Populism by Cas Mudde & Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser

Author:Cas Mudde & Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Published: 2016-10-08T00:00:00+00:00

Conclusion

Populists mobilize in a variety of different ways. We discussed the three main types of populist mobilization: personalist leadership, social movement, and political party. Two important questions remain unanswered, however. First: Why are some types of populist mobilization more prevalent in certain places than in others? Second: Do these different types of populist mobilization have an impact on the electoral success of populism?

Let’s begin by offering a preliminary answer to the first question. Populist actors do not operate in a political vacuum. Various political contexts set conditions and provide incentives that are more or less favorable to the three different types of populist mobilization. Having said that, probably the most relevant factor is whether populism comes to the fore in a presidential or in a parliamentary system. More generally, presidential systems strengthen personalist leadership, while parliamentary systems incentivize the emergence of political parties. Consequently, populist leaders without an attachment to a political party can gain prominence and even win the executive power in presidential systems. In fact, this has occurred several times in Latin America (e.g., Perón, Fujimori, Correa). By contrast, in parliamentary systems the person who controls the executive is nominated by one or more political parties represented in the parliament. It is therefore not a coincidence that almost all populist forces in Europe are more or less well-organized political parties.

When it comes to analyzing the rise of populist social movements, the distinction between presidential and parliamentary systems does not seem to be crucial. Rather, like other social movements, they will mainly develop in democracies that have a restricted “political opportunity structure” (POS). Among the more restrictive POS institutions are a majoritarian electoral system, a related two-party system, and high (financial) barriers to influence politics through elections or lobbying. Seen in this light, the predominance of the social movement type of populist mobilization in the United States makes sense. Although populist sentiments are widespread within U.S. society, politics is dominated by just two broad parties—the Republicans and the Democrats—that have been highly successful in preventing the rise of viable third parties. Although mainstream politicians in the United States regularly use populist rhetoric, populist mobilization is only really feasible outside of the party structure, in social movements like the Tea Party, that are often closely related to one of the two parties.

This leaves us to address the second question: Do the types of populist mobilization have a different impact on the electoral success of populism? To answer this question properly, it is important to bear in mind that electoral success can be defined in two different ways: electoral breakthrough, which refers to winning enough votes to enter the political arena (e.g., parliament or presidency), and electoral persistence, which means the ability to develop into a stable force within the political system.

Without doubt, populists can achieve electoral breakthrough through personalist leadership. This is particularly true when the populist leader is a charismatic figure, who has adequate credentials to portray him- or herself as an outsider and has the ability to establish a direct link with the masses.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.