ has alluring intimations, but a vague and continuously drifting significance. In its etymology, the word comes from the ancient Greek noun charis (χάρις), meaning grace or beauty. The earliest modern usage of the term is associated with Christian theology, in which charism was thought of as a special spiritual gift or power that was divinely conferred from God on a select few individuals. In Middle English, a person with karisme was someone gifted with special talents such as healing, prophecy or tongues.
The term entered the lexicon of applied politics only in the early 20th century, in the work of German sociologist Max Weber. He used it to distinguish between ‘charismatic’ and the other two types of legitimate power: ‘traditional’, where people obey because of seniority, long-established law, or custom; and ‘rational-legal’ or ‘bureaucratic’ authority (best typified by the impersonal modern state administration).
Continue reading “Ten characteristics of charismatic leadership”Populism; populist
Populism (noun). A novel type of political leadership/political party/political system that developed in the aftermath of World War II and combines electoral democratic politics with opposition to modern liberal institutions. Minimally defined: Democratic illiberalism.
Populist (adjective). The term applies to modern political leaders, political parties, and political systems that abide by electoral democracy but disrespect liberal institutions and challenge established constitutional legality allegedly for the benefit of the ordinary people.
While you are here, learn how to distinguish populism from nativism.
