Personal Blogs

Reading Jan-Werner Muller's short and accesible book 'What is Populism' I  have been become aware of a number of aspects of the theory / ideology that I have not properly considered before and how they have presented themselves in the United Kingdom.

Muller asserts that populists parties are almost always 'internally monolithic', the charismatic head either creates a new movement (Beppe Grillo in Italy or Nigel Farage with The Brexit Party or Reform UK in the UK), or effectively takes over an existing one (arguably Donald Trump in the USA or Nigel Farage with UKIP here). Crucially in each case we witness a leader prosecuting a form of internal authoritarianism holding ultimate control of membership with rank and file followers rather than internal party democracy as we usually see in traditional political parties.

In the UK this can be clearly seen both in Mr Farage's return to party leadership prior to the 2024 election without any form of leadership contest, or his effective dispatching of internal representatives since, Rupert Lowe in what appears to be an effective challenge on policy and leadership, or James McMurdock for unacceptable behaviour.

Crucially, the power has rested with Mr Farage. It is a challenge for the future of a growing party and a concern for what happens once in power.

Interestingly, the other concept I find interesting in Muller's book (I'm still only a third of the way through) is that when in power there is no such thing as legitimate opposition. 

Of course, Reform UK have not (yet) been in government in the UK but is it fair to assume that if office is attained they will make an argument that they continue to represent the people even if the media reports that the wider polity disagrees? 

In the United States we have witnessed in recent months the cancellation of media outlets opposed to President Trump and widespread assertions that those cancelled do not represent 'real people'. If the polls are to be believed and in four years we have a Reform UK government , is it likely that such opposition here in Britain will be painted as illegitimate?

I was recently having an exchange on social media with a newly elected Reform UK county councillor where I commented on his assertion that his party was 'centre right' with the observation that as a party they don't have an aligned position on any traditional left / right spectrum but rather that they pick and choose policies based on a populist approach. It can be argued that the party has some fairly right wing views when it comes to immigration whilst its stance on the public ownership of British Steel falls far to the left of the Government, for example.

The councillor in question replied to me as follows: "I am centre right that is a fact ,a popular policy like lowering tax will always be popular , removing illegals that cost us billions will always be popular etc etc"

In that one sentence he conflated populism with the notion of being popular. It isn't an unusual mistake to make and I don't criticise him for it, it's not reasonable to expect councillors to be experts in political theory.

But it is important to note that populism isn't about being popular, although some of the policies of a populist party may well be, it's about how the party looks at the world.

Cas Mudde describes populism as being a set of ideas, that may well have a 'host' ideology attached to them that sets the 'good' people against the 'bad' elite. It assumes that the people hold a common set of values and is moral ideology that paints the 'people' as good and the elite, or establishment, or whatever you want to call them as corrupt.

Perhaps most importantly Mudde describes populism as 'an illiberal democratic response to liberal democracy'.

The real issue is that in a liberal democracy we believe in the concept of popular sovereignty and majority rule, but we also believe in minority rights, the rule of law and separation of powers. In that sense we can argue that democracy has progressed from a relatively simplistic electoral version to a much more complex monitory model that takes into account supranational bodies and institutions, courts and treaties.

The essence of populism is that through a strengthened executive it is free to undermine the judiciary, the media, the rule of law and the rights of minorities (if those minorities don't accord with the homogenous views or characteristics of 'the people').

So, going back to my discussion with the unnamed councillor, I don't expect him to understand any strict definition of populism. What I do expect him to recognise is that populism readily infringes on the rights of minorities, and to ask himself if he is happy with that?

And, just as importantly, to remind himself often that you never know when you may become a minority yourself.