Populism

Content

1. What is populism?

2. Populism as a style

3. How do populists differ from extremists?

4. Why are we focusing on populism?

5. How are the established parties responding to populist challengers?

6. Publications, events and media contributions on the topic

The rise of populist parties seems unstoppable. Whether it’s the National Rally (RN) in France, the Sweden Democrats, Fidesz in Hungary, Vox and Podemos in Spain, or the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) – right-wing populists are established parties in Europe that consistently achieve major successes in elections. In Germany, however, they struggled for a long time. That has changed. There are now even two players on the fringes of the political spectrum – the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) – that are described as populist. While their European sister parties have often succeeded by presenting themselves as moderate, their German counterparts stand for radicalization and raise concerns about a loss of social cohesion and damage to the pillars of our liberal democratic constitutional order.

What is populism?

Populism is a political phenomenon that is difficult to define. This is because it both characterizes a specific political style and is used as a pejorative label imposed by others, while also serving as an academic term intended to neutrally describe parties on the fringes of the political spectrum. This tension between normative pejorativism and objective description must be taken into account when defining populism. Academic descriptions are just as multifaceted as the phenomenon of populism itself and remain inconsistent to this day. However, overlaps continue to emerge. The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung identifies populism by the following characteristics:

• Problem-Seekers: Populists sensationalize and scandalize politics. As “political entrepreneurs,” they capitalize on outrage, concerns, and fears.

• Scapegoat Strategies: Culprits are identified for real or perceived grievances, whether they be the established parties, “those at the top,” corporations, or immigrants. In doing so, populists do not shy away from disinformation and conspiracy theories.

• “Us Against Them”: Populists rely on enemy stereotypes and highly simplistic black-and-white thinking. They recognize no shades of gray.

• Anti-elitism: The “elite” or the “establishment” is rejected. Political rivals, government officials, judges, and others are defamed as representatives of an aloof class. This undermines the legitimacy of democratic institutions and those based on the rule of law, such as parliaments or courts.

• An “identitarian” understanding of politics: Populists equate themselves with the “common people” or the “little people.” Accordingly, anyone who opposes the populists is seen as opposing the people, who are viewed as a homogeneous group. Populism is therefore, at its core, anti-pluralistic.

Both right-wing and left-wing populists share these characteristics. However, there are also differences. In Germany, these are often defined in terms of the principles of “exclusion” and “inclusion” (Karin Priester). Right-wing populism is said to be exclusive because it separates the native population from “the others,” viewing not only the “elite” but also “foreigners” as antagonistic groups. Left-wing populism is said to be inclusive because it seeks to integrate the socially disadvantaged and involve them directly in political and economic decision-making processes.

🟦 Analysis:

The publication “On the History and Dynamics of Populism” (full text available in German only) examines how populist movements have developed historically and why they are successful.

Populism as a style

More or less every political party in Germany has politicians in its ranks who stand out for their inflammatory style. “Speaking the people’s language”– that is, speaking in a way that citizens can understand – is actually considered a virtue in a democracy. The downside, however, is boisterous, crude speeches, insults, smear campaigns, as well as gross oversimplifications, exaggerated hyperbole, and a flexible approach to facts. These are responsible for populism’s negative image.

Despite this criticism, hyperbolic rhetoric is not necessarily “bad” in and of itself. It can help distinguish political parties more clearly and is thus a thoroughly helpful component of the political decision-making process. Populists, however, rely on division and denigration.

The normative connotations of the term mean that political parties generally would not describe themselves as populist. It is a label applied by others – not only by scholars, but also by other political actors. For them, the implicit pejorative connotation serves to set them apart in political debates. The aim is to present oneself in a favorable light. “Populist” is then an accusation that may – but does not necessarily – hold true. However, it also allows populists to present themselves to the public as victims who are being targeted by undemocratic means. For this reason, such labels should always be carefully considered in political discourse and backed up by substantive policy arguments.

How do populists differ from extremists?

It is not possible to draw a clear distinction between populists and extremists. The lines between them are blurred.

Extremists reject our liberal democratic order as a whole. They seek to replace democracy, the rule of law, the separation of powers, diversity, and human and civil rights with a regime of oppression and arbitrariness. Populists, while seeing problems everywhere and viewing democracy as flawed, do not necessarily seek to fundamentally overthrow the political system. Compared to extremists, populists stand out above all for their “thin” ideology (Cas Mudde). While extremists have a cohesive, dogmatic worldview, populists adopt existing ideological elements quite flexibly and discard them again when they no longer see any further political benefit in them.

However, populism can quickly slide into radicalism. This tendency is already inherent in their protagonists’ identitarian understanding of politics, in their anti-pluralism and conspiracy-theory underpinnings, and not least in their inflammatory political style. That is why even populism – which is supposedly “milder” than extremism – can quickly become a threat to democracy.

Why are we focusing on populism?

The rise of populist parties is a global phenomenon. The reasons for the emergence of populist parties are manifold. They range from deep-seated social divides and gaps in representation within the party system to structural conditions – such as a high degree of personalization in presidential systems of government – that favor populist campaigns. If one were to look for a common thread, it would most likely lie in the increasing heterogeneity and complexity of society, which goes hand in hand with a decline in the major parties’ ability to bring people together. In this situation, new populist parties find it easier to establish themselves.

The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung has made it its mission to observe and analyze the consequences for the party system: How are the parties responding to their populist challengers? How are democratic institutions and the media adapting? How can we prevent populists from becoming a threat to our democracy? Is social polarization accelerating, and how can this process be halted? All these questions are on our minds.

🟦 Analysis:

The interplay between populism, social division, and democratic institutions is one of the key areas of research of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. The publication “Political Polarization in Germany” (full text available in German only) examines the extent to which Germany is actually polarized and what consequences this has for democracy and social cohesion.

How are the established parties responding to populist challengers?

Reactions to populist parties in Europe can generally be divided into strategies aimed at keeping populists at a distance and strategies that seek to engage them.

So far, no “magic bullet” against populist parties has been found. Once they have established themselves, they do not simply disappear again. Populists neither lose their appeal permanently once in government, nor can their influence be undermined by moving closer to their positions or adopting them entirely. The opposite is true: populists simply become more radical and present themselves as the “real deal.” It also does not help to ignore populists or stigmatize them as anti-democrats.

Only the combination of taking a stand and pursuing sound policies aimed at solving pressing problems has an impact, even if it does not automatically guarantee success. That should actually be the goal of every democratic party. It is not about stoking cultural conflict, but about effectively solving real problems. Taking a stand means not abandoning one’s own positions in the debate with populists and advocating for one’s own goals. If, on the other hand, fear of populists dictates the political agenda, they have already won. It is also important not to give populists undue attention by focusing on them more than necessary. Rather, a well-measured

🟦 Analysis:

The publication “Between Exclusion, Inclusion, and Tolerance – Case Studies on Dealing with Right-Wing Populist Parties in Europe” examines the experiences of European democracies with different strategies for dealing with right-wing populists.