22 12 february 2018ight-of-centre commentators all over the West are still convinced that populism is a friendly force.
they trust ‘the people’ and believe that populism is a sign of history ‘going their way’. Are they correct?
the most successful of recent populist movements in the US and europe certainly haven’t been led
from the organised Left, but that may not tell us anything very useful. it might, in fact, be something of an
illusion because most of the successful political movements of the last century had distinctly egalitarian
elements within them, so that any assault on the status quo is likely to carry an apparent anti-left bias.
the populist upsurge does, however, represent a limited recalibration of political awareness. it feeds
on perceptions of a clash between entrenched elites who are privileged and isolated, and fresh leaders
who are demotic and virtuous—something that has been understood more widely as a nationalist
reaction to the ambitions of an internationalist class of super-rich technocrats. on the other hand, the
quest for definitions may just be an argument within the traditional elite about who can most skilfully
co-opt the rogue forces recently unleashed by economic distress across the West.
thus far, no one has convincingly explained what populism actually is, whether it is one thing replicated many times, or
whether it is different in every case, dependent on the society that hosts it. Yet, in historical perspective, one thing is clear. though
populist movements tend to appear with frightening suddenness, they rarely sustain themselves effectively. they come in with a
bang but generally leave with a whimper.
for sure, we do not yet understand how populism catches its moments, and what it can and can’t do. for instance, in the UK
the Brexit vote was driven by all sorts of mythical beasts—powers we could regain, money we could save, borders we could fortify.
this makes a poignant contrast with a most egregious display of actual elite neglect and arrogance—the grenfell fire that killed 71
people, which has produced no political change at all, beyond resignations from the local council. no one within the political class
was able to harness the cause and convert it into serious radical protest, and no one outside the elite has found a platform to speak
for the millions who live in similar tower blocks.
the debate about populism in the West has been highly introverted, mostly because it seems like a new phenomenon—almost an
affront—to most of the commentators who discuss it. it seems especially novel to the politicians whose careers it threatens, and who
have been all too willing to dismiss it as a temporary failure of party messaging, rather than a true political universal of any kind.
the briefest study of South Asian history would have thrown helpful light on the subject for anyone who cared to look, but iThe East explains the new Western insurgency
populists
at pl ay
o pe n e s say
By RodeRick Matthews