The populist syndrome

The presence of Populist parties in the European political scenario often triggers feelings of unease. Throughout the centuries, the term “populism” has been given two contrasting interpretations. To begin with, it was believed that all a skilful politician needed to enforce a political project, was to put to value his instincts and the population’s reactions. The instinct of self-preservation of the “man on the street”, along with his intuitive wisdom and his inborn ability to understand world mechanisms, was believed to convey more trust than the “enlightened elites”. According to this view, populations’ reason and virtues reside in the above-mentioned features. It was thus assumed that a high number of uneducated people were more likely to adopt the same criteria of the educated population in appraising the state of affairs. Another form of populism consists in the yearning to exploit populations’ widespread ignorance. For this purpose, in order to come to reasonable decisions, politicians strike a chord in ordinary people to gain the support of non-enlightened public opinion even for undisclosed issues. To gain such support, politicians often resort to demagogy, fear-incitement and prejudice. This latter form of populism shows the contempt of the political elite for the “man on the street”, fuelled by the belief that political complexities are out of his reach and understanding. And while population’s participation to the political arena is crucial for democratic progress, energies focus upon the emotional sphere of the constituency, and not on their comprehension skills. “Kindness and rational dialogue are the tools employed with reasonable people. However, when addressing society, these tools prove to be useless”, wrote a liberal politician. “I believe that the problem lies in the fact that liberals are generally more intelligent, wiser and more learned. Therefore, in order to persuade society that our well-conceived claims are true and consistent, we can afford to go much further”. With this quote I don’t intend to criticize liberal populist politicians; rather, I wish to point out that in current political view, the populist syndrome extends far beyond ideologies or political systems. It therefore ought to be viewed as a dimension of political culture. Revolutionary populism along with left, right wing and centre-wing reactionaries are widely known. However, at times we fail to perceive that the demos bows down to populist countersigns not only when it votes against all political forecasts, but also when it endorses our projects. This very question induces some people to be unaware of their own contradictions when they rejoice for Barack Obama’s triumph over Republican populism and are upset over successful populism in California, where those who elected a black President equally cast their no-vote to the same-sex marriage referendum. The popularity of populism is strictly linked to hyper-mediatization. Television and other visual media are undermining man’s reasoning capacities. It’s hard for politicians addressing an electorate that has access to such powerful tools to resist the temptation of populism, especially if their political opponents fail to oppose resistance. Are we doomed to populism? In the teachings of Benedict XVI are to be found two ‘fuses’ that could prevent democracy from developing into a deformed and senseless regime: the spirit open to the Transcendent and the natural law that a righteous spirit manages to discern.