Democracy and free trade are two options available to populism before it chooses the dictatorial path of government, but they are impossible to achieve once the totalitarian route is taken. State Populism is linked to totalitarianism in the internal-political aspect, and to protectionism in the economic-external facet.
The etymology of the word populism goes back to at least classical Rome, where the Factio Popularium movement arose to protest the privileges of the aristocracy in the division and distribution of land–this was an early attack by the “roman populists” against the elites.
There is no consensus on the political or philosophical definition of the word populism, and it is very often misunderstood. Different interpretations arise according to differences in culture and the personal views of pundits. When former Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico expressed his opposition to the populist movement in the region, President Barack Obama of the U.S. responded with a definitional view of the word populism and even called himself a populist–based on his campaign rhetoric of 2008, where he denounced social inequality and the political power of big business. Both presidents were right and wrong on their assessment of populism.
One thing is clear, and it is that Populism is not a political ideology, but instead an appendix of ideologies that vary from left to right in the political spectrum. However, the political meaning of the word Populism becomes conceptually clearer when we explicitly distinguish between the populism of a political campaign and the one exerted by a sitting president. Let’s call this latter concept: State Populism.
All political candidates, at all levels, are populists by definition and in different degrees of exposure. The political and analytical difference falls in evaluating the political action and decisions that are taken once political power is consolidated. Let’s consider as an example the following proposition: a political populist brings about a constitutional democratic change in Cuba, would we condemn his revolutionary populism as we did the populism of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? To complete the thought, let’s ask a critical question each time we qualify populism: what is the political system that will best benefit a specific nation?
In the final analysis it would be more appropriate to use a terminology for populism that would best fit the actions of the populist while in government, without considering if the government is right or left-leaning, e.g.: “populist dictatorship”, or “popular nationalism.” This way we would identify the political system instead of the person alone. Lenin once said that political power cannot be conquered by telling the truth alone, but even then he was not identified mainly as a populist, but as communist throughout history, and this resulted in a clearer political target 70 years later.
The Populist
The populist rejects the present status quo and its institutions, and reclaims a better past or an allegorical future. The populist raise social controversy by calling upon divisive themes, such as race, religion, and any subject that would validate the maxim: divide and conquer. The populist promotes fast and easy solutions under an aura of spiritual liberation and cultural emancipation, claiming only he can bring about the vindication and solution of all national problems. The populist uses narcissism as a fountain of energy to keep the thought of his own political and popular importance. The populist intends to dominate and manipulate popular culture to gain political power. Every populist is by definition a demagogue.
The populist feeds on the popular emotions, the passions, and the screws that turn the populace into political action, which is not always in agreement with rational or moral behavior. Political demagoguery touches the animal side of the populist’s mind to establish an irrational dialogue between his fatuous anxiety and the complacency of his audience. The populist declares foreign and domestic enemies to motivate people politically and to infuse hatred and revenge in their hearts. This is the hypnotical ability of the born populist.
The rational side of the mind rejects this behavior and logically empathizes with the true grievances of the people, proposing real practical solutions in return.
State Populism
Facing a weak democratic system, State Populism encourages a gradual growth in centralism, bureaucracy, and corruption, by using quick and popular economic measures, like the nationalization of natural resources—such as oil, steel mills, and telecommunications. State Populism is even more aggressive when international matters, such as immigration, protection of national sovereignty, and international trade are at play. State Populism thrives on a protectionist economy and isolationist policies.
State Populism joins hands with a privileged oligarchy specifically chosen for its political loyalty and its economic and financial abilities to buy favors from the populist government, starting an infamous circle of corruption. The populist totalitarian government can then choose between economic winners and losers promoting clientelism and crony capitalism.
State Populism proceeds to undermine the rights and freedoms of the individual vis-à-vis the central government. Consequently, State Populism erodes the balance and independence of the powers of government. Under these circumstances State Populism ferments the growth of totalitarianism from within. This is the origin of a dictatorial populism on its way to consolidate autocratic rule.
A totalitarian autocracy eliminates the individual and replaces it with a model of unanimity and homogeneousness. The populist dictator then proclaims the advent of a unique and truthful people, elevating the themes of race, religion, and other emotional stimulants.
State Populism is simplistic in theory because it possesses an intrinsic contradiction, which is that the principle of cultural unanimity contradicts reality. Social reality is heterogeneous in its composition, and it’s dynamic as it keeps changing. Homogeneity is a utopia in temporal terms. Popular culture and its idiosyncrasies cannot be dictated by the government but by the people themselves. The mysticism of unanimity remains alive only because of mere political ignorance and irrationality of the masses, or by the police force of an alternate State.
Jaime Otero-Zuazo
O-Z BLOG USA © 