James Shaw | Senior Staff Writer
When we hear the word populism being used it is often in a negative way, either to criticise a political party for espousing populism or for a policy as being populist. The word itself derives from the Latin word, populus, meaning the people. As the Latin suggests, populism is merely the “-ism” of the people, the body of views that is for the people. The fact that its usage is often pejorative suggests that there is something more sinister underpinning the notion.
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines populism as “political ideas or activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want” and confirms that its usage is “mainly disapproving”. A word with similar etymology is “democracy”, and that derives from two Ancient Greek words, “demos” meaning people and “kratos” meaning power. Why, then, is the latter used almost exclusively positively while the opposite is true of the former? It seems that there is a sense of insincerity which is attached to populism, whereby promises are made in order to will the people in your favour in order to gain power, rather than being motivated by the true interests of the people.
While such motivation for individual gain is disingenuous in those circumstances, there is, I think, a further insinuation attached to the word, which is one of short-sightedness or stupidity. It assumes that the people must be so dim-witted as to be easily led astray by false promises. Furthermore, there is the assumption that the people are ignorant, that they do not understand complex economic affairs, and so they cannot be trusted to make wise forbearing decisions.
This idea mirrors 19th-century France, where the term “peuple” was one of denigration, denoting the lowest class, the boorish and uneducated. However, the French political theorist Lamennais reclaimed the word in his speeches and writings. He injected pride by aligning himself with the “peuple”, and informing them that they too had opinions which mattered and which were worthy of respect, as opposed to only those of the ruling nobility. His writings and rhetoric helped to inspire the French people to rise up and demand equal rights, ultimately leading to the French Revolution of 1848.
The usage of populism is analogous. In both cases there is a perceived inferiority of the rationale of the people. What right do the so-called educated classes (the economists, bankers, civil servants, etc.) have to tell the people that they know best and that their opinions are superior, that the rest of us should put up and shut up (think water charges, for example). After all, it was the economists, politicians and forecasters, among others, who led us to the brink of bankruptcy through their mismanagement of the economy in recent years. I am not advocating any particular political position, or oversimplifying the “people” into a uniform grouping who all share the same views. The “people” is not a denotation of class, it is every one of us. Clearly there is a wide diversity in terms of opinions, and that ought to be the case.
Thus, what I am advocating is that we recognise the benign origin of the word “populism”, and no longer continue to use it disparagingly. For too long, populism has been a label to undermine groups or individuals who seek to represent the views that have been relayed to them by people at a community level. It has been used against detractors of austerity as a tool to justify policies which are not only unwanted by the people, but which put them under undue strain and duress.
And so, for those who are aptly characterised by the term populism in its current negative form, we should describe them by another word, such as insincere or disingenuous. For those with integrity who aim to convey the will of the people, we should apply the term populism, ending its misappropriation and removing the shackles of shame from simply representing the views of people, i.e., of us.
