Populism.
The endeavor to win the publics favor –
– by simplifying complex societal issues, and by criticizing society's established authorities.
Many assumed that populism, was a concept of the past.
But in 2016 it became clear, that populistic movements still have power –
– in the western world.
When Great Britain elected to leave the EU, and the Americans elected Trump for president –
– it came as a shock to many.
But what is populism, where is it active, and what do populists actually have in common.
Populism has always been present, and it is still present, and it is many different things.
But there are some things, that all populist have in common.
Always.
To name three things –
– Firstly: Populists say; we are the people.
I represent what the people actually believe.
What you all actually believe.
And everyone else in politics, they represent something different –
– the elite or special interest groups. Anything different.
But I... I represent the very people.
And that is regardless of how many they are, they have this ability to tell the story –
– the so-called narrative:
We are those who truly represent the people.
The idea is then that this 'people', should get its will.
And this 'will' can be both left-leaning or right-leaning.
This 'will' can target minorities within the society –
– or target foreigners or other countries.
The idea that the people is pure, and its 'will' is in mind –
– is a very strong definition.
The second thing –
– populists always have in common, regardless of country –
– is that the institutions that democracy is founded on.
The division of power, respect for the law, the processes –
– that one must keep others points of view in mind.
This, they call 'the system', and they are against the system.
And by being both against the system, and representing 'the people's will' –
– they turn their own political opponents, into enemies of the people.
Populism in its modern form, is tied to democracy –
– and looks therefore, uncannily, like a democratic wave –
– but it lacks focus on rights and protection of minorities.
Because it insists that there is one 'will' and one people, and if you do not fit into this mold –
– you are somehow detrimental to the populist brand of democracy.
The third thing populist have in common is, that the problems that we face come from outside.
It is 'the others.' The others can be either, the outside –
– which it often is. But it can also be a minority -
– most famous is of course, the Nazis focus on Jews and anti-Semitism.
But it can be any thinkable minority. It could be capitalists, or the elite –
– or any other more or less defined group.
And that is also the recipe when they say that, the parliamentary democracy –
– where politicians are elected to a parliament, from which springs a government and so forth –
– that is something dubious.
A direct democracy, where the people can decide through referendums –
– that is a more genuine democracy, where the peoples 'will'... all these thing –
– you can hear it, it is populistic rhetoric.
It is a political phenomenon, that we thought we had been vaccinated against –
– because of the catastrophic results, before and during the second world war.
But now we are seeing it again, in many European countries and here –
– political forces that attempt to create, with this cocktail –
– a form of counter movement to, the parliamentary democracies.
When discussing populism, one does not get around Brexit.
In the election for Great Britains membership of the EU, one politician, in particular, was noticed for his rhetoric.
That was, leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage.
When I came here 17 years ago, and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign –
– to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me.
Well I have to say, you are not laughing now, are you?
Farage promised during the campaign, that a 'no' meant that they could take the country back –
– and thereby take back control, of both the economy and immigration.
We want our passports back, we want our borders back, we want our country back. Thank you.
There is no doubt that populism played a decisive role –
– in Great Britains showdown, with their membership in the EU.
It was a referendum, where the populists really got off the ground.
The populists won in England, by inventing problems –
– that the English actually created themselves.
For instance, that there are too many Eastern Europeans in England –
– that take work away from 'their own.'
They blamed the EU for that during this campaign.
But the reality is that when we expanded the EU, with these Eastern European countries –
– the new democracies from the old Warsaw Pact, we had a transitional phase.
We made a transitional agreement, that would hinder free movement from Eastern Europe.
The British did not want to be a part of it, because they needed the labor in London.
And for that reason, they have received many from Eastern Europe –
– and suddenly, it is the EU's fault.
That is populism.
The degree of platitudes was enormous.
The British were made to believe –
– that they could recreate a form of bygone greatness.
One of the really severe examples in the campaign, that many will probably remember –
– was that that the exit faction promised, that the £360 million that the Brits –
– allegedly, paid every week to the EU, would be retracted –
– and be allocated to the National Health Service.
This number turned out to be completely unsound –
– and the politicians distanced themselves from it, the day after the election results.
We live in an age where the volume of information is larger than ever before.
A development that has made it easy to acquire new knowledge, and news from around the world
But this development has also made it hard to know what information is trustworthy or true.
In other words –
– populistic propaganda has better conditions, than ever before.
One of the means that the populist use –
– is the media.
This is nothing new.
Some of the most clever users of propaganda, were fascists, communists, and Nazis.
To use media, cinema, the press, radio, music –
– for political gain, that is old populist enterprise know-how.
Media today is not one specific thing.
Media can be very many things.
Public service, radio- and tv-stations –
– large newspapers with traditions of skepticism –
– tabloids, internet news sponsored by Russia.
Russia sponsors news organizations, that are widespread in Europe –
– and are being used by European journalists, and they look like normal European media –
– but are in reality paid for by Russia.
It can be Facebook, it can be....
The media is so differentiated today, that it is hard to say that it is the medias fault –
– that some outcomes are the way they are.
It is clear that with digital media and social media –
– and an enourmously sophisticated application of data, about every one of us –
– the populists have received terrifyingly powerful tools.
Tools that they use in political campaigns, to delegitimize their political opponents –
– by continously spreading propaganda and misinformation -
– as we saw it happen in the American election, as well as in the Brexit referendum.
The idea of a public service station, that we all watch is gone –
– so we do not have the same reference points.
One thing we can see from one of my research projects, where we observe those who receive disinformation –
— from social media, is that it is very unevenly distributed.
We simply do not see the same things.
And the idea that –
– we can even agree on what the issues are, becomes more difficult, than when we had on source –
– so we could harp on the same story.
Today we get different stories about the same events.
You adjust and choose the communication platforms –
– that speak to your own political and ideological conviction.
And then you leave out everything else.
Then you end up in a situation where you, as a citizen or person –
– will not receive, that which you did not know you actually wanted.
If we do not get what we do not know we want –
– we get a restricted and selective approach to the real world.
That is a breeding ground for fake news –
– and is a breeding ground for an idiot like Trump –
– to be frank and follow my heart –
– can get to spew all their nonsense, while there are people who plainly believe it.
The classic pattern you see when populist get power, is that they systematically –
– try to delegitimize the opposition.
One of the steps that are taken, as we have seen in Hungary and Poland –
– is to ratify the Constitution –
– in order to pacify, weaken, and unplug, the control mechanisms that give those –
– who do not have the power, the right to win the power back.
No, Mr. Orbán. It is not against Hungary.
You have no right to say that these people here, are fighting against Hungarian interest.
The opposite is true. It is not your interest, but your interest is not Hungarian interest.
What we are defending here is Hungarian democracy, and the interest of the Hungarian citizen.
One of the places where a populist movement, in a short timespan –
– managed to shake the political system, is Hungary.
In Hungary, the former liberal Viktor Orbán's party, Fidesz, two-thirds of the votes in the 2010 election.
The majority gave them the right, to change the countrys constitution, which they did.
This, Ladies and gentlemen, is the explanation for the fact that the most popular topic in thinking today is –
– is trying to understand how that are not Western, not liberal, not liberal democracies –
– and i perhaps not even democracies, can nevertheless make their nations succesfull.
The stars of the international analyst today are Singapore, China, India, Russia and Turkey.
On the grounds of reconfiguring the country's communist heritage –
– and accusations of the opposition's corruption, the Fidesz Party changed the country's election laws –
– giving the party almost guaranteed victories ahead.
Since, Fidesz has also changed media legislation, and are keeping the country's public service in an iron grip.
So far, it has not been possible for either The European Parliament or the commission –
– to interfere in the country's undemocratic development.
The EU has failed and fails daily, in regards to stopping –
– the de-democratization happening in countries, like Poland and Hungary.
And that is a systemic error, in a decisional regime –
– that does not lend itself to sanctioning a breach of Article 2 –
– which is the article that describes what principles of legal state to assert –
– in order to participate in the European Union.
In Denmark, you have The Danish People's Party, which is of different from these mentioned parties –
– but which shares the same ingredients of asserting, and representing the people –
– being very critical towards the system, and hostile towards the international collaboration –
– that Denmark is obligated to.
Even though the situation in Hungary has had, serious consequences for the Hungarian democracy –
– populist movements exist in mostly moderate forms.
The democratic institutions are strong in Denmark –
– and are deeply anchored in our common understanding of a good society.
But populist currents challenge our democratic traditions.
Quite a few parties flirt with the tone and rhetoric, that is often found within populism.
But I think that a part of the reason, that we have not seen as extreme forms of populism –
– as we have seen in Hungary –
– is this equality, Jante Law, mindset –
– that the elite, at least until recently, has not been very clear-cut to people –
– because we have had a more leveled society than we had in the middle ages for instance –
– that is, class society.
But as inequality rises in Denmark, I think that it becomes more obvious –
– that an elite exists: An economic, political, and cultural elite.
And there are some that are on the bottom.
This way you have an economic foundation –
– for building up a populist current.
The Danish People's Party's story differs, from these other populist parties –
– even though they definitively share similarities.
They have never governed –
– and have not had an opportunity to reform democracy in their own image.
Other things they have done, which we have seen from the earliest years –
– since Anders Fogh Rasmussen, that they have continued with –
– in all parliamentary constellations, where they are the final factor –
– in regards to the state budget, they have, at the last moment –
– they have something in regards to immigration.
This and this person, who has done that and that –
– can not be in this asylum, or should be forced to stay in an asylum.
Things that are legally completely unacceptable, in relation to state budget negotiations –
– and are also barely within the government's legislative domain.
They are critical of our membership of the EU.
And are fundamentally critical –
– of our system of governance. and thereby contribute to the perception –
– within the populace that, the apparatus of power is faced towards them –
– and does not work in their interest.
It is always in nuance.
But where they can –
– lower the criminal age of responsibility, mandatory minimum sentences etc. –
– where they can weaken the judicial branch, they have sought to do so.
There has been some interesting recent development –
– some of the institutions that we regard as quite respectable –
– such as the parliament's ombudsman, who protects citizens rights –
– if they have been infringed by the state.
Lately, the ombudsman has been spoken of, as an uncle you can ask from time to time –
– but not necessarily someone that commands respect.
The idea of 'the state of law' which is fundamental to liberal democracy –
– you have to be aware that it needs protection.
It needs to be actively sustained and respected.
Our democracy is strong.
But not so strong, that it is not vulnerable to populist forces.
So how do you position yourself towards this political development –
– abroad as well as domestically?
I think populism will always be present.
It will be stronger and weaker in different periods.
What is important is that the democratic institutions, and our perception of what democracy is about –
– is that we always remember: No, no one speaks on behalf of the population.
You speak on your behalf, I speak on my behalf –
– and the discussions we are having, we must also have with all 5.5 million Danes.
Someone will always claim that we must listen to them, because they speak on behalf of those we do not hear.
It is possible that some of what they are saying is true.
The issue is that no one speaks for others, than those who have elected them.
In the end, we are all ourselves, and we have our own beliefs and opinions –
– we have a right to that.
The best antidote against populism is to think for yourself.
What I believe should be done today is to educate every single student –
– in the most important subject, which is media criticism.
We have to learn to be super critical of what we see.
A good journalist is always super critical of, why someone is giving them certain information –
– or why they are saying something.
One has to investigate motives –
– why they are doint it, and that also pertains to a common media consumer –
– you have to be really critical of what you see.
I almost believe that it is the most important lesson, in schools, in future –
– because media is so fragmented today, and because we can all be journalists.
The most important thing, I think, is to have the courage to face populism –
– and illustrate and show, that it exclusively uses fear as its weapon –
– and does not offer any solutions to our problems.
Think for yourself. Form your own opinion.
Discuss it with others, stick to what you believe, if you remain confident –
– but remember that others have their own reasons to believe what they believe –
– and remember that solutions are often found in compromises –
– that are not as shiny as what you wanted, with a quick, rapid solution –
– but has the great advantage, that it is not just you who believes it –
– but also the others.
Thus you achieve more durable solutions –
– because they meet more peoples considerations, wishes, and views.
Subtitles: Peter Krause-Kjær
No comments:
Post a Comment