Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European ...

Populism and Democracy 23
USA requires closer attention not only because, in the past, there was a
major and dramatic insurgence of (agrarian) populism, but also because
other less important, though still significant, instances of populism such as
those embodied by Governor and Senator Huey Long, Senator Joseph
McCarthy, Governor George Wallace and presidential candidate Ross Perot,
have punctuated various historical periods and particular geographical
areas (Ware, 2002). Indeed, the US case seems to suggest that the connection
between populism and democracy remains real, strong and inevitable
and that the line separating them is, and continues to be, thin. This line is
bound to be especially thin in mass democracies, which should be carefully
and clearly distinguished from mass societies.
A number of American scholars have long been critical of the trends
within their society which give rise to a depoliticized mass society (Riesman,
1989), and rightly so, because all mass democracies are dangerously close to
mass societies. Moreover, liberal mass democracies are bound to open up
spaces of alienation for isolated individuals whose only escape will often be
found in what they consider an emotional and direct relationship with a
political leader. In order to clarify this argument, however, we must look at
the social conditions underpinning the opportunities both for the insurgence
of populism and for the survival of liberal democracy.
Social conditions
There are two different, although closely related, ways to define the social
conditions most conducive to the likely rise of populism. The first focuses on
individuals and their psycho-sociological characteristics. The second concerns
the overall circumstances of a specific society. The individuals most
likely to be attracted by a populist leader or to be involved in a populist insurgence
share many common features. They are people who become open to a
populist experience because they suffer from political isolation and alienation
and are in serious need of emotional attachments, of both the vertical
and horizontal type. Social isolation means that they are not connected with
other individuals except through their own personal and material living and
working conditions. Second, and most important, they are usually not members
of any kind of associations/organizations, be they cultural, religious, or
professional. And, if they are, they tend to be passive members. This may be
due to the fact that these individuals have moved from an area in which
traditional ties were sufficient to bind them to other members of that community
into one in which new ties are difficult to create. Alternatively, they
may have dropped out of a situation in which they had ties (e.g. through
unemployment) and thus find themselves, willingly or unwillingly, unable
to retain any social tie. At this point, these individuals not only find themselves
socially dislocated, but, more specifically, have become ‘available’. This
is the condition, for example, experienced by many unemployed industrial