Societies and globalization

In static societies, where problems affect but a small group, no bigger changes or challenges can be expected. As Goethe told us, ‘gray is all theory.’ We are now adding some color by including the realistic backgrounds to these thoughts on the character of populism: Our societies in Europe are not static. Far from that, they are undergoing one of the biggest economic structural changes of the last centuries, globalization. Problems that seemed to be negligible for decades have gained new impact and begun to grow rapidly. Poverty, unemployment and criminality have not changed in amplitude per se, but they now simply concern many more people. ‘Now’ does not mean suddenly, and this plays an important role in the rise of populists. Although the economic circumstances have changed faster than before in the last two decades, this ‘now’ means it changed too fast to react. But existing policy actors were nevertheless often too slow.

The schizophrenia of media democracy

Politicians decided not to add problems to their agenda, unless they were important enough to make a difference in the voting outcome or ― and this is already a secondary but nevertheless important condition under which populist politics arises ― the big newspapers would write about it. This directly leads us to one of the schizophrenic aspects of media democracy which are quite often experienced by politicians working on issue-related items: Most newspapers do not print; no, they do not even show interest in the boring fields you are working in, unless they constitute a serious threat. What is schizophrenic about that is that the ‘smaller’ problems, which politicians work on very seldom, become threats because they do handle them. Meanwhile, politicians need media attention to gain influence, to raise funds or expertise for ‘their’ problem and to find solutions. As today one can find a lobby for literally every problem, many problems can be solved or contained in expert circles or at a lower level of attention. But some problems cannot and they will not get the sufficient attention unless it is too late to solve them easily. But even when a problem then has enough impact to fill the media and get the attention of high-ranking politicians, it is usually too late to solve in an easy way. Now the political system pays attention, but it still does not react, as the solutions often bring some kind of collateral damage with them, for example the raising of taxes. Then comes the time for a populist movement. The old and existing political actors do not move and so create space for a new political power, which addresses the problems and offers solutions.

‘Old’ and ‘new’ populism

There is no difference between ‘old’ and ‘new’ populism. The ‘solutions’ offered are always simplified, unfairly identifying scapegoats, and not sustainable. And this is by far the best news we can have: Populist politics is dangerous and must never be underestimated. But as long as the chance for a democratic alternative exists, the populist will perish sooner or later. As politics is a complex game (in the meaning of game theory), populist politics can never offer a better life for a majority with simple solutions that are unsustainable. Recent European experience shows this very clearly: Jorg Haider and his Freedom Party (FPO), not yet fully wrecked, but hopelessly (for him) disenchanted; and Silvio Berlusconi, even less wrecked, but sent to insignificance, interestingly by the Italians living abroad, who were not poisoned by a powerful media close to Berlusconi.
Many people see media influence as the most important and dangerous factor in the rise of populist politics and regard it as a major indicator of ‘new’ populism. But this is wrong. Thinking of Citizen Kane, or the German newspaper magnate Alfred Hugenberg, who helped Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) to come to power, shows that the influence of the media was important even then ― and this was recognized as a problem as well. It is true that the mistake of the media market concentration was repaired after the Second World War in many European countries, but due to market obligations the level of concentration again began to rise. This is a factor which has already helped and possibly in the future will again help populist ideas to become a factor in political life and catalyze the existence of a ‘New Populism.’

But before I come to some instruments that politics can use to withstand a populist threat, we have to draw a line: In the end, there is no ‘New Populism.’ The attribute ‘New’ is just too euphemistic. Neither the basic structure of populism nor its instruments have changed. What has changed is the world around us. Reacting carefully but directly to its challenges is the best medicine we have, as the impressive example of Patrick Janssens, the old and probably new major of Antwerp who never appeased Flanders’ right-wing populist party Vlaams Belang, and never ducked away, but positively opposed and finally at least contained it.

Politicians and journalists

Democratic politicians must not leave the role of a reformer or modernizer to a populist, they have to take action themselves, do their original job, solving the problems of the voters at an early stage. And journalism has to see its responsibility. Market concentration is necessary if Europe wants to have strong players in a global market, but increased power must be followed by more responsibility. And finally: Politicians and society should never allow populists to lay their hands on constitutional guaranteed democracy. So democrats have to become more passionate and fight for their ideas, even if it is about technocratic and bureaucratic issues. But passion for the right goals can overrule populism for the wrong ideas ― that is the challenge for all democrats.

By Jorgo Chatzimarkakis
Jorgo Chatzimarkakis is a member of the European Parliament (ALDE), Germany (FDP).