nativism – Takis S Pappas

September 23, 2022September 25, 2022

Italy, Europe’s political laboratory

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.

May 3, 2021May 5, 2021

Europe’s party politics transformed

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?

January 18, 2021March 23, 2021

How to distinguish charismatic from ordinary leaders: An infographic

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.)

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”

January 20, 2020January 25, 2020

The swift extinction of Europe’s ruling nativist parties.

Whether because of the conceptual confusion between populist and nativist parties, (which are often but erroneously lumped together in the ill-defined categories of “far right” or “nationalist populist,”) or whether because of the spectacular lack of knowledge about the country cases out there, most people, including serious journalists, policy makers, and politicians, fail to make sense of the — no so subtle — distinctions among contemporary democracy’s main challengers. Take, for instance, the nativist parties.

First the news: Earlier today, Norway’s Progress Party (party logo pictured above), a long-term junior coalition partner in Norway’s broadly conservative government, quit office. This is small global news, perhaps, but reveals something really big, at least for Europe. For, as of now, January 2020, no nativist party enjoys governmental power in any European country (bar Switzerland). Second, the irritant: Who are now going to cry wolf when no wolf does really exist? Now, the facts:

Fact #1: Before 2000, there were no nativist parties in Europe to have enjoyed governmental responsibilities. Continue reading “The swift extinction of Europe’s ruling nativist parties.”

January 12, 2020April 26, 2020

Bad concepts

This is the third in a series of posts about concepts and the (good and bad) ways in which we use them to conceptualize real-world politics. The first post was about concepts in general and how they work. The second post was about “good” concepts while this third post is about “bad” concepts.

WHEN A CONCEPT IS BAD?

Unlike good concepts, which feature a simple term, unambiguous meaning, and clearly identifiable referents, a concept is said to be bad when (1) it is based on a confusing term, (2) its meaning-to-word is ambiguous, which results in definitional disasters, and (3) its meaning-to-referents is vague, which makes operationalization, and eventually the classification of the units to be analyzed, impossible. Bad concepts lead to a bad understanding of the world.

Several good examples of bad concepts are in Cas Mudde’s new book The Far Right Today (a research area that is close to my own research interests and about which I claim some knowledge myself). The book is full of terms meant to signify a host of “ideologies,” which merge and combine with each other only to produce more confusion. The main definitions (as presented at the book’s end in glossary form) are below. This terminological maze is the result of two major errors: |A| poor conceptualization, which creates definitional disasters, and |B| false synonymies, which derail concept operationalization and frustrate the classification of empirical cases. Let me clarify. Continue reading “Bad concepts”

January 11, 2020September 4, 2020

When a concept is good?

This is a second post on concepts and how to use them in both our everyday lives and in academic analysis. The first post was about concepts in general, the present one is about “good” concepts. A third post follows about “bad” concepts, and a fourth one about more bad concepts in the form of “cat-dogs.” All posts owe to the work of the great Giovanni Sartori on concepts and methodology in social and political sciences.

How do we conceptualize, AND what is a ‘good’ concept?

To conceptualize is far from easy. It requires three moves at once: (a) decide on a simple term with (b) unambiguous meaning that (c) points clearly to specific comparable referent units. We have a good concept when it expresses clear meaning and helps to seize the object.

A concept is good when it expresses clear meaning and helps to seize the object. Only good concepts may establish boundaries that separate the object that we want explained from other objects that may look similar but are not the same.

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?”

December 2, 2019December 2, 2019

Key terms with relevance to the study of populism and democracy: A glossary

Here’s a concise list of key terms as used in this blog. Source: Takis S. Pappas, Populism and Liberal Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp 265-7

Authoritarianism (often also referred as “competitive authoritarianism”). A political system of limited pluralism and low social mobilization run by an interventionist and ideological state; it occasionally allows unfair elections. It is distinguished from totalitarianism and sultanism.

Autocracy. A general term to denote any form of government in which a single individual or group of individuals (such as a junta) holds nearly unbounded and, to a large extent, arbitrary power; it comprises authoritarianism but also extends beyond it to include other forms of nondemocratic systems. Continue reading “Key terms with relevance to the study of populism and democracy: A glossary”