Rosa BalfourSenior fellow in the Europe Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Alas, no—not yet. There is little time and political imagination on the horizon, but if European democrats of the Left, Right, and center recovered from their shell-shocking loss of consent there could be alternatives to populism. Note the use of the plural: alternatives of Left, Right, and center are needed.
The old mainstream political parties, squeezed into a smaller space on the political spectrum, might be tempted to forge deals—be they grand coalitions or agreements to keep the populist parties out of power. This has been a pattern at the European Parliament.
But this is one reason driving citizens to vote against the establishment. Mainstream political parties have become colored by sameness since the end-of-ideology myth. The dearth of ideas is reflected in the inability of political actors to renew and reach out to broader sectors of society.
Populists, too, do not have the answers to the preoccupations that are driving their voters. This is where the alternatives can emerge: new ideas on addressing inequality and insecurity about one’s place in society, on creating jobs in the green economy, and on how to connect positively with the rest of the world instead of building walls are what are needed. The Left, Right, and center need to fight the battle of ideas, not of seats and power.
Natalia Banulescu-BogdanAssociate director of the International Program at the Migration Policy Institute
Europe has by now learned that sweeping controversial issues under the rug only gives them more power.
Anxieties about immigration—that it has happened too fast, with too little preparation, and with disastrous consequences for parts of society—have festered under the surface, with few outlets for legitimate expression. In countries like Sweden, questioning humanitarian generosity was taboo, while in countries like Austria—with elections invariably resulting in a grand coalition between the center-left and center-right—there was a sense that no matter how you vote, the result is the same. In this landscape, populists successfully positioned themselves as the only true alternative to politics as usual.
The way forward for mainstream politicians is to create new channels for public grievances. This does not mean more referenda—complex, controversial issues are rarely resolved by binary outcomes. Instead, politicians now seen as rigidly imposing a set of values from above (including openness to immigration at all costs) should create new ways to gather input from below. Forums such as citizen consultations or digital policy platforms can give voice to those who feel left behind.
Instead of rejecting populism, in other words, mainstream politicians should co-opt it—not by embracing nativism, but by becoming more responsive to “everyday” concerns.
Caroline de GruyterEuropean affairs correspondent for NRC Handelsblad
Of course it has. Populists on the Far Right and Far Left are voicing voters’ discontent with many things: globalization, migration, the prominence of financial markets, etc. The real extremist hardcore remains rather small but makes a lot of noise. The main problem in many European countries, but also in America, is that centrist parties move away from the political center, toward the populists. They take over the populist discourse and make it mainstream. As a result, populists dominate the public debate everywhere. The same thing happened in the 1930s.
It is the centrist parties that are the problem, not the populists. Instead of sticking to their own story and defending their ground, they ape the extremists. Many traditional Conservative parties are now framing immigration as a “problem of multiculturalism;” Social Democrats do the same. That’s all voters hear. Other angles are disappearing from the public discourse: few centrist politicians dare to defend the economic benefits of migration, for example.
Many voters in the political middle feel orphaned. There are few credible and capable politicians to vote for. This is an excellent time to be a Macron or a Van der Bellen—there’s hardly any competition!
Sophia GastonVisiting research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science
Populist narratives find appeal with electorates both dissatisfied with their country’s social and economic settlement, and the efforts of traditional parties to respect and respond to their grievances. Even voters who disagree with the simplistic solutions proposed by populist leaders may find reassurance in their brazen confrontation of issues that have too long fallen outside of political discourse.
There has been a tendency to pay too much attention to the language and policies of populists, rather than really listening to the grievances underpinning their voters’ support. Populism should be a sounding siren for mainstream politicians to pay greater heed to the less tangible elements of nation-building—identity, citizens’ sense of belonging, patriotism, culture, and traditions—and to start to deliver on the big national reforms that have consistently been shuffled into the “too hard” basket.
Just as the forces that gave rise to populism were not formed overnight, there’s a long road ahead to reclaim the trust and attention of electorates—it may take another generation. So, the alternative to populism is clear—the question is whether political leaders have the courage, and the energy, to achieve it.
Josef JanningHead of the Berlin office and senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations
Yes, Europe has an alternative to populism—at least to one of its principal claims.
Populists around the EU rally support on two themes: social inequality and national sovereignty. They accuse the EU of driving the growth of the former and the demise of the latter. On social security, Europe cannot deliver a straight answer. On sovereignty, however, European politicians need to make the case for strengthening national sovereignty by pooling it.
Populists insist on formal sovereignty, which in their view can only be national. They miss the purpose of sovereign states, which is most fundamentally the ability to deliver security and prosperity to its citizens. A repatriation of powers actually means a loss in the ability to achieve such outcomes for citizens in EU member states. Europe needs the concept of European sovereignty; that is, the claim to sustain and defend the interests, the integrity, the freedoms, and the self-government of the EU and its member states. It is the idea of “co-sovereignty,” with genuine European powers and shared sovereign rights and privileges. Nationalism is best countered by protecting the nation state from the effects of its dysfunctionality. The EU was developed to do just that.
Stefan LehneVisiting scholar at Carnegie Europe
Yes, plenty! The media seem to have just two modes of approaching populism: either they panic about an imminent takeover of Europe or they think that the populist beast can be eliminated from European politics. In reality, populist parties have gained ground but remain a minority in most EU countries. Orbán and Salvini may claim that the next European Parliament election will be a turning point in European history, but in fact nationalist rightist parties are unlikely to gain even a quarter of the votes. At the same time, populism will not go away. As traditional mainstream parties become weaker, populist parties will continue to be a significant factor in a more volatile political scene and—as they participate in several governments—a considerable challenge for EU politics.
Mainstream politicians need to get smarter in handling this situation by focusing on concrete solutions on migration and the adverse effects of globalization and by strongly defending the values that have held the EU together for so long. The greatest danger remains that many centrist politicians, out of fear, allow populists to set the agenda and copy their nationalist and xenophobic policies. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his inaugural speech: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Denis MacShaneFormer UK minister for Europe
Yes. Europe has always had to live with populisms—note plural. The most populist parties after 1945 were the communist parties of France and Italy, which obtained 25 percent of the vote in elections up to the 1970s. The Greens, Syriza, Podemos, and the Five Star Movement are all parties based on populist appeals. National or regional identity populism in Europe—including Scottish nationalists, Catalan secessionists, Hungarian irredentism in Romania and Slovakia, the Northern League in Italy, and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland—requires more devolved autonomy and respect for different cultures.
Today, successful populists like Kaczyński support pro-poor redistribution and economic growth. Europe does not so much need an alternative to populism but how to produce policies that are popular. The focus on ordoliberalismus austerity management in the eurozone fuels populism.
Populism dries up when policies supporting economic growth and social justice have priority. The European Parliament after 2019 will have many populist mini-groups, and its election method needs reform. The populism that produced Brexit will turn out to have failed as Britain becomes poorer and more isolated, bitter, and divided. A coherent 2019-2024 European Commission that focuses on what people need can make a difference and put the populists in their place.
Michael Meyer-ResendeExecutive director of Democracy Reporting International
Europe has many alternatives to populism, but the overwhelming media attention on the “populist challenge” in every European election has created a sense of inevitability and reduced election reporting to a narrative of “the populists against the rest.” While this makes a good story, it perfectly fits the agenda of extremist parties because it mirrors their own.
In this alarmist frenzy, democracy loses. The diversity of other platforms and parties are not reported on. Instead, the agenda is set by these challenger parties, namely their focus on immigration. The fact that far less migrants and refugees are arriving to the EU gets lost. European governments have resolved the issue as the right-wingers have demanded, but nobody is talking about it.
In many cases, liberal journalists compound the problem by applying the fuzzy populism label to each and every Conservative or right-wing political position. Democracy has a space for parties that are against immigration or against European integration, but it is at risk when parties attack or undermine institutions like independent courts, when they question the state’s monopoly of power by calling for citizen self-defense, or when they vilify people based on their origins or skin color. Calling a party “populist” gives us no indication about such differences.
Conclusion: there are many alternatives to extremism, but the media, in its hunger for an exciting story, does not give them airtime.
Nora MüllerHead of the International Affairs Department at the Körber Foundation
A specter is haunting Europe. This time around, it is not the brainchild of a Trier-born philosopher but an ideology that feeds its very own opium to the masses: the delusional belief that turning inward and keeping the Other out will make Europe stronger. Not only has populism evolved into a major political force; Europe’s populists “are waltzing into the mainstream,” as The Economist recently pointed out. Italy’s populist coalition government is just the latest incarnation of this worrisome trend.
But Europe—the continent of liberty, solidarity, and diversity—has a proven track record of dealing with specters, and it must not lose heart in view of the present challenge. People’s concerns about a globalized and increasingly complex world deserve an answer, but not one copied from populist playbooks. The antidote to populism consists of two ingredients: an unwavering commitment to Europe’s fundamental values and the doubling down on efforts to improve policy performance in areas where the shoe pinches—both nationally and in Brussels. If we are to fight populism with its antithesis—a bright vision for Europe’s future—then “a Europe that protects” will need to evolve from a catchy slogan into a political reality.
Tessa SzyszkowitzUK correspondent for the Austrian news magazine profil
The financial crisis 2008 and the refugee wave of 2015 have swept forces into power whose promises will not deliver answers to the challenges of the twenty-first century. If European countries want to stay competitive, stopping immigration is not an option for aging populations. Nationalism in Europe has historically been more destructive than constructive. Populism in Austria comes on top of that with a far-right twist, which leaves a bad aftertaste.
There is an alternative. The crisis of the old established parties on the center left and right needs to be overcome by renewing the contract with society and voters. The European model of the welfare state—combined with values of liberal democracies in the framework of the European Union—has in principle produced very good results. Where it has not, EU leaders need to start reforming EU structures. In this age of anger, people’s parties need to regain the trust of voters by taking their fears seriously—but not by legitimizing xenophobic policies. These will ultimately harm societies and economies. In the long term it will be more productive to emphasize inclusive values like solidarity, cooperation, and openness.
Paul TaylorContributing editor at POLITICO and senior fellow at Friends of Europe
Populism feeds on failure to find solutions to economic and migratory problems. Populists often make the EU a scapegoat for national failures, like the collapse of a bridge or for phenomena such as globalization. They play on fears of loss of control, loss of identity, and loss of social status.
The alternative lies in more effective European policy on cross-border issues like migration, climate change, and trade; a new narrative on European identity; and a greater readiness by governments, businesses, and trade unions to advertise the benefits of EU membership.
The EU has little power over income distribution, the balance between wages and profits, and precarious employment trends that fuel populism. But it can use tax, trade, and competition policies to make multinationals pay a fair share of tax in Europe and act as responsible employers.
On migration, the EU and governments should do a better job of publicizing statistics of falling migrant numbers to puncture fear-mongering. Brussels can help strengthen external border controls, provide more support to first arrival countries, and run a voluntary relocation system for asylum seekers. Mandatory systems won’t work and offer an easy target for the populists.
On identity, it shouldn’t be too difficult to project Europe as a desirable brand with strong values and a cooperative model of governance, compared to the alternatives: Trump’s America, Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China, and indeed Brexit Britain. Our leaders need the courage to stand up for the European model, as Canada’s leaders do for their brand.
Comments(10)
The almost-universal answer of these experts to the question posed is that centrist political parties and leaders need to do a better job of responding to the real concerns and fears of the average voter. It is the right answer, and also the answer provided earlier this year in my book "Transatlantic traumas: Has illiberalism brought the West to the brink of collapse? (2018)."
Why are the politicians not framing new policies to provide those who feel they remain unheard and neglected by those on whom they depend for a fair and equal society? It is simply fear on the part of the said politicians of losing their jobs if they question the capitalist economies.
After centuries of educational neglect and under the heavy fist of the mass media, the masses are easily led, and have a catastrophic lack of information and cognitive ability, but you expect them to vote in their own interests? The politicians, once elected, become infected with a disease which causes them to abandon all ethics and morality in order to gain re-election, and you expect them to act in the best interests of the ignorant masses they privately despise or pity as they take the oligarchs' money? The pundits, the elites who attended great universities and played polo or squash, and who now represent countries in the diplomatic service, or perhaps are professors, "experts," or governors of institutions, never had a clue about how the masses lived, and those few who did did nothing because the system is so rigged. You either have money, and therefore power, women, enjoyment, peace of mind, good food and lodging, vacations to anywhere, and perpetual high income, or you are screwed. It has always been thus and always will. The middle class thinkers who are left probably just realized this awful reality. As for you contributors, it is too late to be writing essays about how we are all screwed--all of us all over the world. Nobody who can do anything about it will read them anyway. This devolution has been a long time coming. Where were the strong personalities with power and ability who could have tried to stop it? Was everyone in the loo while the world, and our societies, were devolving into what is now finally seen to be nothing more than hospice? It is all over. The masses have been crushed. The Earth screams in ecological despair, and technology will destroy what remains, leaving a thin veneer of upper crust, (with some pundits lounging on their lawn chairs and drinking old scotch), protected by the police and armed forces, to continue to enjoy what is left. Have a nice day! (And for Heaven's sake, smile, because everything will be okay, okay?) Chance and Timing rule everything, and everything has been and will be forever caused by infinite numbers of threads in the fabric. Discussions about how we might unweave the shroud is pointless, unless you are being paid to do it. Go ahead, try to tell the policy makers and see how far you will get.
« Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity » (Yeats)
In the beginning there was a singularity. From singularity to intelligent life (nematodes, or Neanderthals, proven track record of survivability) there is one mechanism which made it all possible: negative feedback, stabilizing systems of all sorts. This is what made possible the transition from an early Universe soup of organic components to self-replicating life. The limited interaction between EU masses and their rulers, mislabeled democracy, is an application of this mechanism, simple, yet behind anything we know. More’s Eutopia,“Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, “The Communist Manifesto” (this one until the implementation phase), Bismarck’s paradoxically social democratic reforms are examples of this mechanism at work. In our time: Obama’s 2008 election, powered by Cambridge Analytica like methods and promises that students will get a break on rising costs, NAFTA renegotiated, peace will descend upon the world, the middle class will thrive again. These promises were invalidated by 2016 statistics and at the voting booths. A new round of similar promises and methods will be invalidated in 2018 and beyond, based on a cold analysis of the early start. Along these lines, the authors seem to completely miss the broad everything, be it history, geopolitics, economics. In real life, the European model was underpinned by the ruthless use of brute force, with the British Empire as an apogee, forcing India to grow opium and China to buy it (a WTO precursor avant la lettre). It is hard for Portugal, Spain, Pays Bas, France, Germany, Turkey and so on to adjust to the new realities of Pax Indo-Chinica. The best example is Hunt’s tour, a Greek advising Romans (our kids, and we get to borrow for that) to go to war, instead of mobilizing the Commonwealth at CHOGM. Meanwhile Obama oscillates on the background political scene between Samora Moses Machel (South Africa) and military intervention (McCain funeral). Rather than dissect the decent effort deployed by Judy’s respondents, a critique of the educational system of the West is more adequate. This educational system has produced a plethora of self-appointed meritocrats, from McNamara to Gates. Their failure at socio-economic level has open the gates for the “I love the poorly educated” election meme, while claiming the arrival of talented operators who will fix everything, from infrastructure to student loans. These wild swings mark the arrival of the positive feedback, harbinger of instability from climate to human societies.
the alternatives to populisms (note plural) have to be crafted in each individual country, identifying specific features, targeting specific sectors of voters, shaping solutions that call into the picture the European Union as the best political and economic framework.
I am agree with the idea that the populism it's an illness in our democratic societies and the nationalism too. There are the combustible that the authoritarian politics needs in order to legalized the horrible xenophobic policies around the world as President Trump do it. Thanks.
"Populism dries up when policies supporting economic growth and social justice have priority." In the interim, we'll likely see the end of NATO unless persuasive arguments are forthcoming for its continuation endlessly into the future. The long-standing military alliance, perhaps to be succeeded by a US led Indo-Pacific grouping, seems designed simply to promote sales in weaponry at the expense of public funds in many countries. Meanwhile China's progress continues, including joint military exercises with Russia on land and at sea. Moreover China is now edging towards leadership of global peacekeeping at the UN. The approval of the UN Secretary-General to some of China's plans for Africa is certainly a coup for Beijing. However Xi Jinping has yet to decide whether to ensure an effective multilateral format for the world, especially discipline in vital global finance - 2008 was a shocker.
Same old same old liberal can't without any resolutions to address the very legitimate "popular" grievances You people will find yourselves unemployed in the next few years as the people reclaim their sovernity. JKemnings pooling sovernity to make it stronger is not democratic accountability to the people It is technocracy.
The German-led EU has no alternative to populism. A true European Union of equal member-states, respecting fundamental principles (Democracy above all) and Human Rights may have a chance vs populism/nationalism.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.