In recent years, especially across Europe, more and more focus in journalism and academia has been focused on far-right political parties. Specifically, the focus has been on the rise of a new kind of far-right group, dubbed Populist Radical Right Parties (PRRPs) by Cas Mudde. PRRPs have become relevant political forces in Austria, France, and the UK amongst others in recent years, often leading to nations rethinking their relationships with international trading blocs such as the EU.
This rethinking of globalisation also took place in Greece and Spain but was instead spearheaded by leftist groups SYRIZA and Podemos respectively. While a lot of focus was placed on these particular parties, there was not much thinking around the kind of party they exemplify. This is likely because it is too easy to call these parties ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’, in large part due to Europe’s history with communist nations and groups, without taking time to really analyse the parties. I argue these groups are not so easily defined, and are in fact Populist Radical Left Parties (PRLPs).
By properly defining ‘populism’ or ‘populist’, a term that has become somewhat confused by its overuse in journalism, and building off of work around European PRRPs and Latin American leftist groups, where leftist populism is more thoroughly discussed, I intend to show that there is space in European politics for this new definition of these type of parties. To properly define PRLPs, a discussion of what leftist populism is and what could define a party as ‘radical’ are also important.
What is populism?
Populism as a term has become clouded by its use in modern journalism to describe far right, anti-establishment parties, but this is a very minimal definition. Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser provide a useful definition that we can break down to properly examine populism, defining it as;
a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, ″the pure people″ versus ″the corrupt elite,″ and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volante générale (general will) of the people
Mudde, Cas, and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira, Populism: A Very Short Introduction, 2017, p. 6, italics from original
‘Thin-centred ideology’ refers to the fact that populism cannot exist as a pure ideology, but instead must attach itself to some other ideology. In this sense, populism is not so much an ideology as it is a way to analyse political reality. Populism cannot attach itself to any ideology either. The ideology it attaches to must have both an anti-elite sentiment at its core, and a receptive ‘people’ to appeal to. Important to where a populist ideology sits on the political spectrum is who the people and elites are.
The ‘people’ can be split into three groups according to Mudde and Kaltwasser; sovereign people, common people, and people as the nation. The sovereign people is the most self-explanatory concept, as both the source of power for leaders but also the force that can topple them. The common people are grouped by their shared cultural, economic, or social backgrounds. This is often juxtaposed with the backgrounds of the elites and creates a silent majority to mobilise against them. Finally, there is the people as the nation. These people can be tied together either by ethnicity and a particular folklore of nation, or a civic nation held together by particular sets of ideas and institutions. Populist leaders avoid being placed outside of their chosen ‘people’ by espousing their anti-establishment ideas outside of mainstream media and presenting themselves differently to establishment politicians.
One issue with the concept of a ‘people’ is that like any group, they are nebulous and have a tendency to change over time. Changes in major industries, technology, and class systems can all create new ‘people’ to appeal to. Ernesto Laclau claims a people con often come to be known under one name despite having many internal differences. As such, the ‘people’ can be an ’empty signifier’ creating a new group out of very little as opposed to them having any real deeper connection. This looseness allows populists to create and change who the people are dependent on their needs and context. Who this people are and how they are defined can say a lot about where populist groups sit ideologically.
These people need an elite, an other, to rally against. On the surface, the elites are those who run the government, the media, and businesses. More importantly, the elites are a group who are not overwhelmingly liberal or conservative, but instead are any group that stand opposed to the will of the ‘people’. Elites do not oppose each other on a meta level, even if they do espouse views from opposing sides of the political spectrum. Populism sees this divide as a moral one, rather than a situational one, which further allows populist leaders, who to many are part of the political elite, to side themselves with the people.
Leftist Populism
With this more fleshed out explanation of what populism is, we must examine what would make a leftist populism. As mentioned above, much writing on European populism focuses on the far right, while most literature on leftist populism is focused around Latin American states. By examining both of these bodies of literature, we can form a useful framework around which we can define PRLPs in the European context.
PRRPs often draw their roots from fascism, hence the ‘new’ or ‘alt’ right name given to these newer movements. The ‘people’ of these groups is of the nativist variety. Non-natives are seen as a threat to the foundational myths of these groups, the idea that Muslims are destroying the Catholic way of life for example, and often push for authoritarian and regressive laws to enforce native cultural norms. The elites are therefore globalist politicians, whose ideals of open borders, free trade, and multiculturalism allow for the apparent destruction of the morals and norms their nations were built on for millennia.
The leftist populism seen in Latin American regimes such as Chavez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia has been referred to by Sebastián Mazzuca as ‘rentier populism’. These governments are formed off the backs of the unemployed and informal workers, those not organised into a union of any sort. The government then provides work and redistributes funds from taking large amounts of natural resources into public ownership. In return, these workers provide not only votes but ‘street power’, large and vocal gatherings to show strength to the elites. Finally, these regimes withdraw from global financial markets and instead rely on exporting resources to gain income.
We can draw some lessons about how to identify European leftist populism from this theory. Their ‘people’ should be taken from the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, in line with the ‘common people’ idea. This ‘people’ is not necessarily informal or unorganised labour, but there is likely to have been an increase in informal employment or unemployment preceding the rise of a leftist populist group. Since European countries often do not rely on natural resources for large proportions of their income, the elites should be those who hold either the means of production or financial and political power. As rentier populism focuses on foreign trade and away from financial markets, European PRLPs will likely be Eurosceptic due to the European Union’s commitment to neoliberalism. Street power should be an important part of European leftist populism, populist groups should have the ability to mobilise large groups in support of their cause, especially if the PRLP began in a protest movement.
What makes them radical?
It is not just the policy positions of these parties, which are often anti-capitalist as well as anti-elite, that can be considered radical. We also have to think about their positions around democracy. In particular, we need to look at how populist groups interact with liberal democracy as this is the system in place across most of Europe. Chantal Mouffe defines liberal democracy as a regime combining political liberalism and popular sovereignty. Central to this is pluralism and the provision of equal liberties to all individuals. This is achieved by protecting individual rights while also removing the state from citizens daily lives, creating a number of group identities and power bases in society. Majority rule is an important part of liberal democracy, but so is protecting the rights of minority groups. This is why indirect representative democracy is the main way liberal democracies function. This allows all citizens to have voice while acknowledging the realities of time and geographic space.
The low levels of trust in liberal democracy shown by populist parties and their supporters leads to populism being defined as an anti-system movement. Populists, like liberal democracies, believe the people are sovereign, but populists believe only the people should be sovereign and as such support direct democracy rather than representative democracy. As such, rather than having a number of disconnected power bases fighting for rights for a small section of society, populists can bring these groups together against an elite that are seen to be holding back the progress of these rights. It is this antagonism that is central to populist ideas of democracy. Deliberation cannot produce answers for societies problems, instead it is conflict and passion that drives change. As such, populists believe in taming antagonism rather than creating a compromise to settle debate.
Radical democracy is a critique of all other forms of democracy as explanations as to why power should be bestowed upon certain people and not the people themselves. Representative democracy is a façade according to radical democrats, as it is the people who are the source and the core of political power. Instead, radical democrats wish to see democratic struggles extended to social relations in society as well. In this sense, representative democracy serves an elite and is only slightly better for social movements than a dictatorship. Pluralism is opposed on similar grounds. Radical democracy would see the concerns of minority and oppressed social groups represented by all of them rather than as single groups, a single representative ‘people’. Radical democrats see society moving towards a common good as opposed to an unlimited amount of individual goods
Populist Radical Left Parties
From this, we now have some framework to define a PRLP. They should fit into the populist ideals of having a pure people and a corrupt elite. The people should be the economically and socially disadvantaged, and there will have likely been a rise in unorganised labour before the rise of the PRLP. The elite is of course an economic elite that supports a neo-liberal regime. As well as having policies that may lie outside of the current consensus of what is possible, the ‘radical’ element must also rely on their view of democracy. PRLPs are anti-system parties, opposing liberal democracy despite their electoral participation within it. They should support direct action and direct democracy while trying to solve many societal issues with one overarching policy.
This is an adapted excerpt from my dissertation, for more information or the full work, please use my contact page to get in touch. See the next page for sources and suggested reading.
The Private Members Bill 