We, the people: What is populism?

In the last few years, populism has changed the political map of the western world – and there’s plenty more to come. But what is populism? Does it have shared roots with fascism? Were the Nazis populists?And who are “the people”? Two books – one new, one old – shed light on all of this

The year 2016 saw the election of Donald Trump in the US, the Brexit vote in the UK, post-coup consolidation of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey and the near-election of Norbert Hofer in Austria. The year that follows will see bids for power by Marine Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders in The Netherlands. These people are widely dismissed as “populists”. But what does that even mean?

In his short new book What is Populism?,  Jan-Werner Müller, Professor of Politics at Princetown University, suggests we don’t have an answer to that question. He then supplies one. A populist, he states, is someone who claims to identify with “the people”.  S/he rejects everyone else.  How “the people” are defined is left conveniently vague, but it is made clear that everyone not fitting that description is an outlier, a deviant, or, worse of all, part of an unresponsive “elite” against which s/he is leading a popular rebellion. Thus their views need not be taken into account. The populist, says Müller, is therefore inherently anti-pluralist – they cannot be a democrat. Yet they can present themselves as exactly that, through their claim to represent the popular base.

The first part of this definition – identification with something called “the people” – is not new, but Müller presumably wouldn’t claim it was. What may break new ground is his suggestion that this identification makes the populist inherently anti-pluralist, because any definition of “the people” must exclude stakeholders in the polity that don’t meet it. Given the diversity of modern societies, it’s fair to guess that a big percentage of the people won’t be “the people”. A quick glance at Trump and Britain’s Brexit advocate Nigel Farage bears this out. Trump actually didn’t win the popular vote in 2016, even though he won the electoral college; so his definition of “the people” may be missing a few “people”. As for Farage, the Brexit referendum was won 52-48%. Yet both men insist that “the people” have spoken.  (After the November election, we were treated to the sight of these men celebrating their victory over “the elites” in a gold-plated lift at Trump Tower.)

Should we worry about populists? After all, a leader whose politics make no sense will be called out in the end. The trouble is that they can do a lot of damage first. One reason is that, as Müller says, the populists can present themselves as democrats, although to him they are inherently not. “The danger is ...that [populism] promises to make good on democracy’s highest ideals (Let the people rule!). ...That the end result is a form of politics that is blatantly antidemocractic should trouble us all.” He supports this last point with a discussion of the way populist governments of the left and right have behaved in Hungary, Venezuela and Poland. 

Müller has less to say about the way we must react to populism. He does talk about the safeguards that have been built into European constitutions since the war, but says little about the ways in which democracy has been defined, and then protected from populist capture. He could for example have raised the “tyranny of the majority” arguments set out by the Founding Fathers and by John Stuart Mill, and make the case for representative government. Müller has written widely about politics and government elsewhere, and it may be that he wished this book to be concise, with a precise focus; it explains and defines populism, and that is all it sought to do. But I believe that, having explained why populists can’t be pluralists, he could also have set out the ways one preserves pluralism.

What Müller does do, is to demand that we confront, but also engage with, populism. “I reject the paternalistic liberal attitude [of] therapy for citizens ‘whose fears and anger have to be taken seriously’,” he says. But he also rejects exclusion of populists from debate, pointing out that this will simply support their contention that the “popular will” is excluded from the “system”. I think he is right on both counts.

I would prefer to have read more in this book about the constitutional pluralist structures that can protect us from populism.  I would also have liked to see more analysis of why voters respond to populist leaders who clearly don’t have their best interests at heart. But perhaps these discussions would have blunted this concise, readable little book. Müller’s main purpose was simply to define populism – and he has certainly done that.  Moreover his definition of populism as inherently anti-pluralist is a well-argued and elegant warning. As Trump apparently said in May 2016, “The only important thing is the unification of the people, because the other people don’t mean anything.”  If you’re not sure you’re one of Trump’s “the people” (or Farage’s, or Wilders’s, or Erdoğan’s), the populist vision of democracy does not include you.

***

But what if you feel that vision does include you – and it is the first time that anything has? Populism is, by definition, about identity politics – a point Müller acknowledges. In a time of growing social alienation, to be offered an identity, a place in a group, even a mass-identity, can be persuasive. If Peter Fritzsche is right, we may have been here before.

Fritzsche is Professor of History at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has published widely on European and especially German history. In 1998 published a book Germans into Nazis. This took a fresh look at why the Germans ushered Hitler into power in 1933. His thought-provoking book attempts to answer the question by casting aside the conventional explanations – Versailles, the Depression, reparations – and looking at the dynamics of division in a society and the desire for unity.  These explanations seem especially topical and urgent now, given current trends in Western politics.

Fritzsche’s thesis is that the First World War was crucial to the rise of Nazism, but not in the way that has been assumed. Conventional explanations have focused on the humiliation of the Versailles treaty, territorial losses and reparations. According to Fritzsche, many postwar parties opposed these; the Nazis were nothing new in this respect. If we want to understand the real role of WW1 in the rise of Nazism, we should start not in 1918 but in 1914, and look at the way it made the Germans feel one people, even though they had been that in theory for over 40 years. Facing attack from outside in 1914, Germans coalesced into what “the Kaiser called the Burgenfrieden, the “peace of the fortress”, [which] promised to resolve the divisions between workers and the middle classes, between socialists and conservatives, [and] between Protestants and Catholics.”

This was important in a divided country. Fritzsche points out that (for example) Prussian voters were divided into property classes, the highest of which were allocated votes of greater value. The popular mobilization brought people together for the first time in a sense of common purpose and resulted in an unprecedented level of civic engagement – the Volksgemeinschaft, the community working as one. A side-effect was that it meant the stratified society of imperial Germany was no longer viable. But it was not satisfactorily replaced.

The new civic engagement never went away. But in the 1920s it was expressed through a series of interest groups, and parties linked to different professional or trade bodies. It was not a substitute. When the Nazis arrived, however, people did feel a sense of common purpose. The way the Nazis did this was, for Fritzsche, far more important than Versailles or reparations, which were already the subject of political discourse. As to anti-semitism, he does not deny its existence in pre-1933 Germany, but does not see the Nazis as having any ownership of it then – all parties were somewhat anti-semitic – or find any evidence that most Germans supported anything like a “final solution”. It is the Volksgemeinschaft that is important here.

Is Fritzsche right? Perhaps only Germans can answer this, but I feel he is onto something, if only because he provides an explanation for Nazism that does not rely on Germans being a weird, separate species. After all, no human is. I know plenty of Germans. They do not have two heads. A reviewer of this book in the Jerusalem Post commented that “Historians examining nations over periods of time have somehow to find a balance between what is inherent in a people and what is not, in order to attempt explanations of national attitudes and conduct.” But can you, in fact, have such a balance – is there anything “inherent in a people”? It is an important point, as ascribing Nazism to the German character has induced a dangerous conviction in other countries that they would never behave as the Germans did. Could any historical phenomenon be repeated by any country, given the right circumstances?

Fritzsche doesn’t answer that question, and he doesn’t speculate on the broader implications of his theory. He leaves that to the reader, which is perhaps what a good historian should do. But one notes that many people in Western countries seem to feel that their sense of identity is threatened, and do not feel that any entity represents them collectively. Neither, it seems, do many Americans. In fact they seem to feel that there is no single national life, no conversation, that includes them, and few fora for civic engagement. Neither left nor right answers these concerns. In this situation, many will turn to those who claim to speak for them and against “the establishment”, and who promise to return their sense of belonging. These trends at least partly underlie the Brexit vote in Britain, the meteoric rise of Trump in the US and the growth of populist right-wing movements in Europe. If Fritzsche’s thesis is correct, could the German pattern be replicated elsewhere?

Fritzsche quotes Hitler’s dictum that the nationalists forgot the social and the socialists forgot the national. Hitler forgot neither. Given people’s feelings of powerlessness against business, globalization and a perceived loss of identity, this is an important point.

If someone says to you, “I represent you. You, the people,” you have come home. You have an identity, and have no need to share it with those with whom you do not identify, whether they be Jews, Poles, Gypsies, perceived welfare scroungers, Goths or gays. They are not “the people”. But you are. As Jan-Werner Müller explains in What is Populism?, this is the nature of the beast.  Meanwhile Peter Fritzsche’s Germans into Nazis invests the Nazi phenomenon with a universality that makes this book crucial in this time when, once again, it is the strident and divisive who claim to know who “the people” really are.

Mike Robbins's essay Such Little Accident: British democracy and its enemies 

was published in December 2016 and is available from Amazon and other online retailers, or through bookshops

(ISBN  978-0-9978815-0-9, ebook; ISBN 978-0-9978815-1-6, paperback)

If you liked this, you might like…

There’s Green. And There’s Green
Two books by prominent green campaigners show us different ways to be green. The utopian – and the pragmatic

Politics on the Edge
A look at Rory Stewart’s landmark political memoir. Should you read it? Yes – but it leaves some things unsaid

Attlee, Bevin and the New Jerusalem
Clement Attlee’s government transformed Britain at home. Abroad, his Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin did much to shape the postwar world and its alliances. What brought these two very different men together? And who were they really?

The Red Wall – How Labour Lost its Safest Seats
In 2019 Britain’s Labour Party saw its northern strongholds collapse. Why? It is still important to know

If Not Us, Who? If Not Now, When?
A story of courage and resistance from inside Nazi Germany

Love in the Time of Brexit
The 2016 Brexit referendum divided Britain along class lines. Why? Two shrewd, gripping novels on Brexit, class and the dynamics of division

The Polish Anne Frank
The haunting diary of Renia Spiegel

The First Book on the Pandemic…
…appeared in April 202. Slavoj Žižek on COVID, lockdown – and the migrant crisis

Two Fine Novels Inspired by Climate Change
A look at two novels, from American writer Kevin Brennan and the UK’s Alison Layland. They’re very different books, but both show an acute understanding of climate change and the way it shapes the zeitgeist

Doctor in Jail
What are our prisons really like? Two very vivid books by prison doctors – one British, the other American; they pull few punches

The Endgame in the Age of Stupid
Could our society collapse? Yes, and it might be happening right now. Not that I want to alarm you, of course

Why Nations Fail
Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson shared the 2024 Nobel Prize for Economics. Why? And did they know what they were talking about? A look at their landmark book, Why Nations Fail

Why Europe? Peace, That’s Why
The European Union was never wholly, or even mainly, about economics. It isn’t now

An Anthology of Anger
The Anti-Austerity Anthology is the work of many angry, and sometimes very funny, writers

Tonight in the House: Murder, Booze and More
Jeremy Thorpe, a  shocking scandal – and Britain’s House of Commons at its boozy, bonkers best

What is Populism?
Well you might ask. A look at populism, how it’s defined, and how it works

Inequality and Democracy: Can they Coexist?
And if not, what will the endgame be? Revolution? Or gradual decline?

A Higher Loyalty
Who really is James Comey? And what is his beef with Trump? His autobiography, A Higher Loyalty, gave some of the answers – and was better than I expected

Brexit: Reading the Runes
Brexit and British Politics is not the first book about Brexit, but it’s a shrewd and convincing analysis. This referendum wasn’t just about Europe

Being Beastly in Fleet Street
A brilliant, savage new satire on the Street of Shame. But it’s not the first

On Truth and Lies. And How to Show a Troll the Difference
A keyboard warrior’s workshop manual

Don't like anchovies? Don't bother voting, then
There is more than one threat to democracy in Britain, but the worst is an electoral system that seems set up to sabotage it

Post-Factualism
Brexit, the fragmentation of the media, and the rise of post-factual politics

Thinking of Voting Leave? I’d Have Done, Once
From the time of the Brexit referendum

When the Best Lack All Conviction
Two women who didn’t: Rachel Corrie and Heather Campbell

The English Defence League. Served Hot and Cold
Two books looked at the EDL – in very different ways; one was academic, the other more journalistic. Both were good books, and both still have something to tell us about the Right in Britain

Rear-View Mirror
Blood, sweat and tears go into TV programmes and they’re soon forgotten. Or are they? …And do they leave us with shared memories? A very personal look back at some programmes from the 1970s

Cameron’s next five years
In 2015 British Prime Minister David Cameron unexpectedly won re-election with an absolute majority. These were my predictions for his next five years. I got some things rather wrong. But not all of them

So, who were we?
Three Seasons is a book of three novellas, unconnected with each other, but all set in the south of England in the 1980s. These three stories are portraits of a country and its people on the verge of change

Straight from the Sun
Renewable energy will drive a new industrial revolution. That revolution is inevitable, elegant, and already here …Written in 2013

Margaret Thatcher: Unintended Consequences
A piece written on the death of Margaret Thatcher. Did she really transform Britain as she intended? Or did she actually fail to do so, leaving a vacuum where institutions had once been? Some thoughts from 2013

Can the Lentil Save the World?
Well, that might depend on your digestion. A look at the science behind a popular crop. And some rather nice recipes

It’s the Science, Stupid. Or Is It?
Science is under attack. Both Left and Right cherry-pick from its conclusions; they accept or reject climate science or advances in biotechnology according to their prejudices, and examine the evidence on neither. This is dangerous, for all of us

Dimensions of Democracy
What is democracy? Do we oversimplify it?

Mike is now also on Substack at https://mikerobbinswrites.substack.com/