Populism is not dangerous - the far right is

What is it about?

In the media debate, the term "populism" is used for a broad range of political actors and ideologies, often failing to distinguish between actors from the right (like US President Donald J. Trump) and left (e.g.n the Greek Syriza), moderate (like Bernie Sanders), radical or even extremist ones (like the French Rassemblement National). This is problematic, in particular in the context of debates about a potential populist danger. Arguments that all so-called populists are a danger to democracy is seriously misleading because anti-elitisism and the demand to resore the people's power (typical of populism) can be an expression of both illegitimate demagoguery and legitimate criticism of an actual lack of democracy. Journalists, policymakers and academics need to stop using the label "populist" indiscriminately because it plays down the danger posed by (anti-democratic) right-wing authoritarians like Trump and dramatizes the factual non-threat (democratic) leftist movements and actors like Sanders or Syriza. The consequence is that distinguishing between anti-democratic and originary democratic movements becomes harder, not easier, and that is a recipe for misguided action.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Democracies are under threat by authoritarian and illiberal actors. Any effective action to save democracy depends on the ability to distinguish dangerous from harmless actors. The current use of the populism label is exceptionally vague and stands in the way of effective political action by contributing to the (wrong) appearance that all so-called populists are a threat.

Perspectives