Illustration: Craig Stephens
Populism is now a worldwide phenomenon with which we have to learn to live. Leaders of populist movements present themselves as mouthpieces of the people and generally oppose the established order. They pursue a cultural, socioeconomic, or anti-establishment agenda and sometimes compositions thereof. They often target the incumbent political elite, judges, and the media. Sociologists tell us that it is vital to listen to voters of populist parties to understand what moves them and prevent them from feeling abandoned and turning their backs on politics. However, the question is what this listening should consist of. Scientists have been looking into what the voters of populist parties have in common for decades. It turns out that there are no easy answers. Although it is well established that there are similarities between parties with a populist message, it turns out to be a lot more challenging to identify the factors that play a role in casting a populist vote. For the time being, there is no evidence that the voters of these parties have, on average, a lower income, are less employed, come from lower classes, or are less educated.
Similarly, there is no proof that they are more Eurosceptic, have less confidence in politics, or favor a more direct form of democracy. Consequently, it is complicated to draw meaningful and unambiguous conclusions about the considerations that precede casting a vote for a populist party. I'm not going to dare to do that in this piece. In this article, I examine what voters on populist parties actually gain with their vote.
Politically, three different situations can be distinguished:
the populists gain a majority and are part of the government (whether or not together with like-minded parties);
they are not part of the government and are in opposition;
they do participate in or support a government without a populist majority in power.
How do populist-administered countries get away with it?
There is no better way to understand this than to compare countries with right-wing and left-wing populist governmental majorities with those in full democracies without limited populist input. For this comparison, I am leaning on the General Government Performance Index, which I will publish shortly. This annual index measures how effective governments are in providing value to their citizens. To this end, societal benefits relevant to citizens are compared with the public burden that governments impose on public funds. A brief explanation is provided below this article for the objective and composition of the GGPI and sources used.
The graph below shows how governments' social performance in a country relates to its democratic character. I use the most recent Democracy Index of The Economist Intelligence Unit for this last component. The populist countries included in the overview all have a multi-party system. They are governed by a government consisting of the majority of one or more parties qualified as populist. The listed full democracies (with or without limited input from populist parties) are all in the top-ten of the EIU Democracy Index.
The contrast is clear. On average, full democracies score considerably higher than countries where populists govern the country. In addition to the high level of democracy, it appears that they also deliver significantly higher social achievements to their citizens. The UK (which belongs to the group of full democracies), Japan, and the US still perform relatively well in terms of social performance compared to other countries governed by populist majorities. For the time being, strong democratic institutions protect the population against too much slippage in government performance. Still, it should not be forgotten that the UK and the US are already showing clear deterioration signs.
It is noteworthy that, on average, government performance in full democracies that is relevant to citizens has only risen over the past five years in the case of already high scores, which are close to the maximum. In countries governed by populists, these have fallen even further, at already low-performance levels. On this basis, populism does not seem to answer the people's will; it even appears that this ideology generally bears no relation to serious and effective democratic governance. From the citizen's point of view, it falls short in delivering social achievements.
It is essential to realize that democratic success is not a matter of wealth. Of the top twenty most prosperous countries in the world, only ten are fully democratic. Conversely, countries such as Chile, Costa Rica, and Mauritius may call themselves full democracies in the EIU Democracy Index, but they are by no means wealthy.
Full democracies are not immune to populist influences. Populist parties are active in thirteen of the countries qualified as full democracies by the EIU Democracy Index 2019. Some of them are even in government (as a minority party) or, as is the UK's case, they are the government. Often, so much energy is put into protecting the country against foreign influences (ethnic, economic, political) citizens' real interests (standards of living, prosperity, democratic fundamental rights) are threatened. It certainly does not lead to better governance, and citizens may rightly feel misled about the promised policy's paltry fruits. The remedy turns out to be worse than the disease.
Scoring from the sidelines
A voice on a populist opposition party triggers an interesting political dynamic. The fact-free false solutions usually proclaimed by populists operating on the political spectrum's flanks significantly impact center parties' work on whose shoulders the burden lies to find a workable way out of complex political problems for society.
On the one hand ...
The populists watch from the sidelines, and the center struggles for a solution. A complicating factor for the toilers is that complexity sells poorly, and social media lend themselves better to feeding skepticism and cynicism than to gaining trust. Transparency seems to be the answer. However, experience shows that this is not at all easy. A laborious compromise reached in back rooms after an extensive give and take can provoke fierce criticism or even eventually die when the individual pieces, sometimes one is enough, are dissected and scrutinized outside the compromise''s context. For populists, this is a feast; their success depends on disruption. They provide a platform for experts or interest groups who ride their own hobbyhorses or defend their own interests but do not care about consensus. They are masters in questioning the solution reached, breaking trust, and stirring up cynicism about the policies pursued.
Spin doctor and media-fed experience, unshakeable points of view are branded as 'principled' and, after much effort, achieved workable solutions such as 'compromising.' The first sounds tough, the second weak. Soon words like 'political in-crowd,' 'elitist,' 'political swamp' go round and feed the disgust of those who, according to sociologists, do not feel represented. Still, of whom nobody knows why and what exactly they want. Populist politicians, of course, don't know that either, but they are useful in setting the tone. It helps that they have not committed themselves to a solution and can throw water on the fire without consequence.
Populist politicians take the current level of prosperity for granted and pretend that alternatives they put forward (close the borders, step out of the euro and the EU, everything now sustainable, produce locally) immediately solve (alleged) shortcomings without any sacrifices. Although it is instinctively clear that this is often very brief, it does itch: "they at least dare to put a name to it." This forces parties in the political middle to react. They must either clarify that the identified problems are nonsense or develop solutions that do work. This by no means is always easy in a politically pluralistic environment such as that which exists in the Netherlands and many other Western European democracies. Complexity requires conscientious and responsible politics; at the same time, building common solutions takes patience, trust, and ..... back rooms. Taking all wishes and beliefs into account may not always yield the objectively best result. Still, it is the most politically feasible in an environment where no solution is not an option either. In the absence of a workable alternative, the populist then labels the hard-won result as 'backroom gossip,' after which he is relieved of the obligation to weigh the end result's content and assess its value.
.... on the other hand
There is also a downside to all this. Populist politicians beg loudest for the government responsibility but consciously formulate their election programs so that potential coalition members drop out in advance. For center parties, the risk of association with socially untenable or unworkable populist positions stands in the form of cooperation. Isolation nourishes the image as a political outcast and strengthens the bond with, and generates votes among, the supporters who have been (or are thought to be?) abandoned by politics.
The question is what this actually yields for those supporters. The self-chosen isolation of the populist parties is counterproductive. After all, the more successful the populist parties are, the more difficult it is to form a coalition within the narrower boundaries in the political middle. The greater the need, as well, to seek support from other parties in the middle for specific politically sensitive proposals. The chance that populist points of view will be taken into account and included in the political decision-making process is minimal. For non-government parties, on the other hand, a populist voice provides extra power and is, therefore, a bonus. Populist parties, in their role as opposition parties, overshoot the mark and can only hope that their success will force other parties to move somewhat 'in their' direction. They have to accept that this is often more symbolic than substantive.
Populist participation or support for governments
What if populist parties are reluctant to take responsibility for themselves and participate in a coalition with dissenting parties or support government policy? I have looked at how parties in Europe that participated in such a political partnership performed electorally in the next election:
On average, participation in a coalition with dissenting parties 'costs' the populist parties that take this step more than 30% of the seats they had in the previous election at the next election. Bearing co-responsibility, making compromises, and abandoning or at least dampening opportunism turns out to carry a high price. The shine of the limelight fades by conforming to the complexity of the real world. Parties venturing into this scenario often suffer the same fate: their luster fades with the broken election promises, and voters quickly switch to other populist alternatives in the absence of desirable results. Taking governmental responsibility is risky, and as such, it is understandable that populist parties are generally far removed from it.
Being heard but not having a voice
In none of the scenarios elaborated above will the populist voter be rewarded for his or her choice. The solutions proposed by populism are nothing more than the 'Emperor’s New Clothes’; they were widely praised, but they did not exist.
Voters for populist parties are heard by their political representatives but do not have a voice at the table. It produces a lot of noise, theater, and discord, but no influence. The fear of taking responsibility, making oneself vulnerable by making political compromises, and being overtaken on the right or left by politically even more flanking competitors makes populist parties mostly irrelevant. Even if they manage to achieve a parliamentary majority, they fail to deliver better social policies, improve welfare, or better protect citizens from lousy government behavior. Why freedom, democracy, right of self-determination, etc.?
A vote for a populist party is ultimately nothing more than a lost vote. Populism eventually turns out to be mostly irrelevant, harmful, or self-destructive. Therefore, it is a false and deceitful prophecy that brings nothing to voters and costs them a lot.
A brief explanation of the composition of the General Government Performance Index
The higher the social benefits of government policy, the more citizens benefit from it. The index's societal benefits are derived from three social organizations' research, each with its own perspectives and objectives. The Social Progress Index investigates the quality of our government-organized, and facilitated social systems that make it possible to meet our primary living needs, promote quality of life and generate equal opportunities. The World Economic Forum assesses the quality of infrastructure for its Global Competitiveness Report. The Worldbank assesses the quality of public administration with its Worldwide Governance Indicators. It aims to map the quality of direct and indirect government services and make them comparable across countries.
Of course, active policy generally translates into higher public costs. These are expressed in higher taxes, higher public debt, and often a combination of the two. It is impossible to allow citizens to reap the benefits of the policies pursued without putting a price on them. When assessing the size of public burdens in a country, I use the International Monetary Fund figures and, more specifically, the World Economic Outlook Databases. I weigh the per capita government spending and the size of a country's public debt.
A score is set for social revenue and public expenditure that does justice to a country's relative position in the ranking of results in both performance areas. The GGPI score is determined by subtracting a country's social benefits score from the public burden score. The outcome shows how a government, compared to other countries, has been able to translate the strain on public resources into social benefits relevant to its citizens