IN 2011, FRENCH POLITICIAN Marine Le Pen was elected to succeed her father as leader of the National Front (later National Rally) party. Her campaign consists of assertions that the people of France (by which she means those whose family history is entirely French) are being taken advantage of by others. These other people include the European Union and immigrants. This shift towards nationalist and anti-establishment rhetoric reflects a broader trend in contemporary politics, indicating the increasing resonance of populist ideologies in the whole world.
Populism is not a new method in politics and it frequently prevails in the politics of postmodernism. Between the middle of the 2000s and the beginning of the 2010s, populist leaders and parties rose quickly to prominence, and the most recent data indicates that the prevalence of populism is quite close to its 30-year peak. Understanding postmodern political movements can be achieved by analysing the essence and basic characteristics of postmodern populism as well as some of its lived examples.
First of all, it is necessary to define as precisely as possible what populism is. It is common to see one politician stigmatize another politician in populism, by saying that his ideas are merely an attempt to gain favour with the people, which have nothing in common with reality. However, it is perfectly reasonable to point out that gaining people’s favour is the job of a politician. So, what is the difference? Populism has a few basic attributes. The first is that the populist’s promises are obviously unrealizable and they know it very well and are not going to fulfill them. Second, the main lie of populism is the non-existent image of a supposedly united people, with common interests, desires and, of course, a leader. The third and most obvious sign is that a populist is built on opposing the elite, even if they are a part of it.
“At the core of postmodern populism lies the idea that “the people” are seen as virtuous and honest, and their interests are contrasted with the actions or influence of “global” elites, who may be perceived as distant, indifferent, and unfavourable.”
Postmodern populism contains one essential detail, which in one way or another reflects the politics in certain countries, namely the scepticism towards globalization. Scepticism itself is characteristic of both postmodernism and populism. While postmodern populism is not an anti-globalization movement, it does share its skepticism towards globalization, albeit in smaller ways. At the core of postmodern populism lies the idea that “the people” are seen as virtuous and honest, and their interests are contrasted with the actions or influence of “global” elites, who may be perceived as distant, indifferent, and unfavourable. In the populist rhetoric, accommodating global forces always appears, or can be portrayed as, a betrayal of the people or a loss of culture. The certain dynamics in this rhetoric lies in the populist’s intentions to arouse nationalistic feelings in the people to gain advantage and influence.
A real example of the postmodern populism in action is Mexico’s 2018 federal elections, which was held on the first of july. The presidential candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) successfully convinced people that Mexico must gravitate away from globalization-oriented policies to adopt a nationalist economic agenda. He won by an unimaginable margin of 30% of the popular vote. This success was later called a “political tsunami”. His voters were rich and poor, highly educated and uneducated, old and young, rural and urban. How did it happen? Was it an example of political power demonstration as well as a pure love from the Mexican people? Maybe, but a more believable explanation is that classical technique by promising to represent the poor (mostly indigenous parts of the population) in combination with resistance towards globalization won him the elections.
The example of the 2018 Mexico election can perfectly describe one more technical characteristic for postmodern populism — mediatization of politics. Mediatization is a clear benefit for the populist movements, since it is the easiest way to distribute information even through the strictest censorship. One of the most common explanations for AMLO’s victory is that, unlike previous campaigns, this time the public relations masters took responsibility for AMLO’s messages and skilfully used social media. During the campaign and the election itself, AMLO dominated Twitter. Almost four times more was written about him daily than about other candidates. This mediatization of politics not only facilitated the dissemination of AMLO’s messages but also allowed for direct interaction with the electorate, fostering a sense of connectivity and engagement that traditional forms of campaigning often struggle to achieve. It is ironic that AMLO’s press conferences are now inevitably accompanied by attacks on the media as well as opposition figures, considering the fact that social media played a decisive role in his successful campaigns.
“It can be argued that populism is nothing more than a strategy for politicians to gain power, but it should not be feared, just because every single politician uses such strategies. I believe that this opinion is politically incorrect and, above all, dangerous.”
It can be argued that populism is nothing more than a strategy for politicians to gain power, but it should not be feared, just because every single politician uses such strategies. I believe that this opinion is politically incorrect and, above all, dangerous. The main goal of a populist has never been and will never be to help people and change the system, the main goal of a populist is to get approval and, as a consequence, power. The political work of such a leader lies in the number of mentions in the media, but hardly includes solving real problems. In the hands of a populist, the media is a serious weapon, which can easily influence people who lack critical thinking. Such campaigns frequently have excellent management and the ability to not only attract but also distract attention. Often funny videos and posts can easily become viral and divert people’s attention away from something more important. Moreover, populism, in one way or another, will always threaten democracy. The threat of a populist leader destroying political pluralism with his policies until the minimum condition for democracy disappears is always present.
AMLO and Marie Le Pen are by no means the only examples of politicians who meet the criteria of postmodern populism. However, no matter how widely the topic is raised, populism, postmodern or otherwise, is always present to some degree and is likely to unchangeably be present in most countries. In the conditioning of our world, it is important to remain politically literate in order to be able to recognize populism and propaganda, as well as understand basic political processes and make informed decisions when choosing leaders and supporting political programs.
