Politics in most democratic countries is a mess. Division is rampant making it a struggle to find common ground. All too often warring factions do not even want to try to talk with each other such is their disdain for people who hold opposing views.

Yet, it is a fair guess that a majority would prefer that life was different. They would like less anger and more agreement. They would like an environment that allows them to get on with their daily lives while the many challenges the world around them presents are dealt with competently.  They would like to participate in the solutions.

Unfortunately, such a scenario is all too often not on offer.

Across the globe we see progressive parties in retreat while, authoritarian populists are in government in the United States, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and, yes, New Zealand – sometimes on their own, sometimes as members of a coalition (1). Cas Mudde of the Guardian newspaper estimates that far-right parties now command, on average, 14% of the popular vote in European countries.

Elsewhere, authoritarian populists may not have made it into government (yet), but they have influenced the parties who have.

For those who support the concept of liberal democracy, this is an alarming trend. We (I count myself in the liberal democratic camp) used to take it for granted that liberal democracy would prevail. No longer. As the self-titled ‘Illiberal’ Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, has argued, populists like him threaten to be the future.

If this is not to be the case, there is an urgent need to explain where authoritarian populist politics came from and establish if there is a workable response.

In the space I have available here, I will not attempt a full explanation. There is a voluminous literature on populism that examines the issue from every possible angle. My concern is to locate the debate within the context of new times (or modernity as Giddens would prefer), the third way and the future of politics as I have been exploring in these blogs.

Authoritarian Populism

To begin, it is useful to define what is meant by authoritarian populism (2).

In essence, it is based on two assumptions:

1.     it is ‘them’ against ‘us’. The ‘us’ group shares a common social identity that can be based on nationality, ‘race’, ethnicity, gender, religion, language, socio-economic status, partisanship or location. Whatever the basis of group membership it serves to sharply divide one from the other.

2.     group security is under threat. We live in a dog-eat-dog world where it is vital to be strong and vigilant (build the wall!). In this view, only the naive trust in fair dealing, the loyalty of allies and the objective truth. Outsiders and politicians cannot be trusted. Life is a zero-sum game, their gain is our loss. 

Given these assumptions, it is easy to see what follows – with Trump being the most obvious example. From the minute he stepped onto the travellator in Trump tower to announce his candidacy for President, American society was divided into ‘the people’ (in practice a specific group or base characterised as the ‘real’ people) and various forms of elites (politicians, media, lobbyists – not billionaires).

In the three years of his Presidency, Trump has shown a scathing disregard for pluralism, openness, the rule of law, individual liberty and freedom of speech, minority rights, the virtues of deliberation and consensus-building, the importance of transparency, accountability and the need to separate personal from political interests because they are obstacles to decisive action by a leader who says he is ‘the only one’, ‘the chosen one’ who can solve the problems that plague Americans.  

Trump has trashed the rules-based international order (unless it is in his interests to uphold it), human rights and multilateralism. In contrast, he never ceases in his praise for the police and the military (because they protect ‘the people’).

Trump also highlights the way people with fundamentalist beliefs are attracted to authoritarian figures. Evangelical Christians in the United States seem prepared to accept almost any kind of aberrant behaviour by Trump as long as he defends their rigid commitment conservative views.

Trump and leaders like him provide a steady diet of behaviour that makes supporters of liberal democracy seethe with frustration. But this has not prevented authoritarian populists from winning elections and continuing to attract high levels of support (2).

Is Resistance Futile?

To understand if it is possible to not just resist but defeat the march of authoritarian populists, it is essential to start with the long-term transformation (new times, modernity) that has been taking place in democratic societies.

I have explained this in earlier blogs, so let me just quickly recap.

Since the 1970s, massive change has been driven by, in particular, globalisation, the shift from manufacturing production to information and service industries, the declining role of class in politics and the expansion of choice in consumption, lifestyle and sexuality.

It is, perhaps, simplistic to say so, but these changes have created a division between the winners and losers. The winners are those who have been able to take advantage (particularly if they have skills and are mobile) of change. Those who lack relevant skills and are unable (or unwilling) to move to access new opportunities have seen their fortunes stagnate or decline.

A very significant feature of this division is that runs heavily along generational lines.

Younger people have been moving from rural areas and small towns to study, work and live in ethnically diverse urban areas leaving behind rural, older industrialised communities that are disproportionately white, older and less educated. More generally, David Goodhart has labelled this demographic shift as ‘somewhere’ vs ‘anywhere’.

There have been shifts in values with cultures gradually evolving from socially conservative to socially liberal (e.g. gay and lesbian rights) and post-materialist (e.g. opposition to the consumer society). Once again it is younger people who have been at the forefront of change.

Younger people are more likely to see themselves in global terms while older people are more likely to locate themselves nationally and locally. This is what Tony Blair has labelled ‘open’ versus ‘closed’.  

There is also a difference in the way younger people approach politics. While they are less engaged in political events like elections, they make much greater use of social media and can be mobilised around specific issues like climate change. Unfortunately, the fact that the young are so disengaged with conventional politics has been taken by populists as evidence that the old institutions are not working (and, of course, they are in part right).

As mentioned in earlier blogs, Giddens saw his work on the third way as a direct response to the kinds of changes outlined above. He implored social democrats to acknowledge the need for them to significantly change their ideology and their practice in order the remain relevant.

This happened, but, as recent history tells us, the changes were not enough (and certainly not as much as Giddens was looking for) to meet the challenges of the times. Crucially, the broad acceptance of free-market global capitalism by leaders such as Clinton and Blair allowed the negative impacts of new times to continue even as they were somewhat ameliorated through social policies.  

It is also the case, as Chantal Mouffe argues, that the drive by third way leaders to establish a broad consensus among voters led to many of the people who saw themselves as ‘left behind’, believing that their issues were not being addressed. These are the ‘forgotten people’ that Trump and others appeal to.

In these circumstances, the cultural divide that had formed between those who still held to the socially conservative and materialistic values that prevailed through the middle of the 20th century and the growing number of people who held socially liberal and post-materialist views grew. Nothing short of a culture war broke out. People with more conservative views began to provide support for the authoritarian populist message. Views that once went unexpressed began to be heard and widely shared. The fragmentation of the media and the expansion of social media allowed people who thought their views had not been covered by traditional media to find a home elsewhere.

If we return for a moment to one of the basic assumptions of authoritarian populism – it is us versus them – we can see how easily the question of immigration slipped into the political scene.

In the post-war period, immigration had grown steadily. In Europe, freedom of movement had allowed many people, most often young, to shift country looking for better opportunities. In a situation where economic conditions are worsening, immigrants became a ready target for locals who believed that opportunities are being taken away from them. The decision by the 52% of British people who voted in favour of the Leave option in the Brexit referendum appears to have been heavily influenced by opposition to immigration (4)

Despite what in hindsight can look like an inevitable breakdown of traditional politics in the wake of change and unsatisfactory political responses across almost all democratic nations, there is still a somewhat complacent view among centre-left and left-wing parties. Alarming as authoritarian populists can be, the feeling is that everything will eventually come right as voters realise, they have been sold a load of garbage.

This is proving to be at best wishful thinking. The fortunes of authoritarian populists might fluctuate, but they show no signs of going away. And the longer they stay, either in government or simply in the political process, the more they change.

It is clear in all countries where authoritarian populists have a platform that the political culture supportive of liberal democratic institutions are under pressure. Authoritarian populist leaders regularly question these institutions, they say the system is rigged, that politicians are corrupt and interest groups control what happens. They demand loyalty and exacerbate divisions while they claim to be the voice of the people. Tolerance becomes a rare commodity and any opposition to the leader is a betrayal.

If a glimpse of where this may go is to be found we need look no further than nominally democratic nations like Turkey, the Philippines and Brazil. The outcome is the delegitimization of democratic institutions and a slide in authoritarian regimes. Hoping that as each strongman (they tend to be men) dies, democracy might again flourish ignores the fact that it is possible to institutionalise authoritarianism. Once installed it will be hard to remove.

What is to be done?

Populism is not necessarily a threat. Democracies have often been improved by people prepared to back causes demanding progressive change. The current wave of action in support of action to halt climate change is an example.

But authoritarian populism is dangerous – even to those who vote for its leaders. Resistance and, most crucially, the articulation of a credible alternative is vital.

Let me mention three areas of action that can be taken before returning to the question of who is going to provide the alternative.

It is important to understand that authoritarian populism did not emerge overnight. The views held by these people have been around in democratic politics ever since modern democracy took root. In recent decades they have flourished because there has been an enormous amount of effort put into spreading the word in the context of increasing dissatisfaction with mainstream politics. Gramsci would refer to this as the ‘long march’ through the cultural institutions of society that leads to people accepting ideas as ‘common sense’.

The same tactics need to be applied by the advocates of liberal democracy. What liberal democracy means, what it has to offer and why it is vastly better than what is on offer from authoritarian populists must be spread through every channel that is available.

There must also be a comprehensive platform of policy – economic, social, technological, cultural and political – that convinces people change is possible. It is reasonable, in hindsight, to criticise the timidity of the reforms offered by third way governments (Will Hutton writes of the Blair Labour Government enacting Tiny Symbolic Gestures). It is equally reasonable to point to the problematic tendency to focus on the winners rather than the losers in the new globalised, socially liberal world. Claiming to govern for the many not the few should mean just that.

Those who have been following these blogs will anticipate that I am going to suggest third way policies as they were proposed by Giddens provide a suitable starting point. (Readers might like to check particularly the most recent blogs). Of course, they will need to be added to and updated, but the outline is there.

Finally, the cultural anxieties that have led to a backlash against ethnic diversity in multicultural societies have to be addressed.

These are complex issues that the liberals have often found difficult to deal with because they fear being accused of racism thereby leaving the door open to authoritarian populists.

There are is much that can be done - noting that immigration is essential for countries like New Zealand where the population would otherwise be declining.

First, governments can and should adopt sustainable immigration policies. By sustainable I mean that the number of people coming into the country should match the ability of the country to ensure they are properly settled in their new home:  access to language, jobs, education, housing, health care and so on.

Second, economic and social policies need to ensure that immigration is not associated with the existing population believing they have been placed at a disadvantage. Considerable effort must be put into policies like retraining and regional development to ensure there is no sense of being trapped in an area of disadvantage.

Third, and this is the most challenging issue, immigration must not be seen as causing a loss of status for the existing population. This is the most likely source of racism, hatred and violence toward new migrant populations.

Social scientists have thought long and hard about this issue without coming to the kinds of conclusions that provide governments with clear lines of action. However, it does appear that if issues of status are to be confronted, it is crucial that as populations diversify all ethnic groups must participate in creating the future.

Assimilation, as was the approach in a country like New Zealand throughout most of the past century is not acceptable because it denies the ability of a migrant group to maintain its identity. They are being asked to fit in.

Multiculturalism and is emphasis on tolerance is seen by many as the best way forward. It has the virtue of demanding that different cultures respect each other but it does less to show what they have in common. If people from distinct ethnic backgrounds are to live as members of one nationality, one geography, the meaning of that nationality must be jointly constructed and reconstructed.

Who does this?

Change can come from many sources but if we are to successfully deal with the challenges of new times political parties are the key vehicle.

Specifically, mainstream social democratic parties. Parties that share a history of seeking to marry a dynamic economic with community; who support strong public and social institutions, opportunity, social justice and a commitment to invest in people so they not only adapt to but thrive in the modern world.

It is this kind of party that seeks to govern in the interests of the country, supported by a large constituency and committed to progress.

One of the main reasons authoritarian populists have been able to flourish is because social democratic parties have ceded ground to them. Having struggled to make an impact as the welfare state consensus gave way to neoliberalism, social democrats thought they were back on track with the third way. But the third way failed to establish a sustainable political centre – (I would argue, not because it was wrong, but it was wrongly applied and critical mistakes like Blair taking Britain into the Iraq war were made).

Giddens does not provide a blueprint for what needs to be done, but his urging social democrats to rethink their ideology and practice is still current. Social democratic parties need to regain a sense of confident purpose – something that cannot come from reheating mid-20th century policies. In other words, social democratic parties must give people something to vote for that matches the times we live in while being consistent with long held core values such as social justice.  

If this happens across the democratic world, the next important step will be for those of us who hunger for progressive change to actively support a social democratic alternative and vote. There are a lot of us and given something to support, we would once again form a coherent political base.

New times has been the context for the emergence of new political constituencies (or at least substantially reshaped constituencies). In a previous blog I identified two key groups – those who have benefitted from change and those who aspire to benefit. In their enthusiasm for the future, third way politicians too often made the mistake of failing to do enough for those who found it difficult to make the transition to the world that was emerging (or did not want to). That mistake cannot be made twice.

Avoiding that mistake means paying attention to bread and butter economic issues with the same dedication that many on the left currently apply to identity issues. It also means avoiding the belief that, as former President Barak Obama pointed out recently, that resistance, protest and presence in social media is enough to get the job done. A distrust of politics fuels this approach. The distrust is understandable, and it is something social democratic leaders are going to have to overcome, but there can be no real progress without a social democratic party in power implementing sound workable policies.

Once in power social democratic politicians must be held to account. New and better avenues than elections and the occasional referendum (all too often focusing on a complex issue that cannot be resolved by a yes, no answer) should be developed. The main opposition to social democratic governments, however, should not be coming from the people they are seeking to represent. Real change is not an instant fix so those who seek it must learn to hang in for the long haul.

To conclude. Earlier in these blogs, the point was made that there is no natural pathway for new times to take. People can take the changes in a variety of directions – some good, some not so good. Over the past four decades that point has been proven time and again.  

There was nothing preordained about the neoliberal answer or the third way answer to change. We do not choose the circumstances we live in, but we do make the future (as someone famous once said) – social democrats need to decide that it is them who will again make the future.

 

Notes

1.     I am referring to New Zealand First.

2.     Features of authoritarian populism can be associated with the right and the left of politics. For the purposes of this discussion, I am focusing on those on the right because that is where the danger is coming from. It is also noteworthy that while authoritarian populists are thriving, left populists are not doing so well. Podemos in Spain, for example, was on the rise in 2015 and in the most recent elections lost 12 seats. Meanwhile in Britain, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party trails Boris Johnson’s Conservatives despite the massive problems caused by austerity policies and Brexit.

3.     It is encouraging to note that authoritarian populists can fail as has happened in Austria.

4.     As I write, Shane Jones from New Zealand First has announced that he wants population policy to be prominent in the next election. The announcement follows close on the heels of a debate about Indian migrants. And the new Vision Party fronted by the Tamaki family of Destiny Church fame have announced they want to ban mosques and other foreign buildings.