Populism vs. nativism

May 23, 2020April 13, 2022

Populism vs. nativism

Populism and nativism are often confused. But they are distinct phenomena. They develop in different places, have different causes, use different rhetoric and symbolic discourse, present different leaderships, and have different kinds of influence on the democratic societies in which they develop. Therefore, they call for different political and policy responses from politicians, policy-makers, and other relevant stakeholders in society. This infographic points out those differences. If you want to know more, please check my previous work on this topic here, here, and here. More is to come.

May 13, 2020September 7, 2020

Populism vs. nativism: 10 indicators to tell the two apart

These two terms (or, better, concepts) are often confused. They are often lumped together under the generic, and generally abused, “populism” label. But nativism and populism are quite distinct phenomena. They have different causes, different ways of developing in contemporary Europe, and different kinds of influence on the democratic societies in which they grow. Clearly, then, they call for different political and policy responses from politicians, policy-makers, and other relevant stakeholders in society. This post is a simple endeavor to point out those differences. If you want to read more about them, please check my previous work on this topic here, here, and here. I am currently continuing my work on nativism within the H2020 PaCE research program. And, in a not so remote future as I hope, there will be more to say and write in book form about Europe’s strongly nativist nations.

Continue reading “Populism vs. nativism: 10 indicators to tell the two apart”

December 12, 2019December 21, 2019

What did Fareed Zakaria have in mind when he wrote about “illiberal democracies,” and why “his” cases aren’t similar to Orbán’s populist democracy?

Published under the title “Dealing with modern illiberal democracies: From vintage electoral autocracy to today’s jumble of populism with nativism” in Arne Muis and Lars van Troost (eds), Will Human Rights Survive Illiberal Democracy? (Amsterdam: Amnesty International Strategic Studies, 2018), pp. 25-30.

“In the beginning was the Word,” proclaims the Gospel of John, and we should probably take that statement more seriously than we often do. Especially when the talk is about nothing less than the future of contemporary liberal democracy. For, if you really agree with me that liberal democratic politics is currently at risk, and must be rescued, we have first to agree on the nature of the threat to our democracies before we are in a position to propose solutions. As is often the case, then, we must begin by revisiting some of the wisdom received at more politically innocent times.

Continue reading “What did Fareed Zakaria have in mind when he wrote about “illiberal democracies,” and why “his” cases aren’t similar to Orbán’s populist democracy?”

November 15, 2019November 18, 2019

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?”