Originally published as an op-ed in the Sunday edition of Greek newspaper Kathimerini, Sunday 25 September 2022. Own translation.
Of all the national elections held this year in Europe, three parties, from three countries, garnered the most international attention. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally received over 40% of the vote in the second round of the presidential election held in April. They hope to go beyond and win the next election. In Sweden, the fledgling Sweden Democrats party finished second, having quadrupled its electoral strength in a decade. In Italy, where the polls open today, the also young Brothers of Italy party is expected to come in first and its leader to become prime minister.
Originally published as an op-ed in Greek newspaper Kathimerini, 30 August 2022.
History often plays strange games. Take Italy, for example. Exactly one hundred years after Mussolini’s March on Rome, the so-called Brothers of Italy – a new party with roots in postwar fascism – look set to be the winner of the Italian elections to be held on September 25. In that case, the Brothers will almost certainly form a government with the right-wing parties of Matteo Salvini and Silvio Berlusconi. Italy will not suddenly turn fascist, of course. It will however continue to both flounder about in conditions of political instability and fret about its dire economic prospects.
Η ιστορία παίζει παράξενα παιχνίδια. Δείτε την Ιταλία. Aκριβώς εκατό χρόνια μετά την περίφημη “πορεία προς τη Ρώμη” του Μουσολίνι, ένα νεότερο κόμμα με ρίζες στον μεταπολεμικό φασισμό, οι λεγόμενοι Αδελφοί Ιταλοί, φαίνεται ότι θα είναι ο νικητής των ιταλικών εκλογών που θα γίνουν στις 25 Σεπτεμβρίου. Στη συνέχεια, είναι σχεδόν βέβαιο ότι οι Αδελφοί θα σχηματίσουν κυβέρνηση με τα επίσης δεξιά κόμματα των Ματέο Σαλβίνι και Σίλβιο Μπερλουσκόνι. Βέβαια, η Ιταλία δεν θα γίνει ξάφνου φασιστική. Θα συνεχίσει ωστόσο να παραδέρνει σε συνθήκες πολιτικής αστάθειας, ατενίζοντας το πολιτικό της μέλλον με τεράστια αβεβαιότητα και ελάχιστη αισιοδοξία.
Following the expansion of EU over the last seventy years, this infographic depicts the evolution, and relative decline, of Europe’s post-war liberal democratic rule. Back in the 1950s, and for three decades thereafter, all member states had solid liberal democratic governments. The Union was in fact meant to be an exclusive club of liberal democracies. But things did not turn exactly that way. Already by the 1980s, populism, an amalgam of democracy and illiberalism (hence, minimally defined as democratic illiberalism), won power in Greece and then flourished elsewhere, particularly in the southern and eastern parts of the continent. During and after the 1990s, nativist parties—those standing in opposition to migration, further European integration, and globalization—grew strong in most developed countries in western and northern Europe. Meanwhile in Eastern Europe—because of national and ethnic divisions, persisting state corruption, or both—most countries have failed to this date to produce solid and durable liberal democratic governments; instead, as shown by the four CEE countries included herein, most governments in this region stand today as exemplars of democratic illiberalism.
An Q&A session with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) about populism, and more. We discuss about the spatiotemporal dimensions of this phenomenon; the relationship of modern populism to liberal democracy, of which it is the polar opposite; the difference between populist and nativist parties; the importance of charismatic leadership for the populist success; and the ways in which contemporary liberal democracy may face the populist menace. Most of those topics have been covered in previous work of mine, especially in my book Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. Hope you will enjoy the interview. For more interviews of mine related to populism, you may want to read or listen here, here, and here.
Q Your research underlines the necessity of the clarification of the basic concepts and exposes the conceptual and methodological errors in populism literature. To begin with, how do you outline the common problems within the growing literature on populism?
A The literature on populism has grown fast but also in a haphazard way. As a result, the concept of populism is being stretched to a breaking point. It was several decades ago that Margaret Canovan, among others, warned that, the more flexible this concept would become, the more tempted political scientists and others would be to label “populist” anything that doesn’t fit into previously established categories. This is what has actually happened. Today, “populism” is everywhere and almost everything is “populist.”
The universe of political parties is one of immense complexity. To make it comprehensible, one has to divide its countless units into a relatively small number of specific party types and subtypes that are well distinguished from each other. This requires that each type is defined minimally, that is to say, in a way that includes only its core characteristics, or properties. Ideally, at any given moment no two party types should fit under the same definition. And each definition should point to specific, real-life political parties that are out there in the world. Here is, then, my original attempt to produce a typology of the macrocosm of political parties that is useful for political scientists and practitioners of politics alike. Meanwhile, spotting the populists is now being made easy. Cat-dogs no more.
Circa 1990, nearly all major parties in Europe belonged to the liberal type. Fast forward through the decades that followed since to our own day, and this isn’t the case any more. Liberal parties are currently in decline while other party types, such as populist and nativist parties, have emerged strong in several nations across the continent. How did that happen and what are the main consequences of such transformations? This essay and the interactive infographic that accompanies it explain.
The content of this blog has appeared in the form of policy brief published by the European Liberal Forum in May 2021.
stating THE ISSue
For a time, post-war European politics was dominated by the liberal type of party. These broadly liberal parties were who originally envisaged the idea of a united Europe and subsequently carried the torch for the advancement of open society in a progressively integrated Europe under rule of law. Over many decades, Europe’s party systems operated as liberal political cartels in which the major parties competed for power against each other, largely unchallenged by other party types. Fast forward to the present day, and the talk around town is about the decline of the formerly established liberal parties, the proliferation of new populist ones, and, ominously enough, the rise of various other so-called anti-system parties—leading to democratic backsliding and, potentially, the disintegration of the European Union. Which part of this narrative corresponds to empirical reality, and which is just hype and headlines? More to the point: What is the current picture of Europe’s party politics? And what is the outlook for the future at EU level?
Θα γνωρίζετε μάλλον ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή υλοποιεί ένα μεγάλων διαστάσεων και εξαιρετικά φιλόδοξο πρόγραμμα με τον τίτλο «Προωθώντας τον ευρωπαϊκό τρόπο ζωής μας». Μόλις δε πριν από λίγες μέρες, ξεκίνησε μια δημόσια πανευρωπαϊκή διάσκεψη με τίτλο «Το μέλλον της Ευρώπης», η οποία πρόκειται να τραβήξει αρκετά. Η Ευρώπη πάντα είχε υπαρξιακές αγωνίες αλλά τώρα, και μόνο από τους παραπάνω τίτλους, φαίνεται ότι αντιμετωπίζει γενική υπαρξιακή κρίση. Στη βάση της βρίσκονται δύο ερωτήματα που δεν έχουν εύκολες απαντήσεις. Σε τι ακριβώς συνίσταται ο ευρωπαϊκός τρόπος ζωής; Ποιοι είναι οι αντίπαλοι και ποιοι οι υποστηρικτές του;
This infographic presents an original typology of political parties in contemporary Europe during the last three decades. It differentiates between seven clearly defined types of parties that are exclusive to each other while collectively including all currently significant parties. The seven party types are: Liberal, populist, nativist, nationalist, regionalist, secessionist, and antidemocratic. The infographic is interactive. If downloaded, you may click on the party acronyms and visit their respective official web pages for more information. Enjoy your exploration to Europe’s ever-changing party and party system landscapes; get your concepts and definitions right; learn how to differentiate populist from non-populist parties (in a per genus et differentiam way); puzzle out how governments are formed; and get a hands-on understanding of your own about the dynamics currently developing, as well as the directions European liberal politics is likely to take in the future.
To download the full infographic, interact with it, and even print it in high-quality and professional form, click on the button below.
If you are interested in the topic of leadership, have at the moment nothing better to do, or both of the above, why don’t you try to see whether the characteristics of charismatic leadership as explained this infographic fit the cases of political leaders that you have a good knowledge of? When you play this game, remember that there’s only one basic rule to it: To qualify as “charismatic,” the leader(s) you choose must meet all ten of the characteristics mentioned. They disqualify, and thus revert to the category of “ordinary” leader(s), if they miss even one of those characteristics. Playing it should be fun! (And, by the way, if you are a true fan of infographics, you may also enjoy this one.)
