Are Populists Friends or Foes of Constitutionalism? - Foundation for ...

Are Populists Friends or Foes ofConstitutionalism?IntroductionPopulism is fast becoming the favouritebogeyman of the Western elite of the still earlytwenty-first century. In an interview withFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in 2010, in the midstof the worst economic crisis in postwar Europe,European Union (EU) President Herman VanRompuy called populism ‘the greatest danger’ inEurope. This warning was recently echoed in theNew York Times (15 October 2013), in both aninterview with Italian Prime Minister Enrico Lettaand a strong editorial on ‘Europe’s PopulistBacklash’. But the ‘threat’ of populism is not limitedto Europe. US administrations have warned of thethreat of the left-wing populist regimes of HugoChávez and Evo Morales in Latin America, whilethe right-wing ‘populist anger’ of the Tea Party hasheld the world under its spell in the recent USgovernment shutdown. In short, populism is a(near) global menace.But while there is an almost universal consensuson the idea that populism is a major threat todemocracy, the exact nature of that alleged threatoften remains vague. This is in part a consequenceof the notoriously slippery concept of populism,which is broadly used, but has many differentmeanings in the political and public debate. Formany it is nothing more than the opportunisticdiscourse of demagogues, while others see it as amodern form of political extremism, rigid anddeeply ideological. This policy brief will reflect onthe phenomenon of populism, provide a cleardefinition, and discuss its relationship withdemocracy in general, and constitutionalism inparticular.The aim is to provide a clearer understanding ofboth populism and its alleged threat todemocracy. This is of crucial importance for tworelated reasons. First, populism uses a stronglydemocratic discourse in which ‘the elite’ are attackedas being undemocratic. Hence, the support ofpopulist parties is based on support for a (genuine)democracy. Second, given that policymakers andpublic intellectuals are generally perceived as beingpart of ‘the elite’ by populists and their supporters,they cannot simply assume to have the moral highground. Consequently, vague warnings andmoralistic condemnations are not going to work on(potential) supporters of populist politicians. Theywill have to be convinced by clear arguments whichdemonstrate that, whilst most populists might askthe right questions about their imperfect democraticsystems, they often provide the wrong answers.What is populism?The term populism is often ascribed to politicians,but seldom claimed by them. This is a reflection ofthe general negative connotation of the term, whichhas made it a powerful weapon in the politicaldomain. The label ‘populist’ is often used to excludegroups from the political mainstream: against thedemocratic and responsible ‘us’ stands theundemocratic and irresponsible populist ‘them’. Butwhat is it that makes certain groups populist? Weknow it is something political, but is it a politicalideology, movement, strategy, or style?Three meanings of populism are most dominant inthe public debate and all three are too vague andtoo broad. Firstly, populism is described as a form ofirresponsible redistributive politics, in which leaders‘buy off’ their supporters through state programmes,leading to massive budget deficits and economicmismanagement. Secondly, populism is used todescribe a certain leadership style, through whichcharismatic leaders mobilize and govern by directlyappealing to the people, without the mediation ofpolitical institutions like parties or parliaments.Thirdly, populism is often defined primarily as aspecific communication style that is overly2 . ARE POPULISTS FRIENDS OR FOES OF CONSTITUTIONALISM?