Book Chapters by Grigoris Markou
Research Handbook on Populism, 2024
The ascendance of populism to power in various liberal democracies around the world triggered vig... more The ascendance of populism to power in various liberal democracies around the world triggered vigorous public debates. More often than not, scholars, politicians and analysts warn of the dangers populism poses to democracy and its institutions, expecting populism to turn authoritarian once in government. Viewing populism as a feature of the opposition alone, others argue that populism in government is not meant to last - but rather consolidated into the mainstream of political and party systems. This chapter provides a critical overview of the literature on populism in power, putting into scrutiny dominant theoretical paradigms in the field of so-called populism studies. It discusses the multi-faceted trajectories populist actors globally may take in their transition from opposition to power. It concludes that distinct types of populist actors have distinct implications on democracy depending on factors such as ideology and context.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Populism in Global Perspective: A Performative and Discursive Approach, 2021
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Discourse, Culture and Organization: Inquiries into Relational Structures of Power (Tomas Marttila, Editor), 2018
In May 2012, when Time magazine asked the European Commission
President José Manuel Barroso ‘What... more In May 2012, when Time magazine asked the European Commission
President José Manuel Barroso ‘What concerns you most about Europe
today?’ his answer was: ‘Probably the rise of some populist movements in the extremes of the political spectrum’ (Cendrowicz 2012). Since then itis clear that populism, wherever it comes from, has officially been proclaimed as the main enemy of the European Union. In Greece, specifically, after entering the Memorandum era, the phenomenon of populism has been the focal point of intense political wrangling. There has been no opposition party or movement that has not been accused by its opponents as ‘populist’, an accusation which, explicitly or implicitly, is simultaneously backed up with a set of specific characteristics, including social and political backwardness, latent or open nationalism/nativism, cult of the leader, devaluation or even rejection of the democratic rules, irresponsibility, irrationalism, lack of understanding of reality, demagogy or even conscious lying.
These arguments, originating in the liberal literature of the mid-twentieth
century and especially in the work of Richard Hofstadter
(1955), have been uncritically adopted and violently adjusted to Greek
reality. The ‘beast of populism’, primarily associated with the Left and
social resistances to the Memorandum austerity policies, has acquired
mythical features, embodying all the ‘chronic pathologies’ of Greek society and economy: partisanship and polarization, clientelism, corruption, the dominance of ‘guilds’ and trade unionists. Through this strategy, an emerging anti-populist block has attempted to naturalize a negative, pejorative signification of populism,1which was then utilized in the demonization of oppositional political and social identities, attitudes and forces as ‘populist’. The pejorative uses of the term have predominated the politico-social landscape, and populism has been defined through anti-populist discourse. But what is populism after all? Can we define it without ideological, stereotypical blinkers?
Utilizing the innovative work of Ernesto Laclau and the so-called Essex
School (Laclau 2005; Laclau and Mouffe 2001; Howarth et al. 2000), the
POPULISMUS research project has employed a rigorous yet flexible
method of identifying populist discourses.2 It has thus attempted to
remedy methodological deficits, arguing in favor of a ‘minimal criteria’
approach, as the phenomenon of populism is quite complicated and the
utilization of an unsuitable analytical approach may cause comprehension gaps of the issue. In particular, populist discourses should include:
(1) prominent references to ‘the people’ (or equivalent signifiers, e.g., the
‘underdog’) and the ‘popular will’ and to the need to truly represent it,
(2) an antagonistic perception of the sociopolitical terrain as divided between ‘the people’/the underdog and ‘the elites’/the establishment
(POPULISMUS Background Paper 2015).
According to the Essex School of Discourse Analysis and the
POPULISMUS approach, both criteria need to be present for a discourse
to be classified as ‘populist’. Hence, populist discourse always involves a
division between dominant and dominated. An important aspect of
Laclauian theory, which is strongly influenced by Gramscian theories on
hegemony, is that the formation of a populist discourse occurs through
the connection of heterogeneous popular demands (logic of equivalence) and the construction of a collective identity (through the identification of an enemy) (Laclau 2005). Moreover, a vital feature of Laclau’s theory of populism is the ‘nodal point’, namely, a central signifier that gives meaning to a discourse, to a discursive articulation. According to Laclau and Mouffe, ‘any discourse is constituted as an attempt to dominate the field of discursivity, to arrest the flow of differences, to construct a center. We will call the privileged discursive points of this partial fixation, nodal points (Lacan has insisted on these partial fixations through his concept of points de capiton, that is, privileged signifiers that fix the meaning of a signifying chain)’ (Laclau and Mouffe 1985: 112). Hence, ‘discourseshould be conceived as an articulation (a chain) of ideological elements around a nodal point, a point de capiton’ (Stavrakakis 1999: 79).
Within the frame of the POPULISMUS project, this paper uses the
methodological tools of Laclauian theory (nodal points, empty signifiers,
etc.), combining them with a computer-based lexicometric methodology. In the last few years, it has been proposed that corpus-driven lexicometric procedures can greatly assist in the study of populist discourse (cf. Caiani and della Porta 2011; Rooduijn and Pauwels 2011). In particular, a lexicometric approach is considered compatible with discourse-theoretical analysis drawing on the Essex School of discourse analysis, which POPULISMUS employed, to the extent that it brackets the supposed intentions behind discursive articulation, while it considers meaning as formed by the relations established between lexical elements (Glasze 2007: 663f.).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers in peer-reviewed journals by Grigoris Markou
Revista Temas Sociológicos, 2024
Our era is characterized by a significant conflict between populism and anti-populism, both polit... more Our era is characterized by a significant conflict between populism and anti-populism, both politically and culturally. Populist groups and leaders often portray themselves as the true voices of the common people, gaining electoral support or even taking power by framing society as a battle between the ordinary people and the elite, challenging the political and economic establishment. Conversely, parties within the liberal political spectrum counteract the rise of populism by articulating a strong anti-populist discourse, sometimes successfully dominating the political arena. However, despite the increase in studies on populism, there are not many publications regarding anti-populism. This article seeks to examine the anti-populist discourse in Argentina and Greece, two countries with many similarities in political, economic, and cultural aspects. By analyzing the key ideas of anti-populist discourse, we aim to highlight the common anti-populist logic marked by typical paths of modernization, which not only opposes populism but also frequently disregards or opposes specific social groups, such as minorities.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 2022
In recent years, in the era of multiple crises, there are many political parties and leaders that... more In recent years, in the era of multiple crises, there are many political parties and leaders that use conspiracy theories in their discourse, trying to explain facts and figures on politics, economy, society, environment and space. There is an ongoing debate in populism studies on the possible connection between the populist phenomenon and conspiracy theories, thus creating two main theoretical camps. On the one hand, there are many scholars who recognize a strong correlation between the two phenomena, with some of them believing that they are directly equated. On the other hand, there are several researchers who consider populism as a phenomenon with its own unique essence without predetermined characteristics. Hence, the question that arises here is: Is conspiracism endogenous to populism, or not? In this article, I first look at the definitions of conspiracy theories/conspiracism and populism, attempting to avoid stereotypical readings. After that, I highlight the discussion that takes place in academia around the internal features of the populist phenomenon and its possible connection with conspiracism, with the aim of showing that populism presents a unique logic, without a necessary connection to conspiracism. Finally, I focus on the Greek case of recent years, describing an example where the concept of conspiracy theory became a polemical tool against political rivals, negatively affecting politics and society. My analysis is based on post-structuralist theory and methodological tools of the Essex School of Discourse Analysis, taking into account aspects of other approaches to populism.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of Political Ideologies, 2021
In recent years, especially after the outbreak of the economic crisis, the phenomenon of populism... more In recent years, especially after the outbreak of the economic crisis, the phenomenon of populism has returned to the forefront. Populism is all around us, on the front pages of the newspapers, in the political repertoire, in academic papers. Politicians, journalists and researchers discuss this phenomenon, try to define it, examine its principal features and analyse its relationship with democracy. A large part of the mainstream parties and politicians have succeeded, through a strong anti-populist rhetoric, in consolidating the idea that populism is a dangerous ideology. Technocrats, mainstream media and many researchers blame the anti-establishment parties and argue that populism is an ‘irrational’ phenomenon that threatens politics and society. But is that really the case? In this article, we examine anti-populism after the economic collapse in Greece (2008/09) and Argentina (2001) to highlight the danger that derives from this kind of discourse. Our main goal is to find the chief characteristics of anti-populist discourse in both countries in order to emphasize its problematic and controversial perspective.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Kairos: A Journal of Critical Symposium, 2020
The global economic crisis, the popular discontent against traditional parties and post-democrati... more The global economic crisis, the popular discontent against traditional parties and post-democratic forms of governance, as well as the sharp increase in migrant and refugee arrivals have led to the resurgence of populist parties around the world. Left-wing parties usually express an inclusionary populist discourse with patriotic features, while right-wing parties utilize an exclusionary populism with strong nationalist and xenophobic characteristics. In Greece in recent years, the radical left party of SYRIZA rose to power through a left-wing populist and anti-imperialist discourse. Alexis Tsipras formed a paradox coalition government with the radical right party of ANEL to reach an agreement that would lessen the effects of austerity policies. However, once in office, SYRIZA transformed some features of its political style and began to follow a type of “pragmatic populism”. This paper examines the relationship between populism and anti-imperialism, while analyzing SYRIZA’s discourse in opposition and in power. The questions that it attempts to answer are: does Tsipras express an anti-imperialist discourse both in opposition and in power? What forces are considered imperialist by SYRIZA? Can the notion of “crypto-colonialism” explain the rise of left-wing populism in Greece?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Έρεισμα/Ereisma, Jun 2020
Η πρόσφατη δυναμική επανεμφάνιση των λαϊκιστικών κομμάτων διεθνώς αναζωπύρωσε τη συζήτηση γύρω απ... more Η πρόσφατη δυναμική επανεμφάνιση των λαϊκιστικών κομμάτων διεθνώς αναζωπύρωσε τη συζήτηση γύρω από τον λαϊκισμό και τη σχέση που αναπτύσσει με τη (φιλελεύθερη) δημοκρατία. Πολλές από τις «κυρίαρχες» επιστημονικές αναλύσεις άσκησαν ισχυρή κριτική στον λαϊκισμό μέσα από μια στερεοτυπική οπτική, εντοπίζοντας συγκεκριμένα παθολογικά χαρακτηριστικά στο φαινόμενο, ενώ υπήρξε ένας αριθμός μελετών που κράτησε τις αποστάσεις του από τις στρεβλές θεωρητικές αναγνώσεις. Ένα από τα πολιτικά κόμματα που απασχόλησαν τους ακαδημαϊκούς στην Ελλάδα ήταν η περίπτωση του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, τόσο στην αντιπολίτευση όσο και στην εξουσία. Δεν ήταν λίγοι οι ερευνητές που επιχείρησαν να ιχνηλατήσουν και να κατανοήσουν τη μετάβαση της ριζοσπαστικής αριστεράς από ένα κινηματικό κόμμα της νεολαίας σε κόμμα εξουσίας μέσα από την ανάλυση Λόγου. Στο συγκεκριμένο άρθρο μελετάμε την έννοια του λαϊκισμού και την περίπτωση του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ μετά το ξέσπασμα της οικονομικής κρίσης. Αρχικά, εννοιολογούμε τον λαϊκισμό, ακολουθώντας τις θεωρητικές και μεθοδολογικές κατευθύνσεις τριών σημαντικών προσεγγίσεων [των Ερνέστο Λακλάου και της Σχολής του Έσσεξ (λογοθεωρητική), Πιερ Οστιγκί (κοινωνικοπολιτισμική) και Μπέντζαμιν Μόφιτ (επιτελεστική)], οι οποίες παρά τις διαφορές που παρουσιάζουν διαθέτουν ιδιαίτερα σημεία σύνδεσης, ενώ υπογραμμίζουμε και τη στερεοτυπική ανάγνωση των αντι-λαϊκιστικών αναλύσεων. Στη συνέχεια, αναδεικνύουμε τα χαρακτηριστικά που έλαβαν στο πέρασμα των ετών διάφορες λαϊκιστικές εμπειρίες, ενώ στο τέλος επικεντρωνόμαστε στην περίπτωση της ελληνικής ριζοσπαστικής αριστεράς (ΣΥΡΙΖΑ), με στόχο να εξετάσουμε τα χαρακτηριστικά του πολιτικού της λόγου στην αντιπολίτευση και την εξουσία (2009-2019). Εξέφρασε έναν λαϊκιστικό λόγο; Ποιες ήταν οι επιπτώσεις του αριστερού λαϊκισμού στην δημοκρατία, την κοινωνία και τη πολιτική;
The recent forceful re-emergence of populist parties around the world has rekindled the debate over populism and its impact on (liberal) democracy. Many mainstream research analyses utilized a strong criticism on populism through a stereotypical perspective, identifying specific pathological features on the phenomenon, while a number of studies kept its distance from distorted theoretical readings. In Greece, the case of SYRIZA turned the academic interest again on populism. There have been many researchers who have tried to study and understand radical left’s transition from a party of movements and youth to a party of power through discourse analysis. In this paper, we attempt to study the concept of populism and the case of SYRIZA after the eruption of the economic crisis. Firstly, we use three important theoretical approaches [Ernesto Laclau and Essex School (discursive), Pierre Ostiguy (socio-cultural), and Benjamin Moffitt (performative)] to define the notion of populism, while we emphasize some of the stereotypical anti-populist approaches. Subsequently, we highlight the special characteristics of various populist experiences over the years. Finally, we focus on the case of the Greek radical left (SYRIZA), with the aim of examining the features of its political discourse in opposition and power (2009-2019). Did Alexis Tsipras express a populist discourse? What were the effects of left-wing populism on democracy, society and politics?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Identities: Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture, 2017
SYRIZA is the first radical left party in Europe which managed to seize power through a strong in... more SYRIZA is the first radical left party in Europe which managed to seize power through a strong inclusionary populist and anti-austerity discourse. In this paper, we examine the political discourse articulated by SYRIZA in power (2015-17) through Laclau’s theory and “Populismus” approach and we utilize the lexicometric tool of “Populismus Observatory” to search the frequently appeared words in Alexis Tsipra’s discourse. “Populismus” is a research project and an open access web-based Observatory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (School of Political Science) that analyzes populism through a discursive methodological framework. The simple lexicometric analysis can help us to sketch a statistical outline of the discourse, followed by theoretical scrutiny. Our aim is to find if SYRIZA transforms its rhetoric after the conquest of power (January 2015) and which central signifiers tends to use and avoid. Furthermore, we argue that the concept of “crypto-colonialism” can explain the dominance of egalitarian populism in the Greek politics but we question the use of the term for any inclusionary populist case. Moreover, we underline the failure of SYRIZA to fulfill the popular demands and we seek out the reasons of this fiasco. Finally, we try to answer to the following question: Does the case of SYRIZA prove that populism fails wherever it comes from (right or left)?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Contemporary Southeastern Europe, 2017
In recent years, and especially after the outbreak of the global financial crisis, right-wing and... more In recent years, and especially after the outbreak of the global financial crisis, right-wing and left-wing populist parties and movements have enjoyed significant political success in Europe. One of these parties is SYRIZA in Greece. In this paper, we explore some of the particular characteristics of the political discourse articulated by SYRIZA in power. The core argument of the paper is that the Greek radical left party continues to express an inclusionary populist discourse after its rise to power. We examine this issue by utilising the methodology of the Essex School of Discourse Analysis. Moreover, we attempt to substantiate the view that populism does not always have a negative connotation and is not deterministically associated with nationalism or racism. Furthermore, we try to establish whether the concept of "crypto-colonialism” is an important key to understanding the rise of inclusionary populism to power in Greece. Finally, we analyse various manifestations of Greek anti-populism in order to highlight the danger that derives from this kind of stereotypical discourse.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Preface by Grigoris Markou
O Problema do Populismo: Teoria, Política e Mobilização, 2019
Grigoris Markou, "Prefacio", Jeremiah Morelock e Felipe Ziotti Narita, O Problema do Populismo: T... more Grigoris Markou, "Prefacio", Jeremiah Morelock e Felipe Ziotti Narita, O Problema do Populismo: Teoria, Política e Mobilização (Jundiaí-SP: Paco Editorial, 2019), 7-14.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Conference Presentations by Grigoris Markou
While much has been recently written about anti-populism from a discursive perspective (Stavrakak... more While much has been recently written about anti-populism from a discursive perspective (Stavrakakis 2017; Galanopoulos & Venizelos 2021; Markou 2021) and the unique theatricality of populism from a stylistic perspective (Moffitt 2016; Aiolfi 2022), there has been scant work connecting these two areas of critical scholarship on populism, with a few notable exceptions (Hamdaoui 2022; Pennucci 2023). This contribution seeks to fill that gap by exploring the performative dimension of anti-populism through a comparative analysis of French and Greek politics. After discussing the importance of the populism/anti-populism divide for the structuration of politics in liberal democracies, this article examines the political performances of key leaders from the center-right parties of France and Greece, namely Renaissance of Emmanuel Macron (2017-2024) and New Democracy under the leadership of Kyriakos Mitsotakis (2019-2024). The analysis showcases how anti-populists embody a consensual and technocratic form of 'politics-asusual'.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Η έναρξη του 21ου αιώνα έχει χαρακτηριστεί από το ξέσπασμα πολλαπλών κρίσεων που δημιούργησαν μεγ... more Η έναρξη του 21ου αιώνα έχει χαρακτηριστεί από το ξέσπασμα πολλαπλών κρίσεων που δημιούργησαν μεγάλο αίσθημα αβεβαιότητας εντός της κοινωνίας. Αυτή η αβεβαιότητα οδήγησε με τη σειρά της στην αύξηση της καχυποψίας απέναντι στο οικονομικό και πολιτικό κατεστημένο και στην άνθιση και τη διάδοση των θεωριών συνωμοσίας. Στο πέρασμα των χρόνων έχουν αναπτυχθεί ποικίλες θεωρίες συνωμοσίας για κρίσιμες καταστάσεις, μεγάλες προσωπικότητες και σημαντικά και ασήμαντα γεγονότα, οι οποίες ξεκινούν από τους Εβραίους, τους Μασόνους και τις πανδημίες και φτάνουν μέχρι τις οδοντόκρεμες. Πολλοί ερευνητές έχουν επικεντρωθεί στα χαρακτηριστικά των θεωριών συνωμοσίας και στους λόγους για τους οποίους ένα μέρος τα κοινωνίας τείνει να πιστεύει σ’ αυτές, προσεγγίζοντας το ζήτημα από διαφορετικές οπτικές. Εντούτοις, έχουν αναπτυχθεί προσεγγίσεις οι οποίες δεν αποφεύγουν τα προβλήματα. Σ’ αυτή την παρουσίαση θα επικεντρωθούμε στην έννοια των θεωριών συνωμοσίας, αναδεικνύοντας τα κεντρικά της χαρακτηριστικά σύμφωνα με τη διεθνή βιβλιογραφία και επιχειρώντας να αποφύγουμε τις στερεοτυπικές αναγνώσεις. Στη συνέχεια, θα ανατρέξουμε σε σύγχρονα παραδείγματα συνωμοσιολογικού λόγου τα οποία επηρέασαν τον δημόσιο και ακαδημαϊκό λόγο στην σύγχρονη Ελλάδα. Τέλος, θα αναδείξουμε τις προβληματικές χρήσεις της έννοιας τόσο σε ακαδημαϊκό όσο και σε πολιτικό επίπεδο και θα εστιάσουμε στους κινδύνους που δημιουργούν στην πολιτική και την κοινωνία.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Conference on Conspiracy Theories and Left-wing Populism
In recent years, it has been developed a debate about the possible connection between populism an... more In recent years, it has been developed a debate about the possible connection between populism and conspirational logic. There are many scholars who believe that populism is linked to conspiracy theories in most cases, while there is a part of them who argue that populism is equated with the populist phenomenon. It is true that populism is often associated with conspirational thinking. But are conspiracy theories an exclusive prerogative of populists? In this presentation, I highlight the discussion that takes place in academia and public sphere on the connection between conspiracy theories and populism, aiming to highlight their distinct character.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
SYRIZA’s spectacular rise to power through a radical political proposal and strong a populist dis... more SYRIZA’s spectacular rise to power through a radical political proposal and strong a populist discourse has been the field of study of a large number of political scientists in recent years. Alexis Tsipras in opposition and in power expressed a strong inclusionary populist discourse, placing popular classes at a central position and opposing the political and economic establishment of the country and Europe. SYRIZA, during its second term, began to change its physiognomy, abandoning gradually its radicalism and embracing a typed of "political realism" and consensus, while it began to soften its populist intensity and passion. After the end of its rule (2019), it became clear that SYRIZA’s populism had nothing to do with the populist intensity and passion of the previous years. SYRIZA (2019-present) continued to maintain some populist slogans and a kind of anti-elitism (e.g. “the many” against “the establishment”), but to a lesser extent. Furthermore, a huge gap has been created between the party and the popular classes. SYRIZA can’t persuade, mobilize and lead the people against the right-wing government of New Democracy, in a period of intense social discontent with the management of the pandemic and the economy by the Greek government and at a time when popular demands for democracy, justice and labor protection are emerging. In this presentation, I will present the main characteristics of SYRIZA’s political discourse after its defeat in the 2019 national election, attempting to find if the party continues to express a populist discourse or not, through discourse analysis, while underling its new political direction. Furthermore, I will examine the reasons the rapid transformation of the party in a more mainstream and “realistic” direction.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Ο Περονισμός είναι ένα πολιτικό κίνημα που εμφανίστηκε στην Αργεντινή στα μέσα περίπου του 20ου α... more Ο Περονισμός είναι ένα πολιτικό κίνημα που εμφανίστηκε στην Αργεντινή στα μέσα περίπου του 20ου αιώνα. Ιδρυτής του υπήρξε ο Χουάν Ντομίνγκο Περόν (1895–1974), ένας στρατιωτικός και πολιτικός της χώρας, ο οποίος κατάφερε μέσα από τη στενή σχέση που ανέπτυξε με τις λαϊκές τάξεις να εκλεγεί πρόεδρος τρεις φορές (1946–1952, 1952–1955, and 1973–1974). Το Κόμμα της Δικαιοσύνης (Partido Justicialista) αποτελεί το βασικό πολιτικό κόμμα που εκπροσωπεί τις ιδέες του Περονισμού, ωστόσο συμμετέχει συνήθως σε ευρύτερους συνασπισμούς στις εκλογικές διαδικασίες. Η ιδιαιτερότητα του κινήματος είναι ότι δεν τοποθετείται σε μια συγκεκριμένα πλευρά του ιδεολογικό-πολιτικού άξονα, αλλά αποτελείται από ποικίλες πολιτικές τάσεις και προσωπικότητες. Για παράδειγμα τη δεκαετία του 1990 ο Περονισμός συνδυάστηκε με τη νεοφιλελεύθερη λογική του Κάρλος Μένεμ (1930-), ενώ προσφάτως εκφράστηκε μέσα από το προοδευτικό κίνημα του Κιρσνερισμού. Ο Περονισμός έμεινε στην ιστορία ως μια χαρακτηριστική περίπτωση λαϊκιστικού κινήματος.
Στη συγκεκριμένη παρουσίαση έχουμε στόχο να παρουσιάσουμε συντόμως την ιστορία του Περονισμού από τα μέσα του 20ου αιώνα μέχρι σήμερα, επικεντρώνοντας το ενδιαφέρον μας κυρίως στην αριστερή του έκφραση, τον Κιρσνερισμό, ο οποίος διαμορφώθηκε μέσα από την πολιτική σκέψη και δράση του Νέστορ Κίρσνερ (1950-2010) και της συζύγου του Κριστίνα Φερνάντεζ ντε Κίρσνερ (1953-) στις αρχές του 21ου αιώνα. Μερικά από τα ερωτήματα που θα επιχειρήσουμε να απαντήσουμε στην παρουσίαση είναι: Ποιες ήταν οι βασικές αρχές του κλασικού Περονισμού και με ποιον τρόπο εμφανίστηκε τα τελευταία χρόνια; Τι είδος πολιτικού λόγου εξέφρασε στο παρελθόν και τι εκφράζει στις μέρες μας; Πως επηρέασε τις εξελίξεις στην χώρα αλλά και στην Λατινική Αμερική η άνοδος του αριστερού Περονισμού μετά την κρίση του 2001; Το κενό που υπάρχει στην ελληνική βιβλιογραφία σχετικά με τον Περονισμό και τις μορφές που έχει λάβει στο πέρασμα των χρόνων, μας δημιουργεί την ανάγκη ιχνηλάτησης της ιστορική του ρίζας και των εγγενών του χαρακτηριστικών, καθώς και της μορφής που λαμβάνει τα τελευταία χρόνια, η οποία συνεχίζει να επηρεάζει άμεσα τις πολιτικές και οικονομικές εξελίξεις της Αργεντινής.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In recent years, radical and extreme right-wing parties (far right) have forcefully emerged in Eu... more In recent years, radical and extreme right-wing parties (far right) have forcefully emerged in Europe, opposing the political and economic establishment, austerity policies of neoliberal Europe, progressive agendas of many governments, and European countries’ response to the refugee crisis. Their political discourse presents nationalist and xenophobic features, while in many cases is expressed through exclusionary populist schemes. In Greece, after the outbreak of the crisis, both radical and extreme right parties have emerged in the political landscape. In the Greek public discourse, far-right parties are often described as populist parties with a nationalist and xenophobic discourse. But is that true? Are all the far right parties ‘populist parties’? In this paper, after conceptualizing the notion of populism through laclauian theoretical arsenal, we analyze the political discourse of four Greek far-right parties (Independent Greeks, Popular Orthodox Rally, Greek Solution and Golden Dawn), with the aim of studying their principal discursive features, as well as underline the differences between them. We attempt to highlight the normalization of the radical right in Greece, through its acceptance in governmental coalitions, as well emphasize the danger of classifying any radical and extreme right-wing party as populist.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Ο λαϊκισμός αποτελεί κεντρικό χαρακτηριστικό γνώρισμα της ελληνικής πολιτικής σκηνής εδώ και πολλ... more Ο λαϊκισμός αποτελεί κεντρικό χαρακτηριστικό γνώρισμα της ελληνικής πολιτικής σκηνής εδώ και πολλές δεκαετίες. Μια από τις πιο εμβληματικές και χαρισματικές προσωπικότητες που εξέφρασαν έναν λαϊκιστικό λόγο την περίοδο της Μεταπολίτευσης είναι αυτή του Ανδρέα Παπανδρέου, ενώ μετά το ξέσπασμα της παγκόσμιας οικονομικής κρίσης (2007/08) ο λαϊκισμός εκφράστηκε δυναμικά μέσω της ριζοσπαστικής αριστεράς (ΣΥΡΙΖΑ). Στην Ελλάδα μεγάλο μέρος του ακαδημαϊκού χώρου, ερευνητές, καθώς και δημοσιογράφοι καταπιάνονται με τη λαϊκιστική ρητορική, καταγγέλοντας την συνήθως ως μια χυδαία ιδεολογία και δημαγωγία. Πολλά άρθρα, επιστημονικά κείμενα και βιβλία εξισώνουν τον λαϊκισμό με το ψέμα και τον απολυταρχισμό, ενώ τον χαρακτηρίζουν ως ένα ανορθολογικό φαινόμενο ή ως μια «στρέβλωση της πολιτικής». Επιπλέον, διάφοροι μελετητές αναγνωρίζουν στον λαϊκισμό μια ενδογενή εθνικιστική, νατιβιστική και συνωμοσιολογική φύση που παρουσιάζει κοινά στοιχεία τόσο στην αριστερά όσο και στη δεξιά. Ισχύει όμως στην πραγματικότητα κάτι τέτοιο; Τι είναι λαϊκισμός και ποια τα κύρια χαρακτηριστικά του; Ποια διαδρομή ακολούθησε μέσα στο πέρασμα των ετών; Στη συγκεκριμένη παρουσίαση έχουμε στόχο να αναλύσουμε το φαινόμενο του λαϊκισμού και τα κύρια χαρακτηριστικά του, ακολουθώντας τη λογοθεωρητική προσέγγιση του Ernesto Laclau. Επιπλέον, θα αναλύσουμε μέσα από το παράδειγμα του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ τον τρόπο με τον οποίο ένα λαϊκιστικό κίνημα συναρθρώνει τα λαϊκά αιτήματα και πως επιτελεί τη λαϊκιστική του παράσταση, στηριζόμενοι στην κοινωνικοπολιτισμική προσέγγιση του Pierre Ostiguy και την επιτελεστική θεωρία του Benjamin Moffitt.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The outbreak of the economic crisis, the implementation of austerity measures, the increasing pov... more The outbreak of the economic crisis, the implementation of austerity measures, the increasing poverty and the post-democratic political context led to the people's rejection of traditional centre-left and centre-right parties in several countries of the world, as well as the rise of left-wing forces. SYRIZA's monumental victory in the Greek elections of 2015 (January and September), Podemos' electoral rise in Spain, the notable campaign of Bernie Sanders for Democratic Party's nomination in the US and the left-wing populist hegemonies in Venezuela and Bolivia, are some examples of the new 'anti-establishment' trend. Left-wing revolt against the liberal and social-democratic parties has caused a variety of reactions within West societies. Many scholars, journalists and politicians discuss a possible turn to Marxism. For example, Yanis Varoufakis mentioned, in the Guardian newspaper, the importance of Marxism today, declaring that Marx predicted our present crisis and the Communist manifesto showed us that we have the power to create a better world. Therefore, many of the people wonder if we can talk about a possible return of Marxist or communist ideas. Is Marxism actually coming back to the fore? In this paper, we underline the historical examples in which populism, Marxism (-Leninism) and socialism converge. Moreover, we analyze the political style of the contemporary left-wing populist parties. We argue that the left-wing populist movement in Europe and America do not express, in any way, Marxist or socialist ideas in general. Finally, we attempt to find if the central core of populism (popular sovereignty and anti-establishment aspect) can be combined, in a sense, with Marxist ideas. Can we imagine a left-wing project with a socialist, Marxist and populist perspective?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Book Chapters by Grigoris Markou
President José Manuel Barroso ‘What concerns you most about Europe
today?’ his answer was: ‘Probably the rise of some populist movements in the extremes of the political spectrum’ (Cendrowicz 2012). Since then itis clear that populism, wherever it comes from, has officially been proclaimed as the main enemy of the European Union. In Greece, specifically, after entering the Memorandum era, the phenomenon of populism has been the focal point of intense political wrangling. There has been no opposition party or movement that has not been accused by its opponents as ‘populist’, an accusation which, explicitly or implicitly, is simultaneously backed up with a set of specific characteristics, including social and political backwardness, latent or open nationalism/nativism, cult of the leader, devaluation or even rejection of the democratic rules, irresponsibility, irrationalism, lack of understanding of reality, demagogy or even conscious lying.
These arguments, originating in the liberal literature of the mid-twentieth
century and especially in the work of Richard Hofstadter
(1955), have been uncritically adopted and violently adjusted to Greek
reality. The ‘beast of populism’, primarily associated with the Left and
social resistances to the Memorandum austerity policies, has acquired
mythical features, embodying all the ‘chronic pathologies’ of Greek society and economy: partisanship and polarization, clientelism, corruption, the dominance of ‘guilds’ and trade unionists. Through this strategy, an emerging anti-populist block has attempted to naturalize a negative, pejorative signification of populism,1which was then utilized in the demonization of oppositional political and social identities, attitudes and forces as ‘populist’. The pejorative uses of the term have predominated the politico-social landscape, and populism has been defined through anti-populist discourse. But what is populism after all? Can we define it without ideological, stereotypical blinkers?
Utilizing the innovative work of Ernesto Laclau and the so-called Essex
School (Laclau 2005; Laclau and Mouffe 2001; Howarth et al. 2000), the
POPULISMUS research project has employed a rigorous yet flexible
method of identifying populist discourses.2 It has thus attempted to
remedy methodological deficits, arguing in favor of a ‘minimal criteria’
approach, as the phenomenon of populism is quite complicated and the
utilization of an unsuitable analytical approach may cause comprehension gaps of the issue. In particular, populist discourses should include:
(1) prominent references to ‘the people’ (or equivalent signifiers, e.g., the
‘underdog’) and the ‘popular will’ and to the need to truly represent it,
(2) an antagonistic perception of the sociopolitical terrain as divided between ‘the people’/the underdog and ‘the elites’/the establishment
(POPULISMUS Background Paper 2015).
According to the Essex School of Discourse Analysis and the
POPULISMUS approach, both criteria need to be present for a discourse
to be classified as ‘populist’. Hence, populist discourse always involves a
division between dominant and dominated. An important aspect of
Laclauian theory, which is strongly influenced by Gramscian theories on
hegemony, is that the formation of a populist discourse occurs through
the connection of heterogeneous popular demands (logic of equivalence) and the construction of a collective identity (through the identification of an enemy) (Laclau 2005). Moreover, a vital feature of Laclau’s theory of populism is the ‘nodal point’, namely, a central signifier that gives meaning to a discourse, to a discursive articulation. According to Laclau and Mouffe, ‘any discourse is constituted as an attempt to dominate the field of discursivity, to arrest the flow of differences, to construct a center. We will call the privileged discursive points of this partial fixation, nodal points (Lacan has insisted on these partial fixations through his concept of points de capiton, that is, privileged signifiers that fix the meaning of a signifying chain)’ (Laclau and Mouffe 1985: 112). Hence, ‘discourseshould be conceived as an articulation (a chain) of ideological elements around a nodal point, a point de capiton’ (Stavrakakis 1999: 79).
Within the frame of the POPULISMUS project, this paper uses the
methodological tools of Laclauian theory (nodal points, empty signifiers,
etc.), combining them with a computer-based lexicometric methodology. In the last few years, it has been proposed that corpus-driven lexicometric procedures can greatly assist in the study of populist discourse (cf. Caiani and della Porta 2011; Rooduijn and Pauwels 2011). In particular, a lexicometric approach is considered compatible with discourse-theoretical analysis drawing on the Essex School of discourse analysis, which POPULISMUS employed, to the extent that it brackets the supposed intentions behind discursive articulation, while it considers meaning as formed by the relations established between lexical elements (Glasze 2007: 663f.).
Papers in peer-reviewed journals by Grigoris Markou
The recent forceful re-emergence of populist parties around the world has rekindled the debate over populism and its impact on (liberal) democracy. Many mainstream research analyses utilized a strong criticism on populism through a stereotypical perspective, identifying specific pathological features on the phenomenon, while a number of studies kept its distance from distorted theoretical readings. In Greece, the case of SYRIZA turned the academic interest again on populism. There have been many researchers who have tried to study and understand radical left’s transition from a party of movements and youth to a party of power through discourse analysis. In this paper, we attempt to study the concept of populism and the case of SYRIZA after the eruption of the economic crisis. Firstly, we use three important theoretical approaches [Ernesto Laclau and Essex School (discursive), Pierre Ostiguy (socio-cultural), and Benjamin Moffitt (performative)] to define the notion of populism, while we emphasize some of the stereotypical anti-populist approaches. Subsequently, we highlight the special characteristics of various populist experiences over the years. Finally, we focus on the case of the Greek radical left (SYRIZA), with the aim of examining the features of its political discourse in opposition and power (2009-2019). Did Alexis Tsipras express a populist discourse? What were the effects of left-wing populism on democracy, society and politics?
Preface by Grigoris Markou
Conference Presentations by Grigoris Markou
Στη συγκεκριμένη παρουσίαση έχουμε στόχο να παρουσιάσουμε συντόμως την ιστορία του Περονισμού από τα μέσα του 20ου αιώνα μέχρι σήμερα, επικεντρώνοντας το ενδιαφέρον μας κυρίως στην αριστερή του έκφραση, τον Κιρσνερισμό, ο οποίος διαμορφώθηκε μέσα από την πολιτική σκέψη και δράση του Νέστορ Κίρσνερ (1950-2010) και της συζύγου του Κριστίνα Φερνάντεζ ντε Κίρσνερ (1953-) στις αρχές του 21ου αιώνα. Μερικά από τα ερωτήματα που θα επιχειρήσουμε να απαντήσουμε στην παρουσίαση είναι: Ποιες ήταν οι βασικές αρχές του κλασικού Περονισμού και με ποιον τρόπο εμφανίστηκε τα τελευταία χρόνια; Τι είδος πολιτικού λόγου εξέφρασε στο παρελθόν και τι εκφράζει στις μέρες μας; Πως επηρέασε τις εξελίξεις στην χώρα αλλά και στην Λατινική Αμερική η άνοδος του αριστερού Περονισμού μετά την κρίση του 2001; Το κενό που υπάρχει στην ελληνική βιβλιογραφία σχετικά με τον Περονισμό και τις μορφές που έχει λάβει στο πέρασμα των χρόνων, μας δημιουργεί την ανάγκη ιχνηλάτησης της ιστορική του ρίζας και των εγγενών του χαρακτηριστικών, καθώς και της μορφής που λαμβάνει τα τελευταία χρόνια, η οποία συνεχίζει να επηρεάζει άμεσα τις πολιτικές και οικονομικές εξελίξεις της Αργεντινής.
President José Manuel Barroso ‘What concerns you most about Europe
today?’ his answer was: ‘Probably the rise of some populist movements in the extremes of the political spectrum’ (Cendrowicz 2012). Since then itis clear that populism, wherever it comes from, has officially been proclaimed as the main enemy of the European Union. In Greece, specifically, after entering the Memorandum era, the phenomenon of populism has been the focal point of intense political wrangling. There has been no opposition party or movement that has not been accused by its opponents as ‘populist’, an accusation which, explicitly or implicitly, is simultaneously backed up with a set of specific characteristics, including social and political backwardness, latent or open nationalism/nativism, cult of the leader, devaluation or even rejection of the democratic rules, irresponsibility, irrationalism, lack of understanding of reality, demagogy or even conscious lying.
These arguments, originating in the liberal literature of the mid-twentieth
century and especially in the work of Richard Hofstadter
(1955), have been uncritically adopted and violently adjusted to Greek
reality. The ‘beast of populism’, primarily associated with the Left and
social resistances to the Memorandum austerity policies, has acquired
mythical features, embodying all the ‘chronic pathologies’ of Greek society and economy: partisanship and polarization, clientelism, corruption, the dominance of ‘guilds’ and trade unionists. Through this strategy, an emerging anti-populist block has attempted to naturalize a negative, pejorative signification of populism,1which was then utilized in the demonization of oppositional political and social identities, attitudes and forces as ‘populist’. The pejorative uses of the term have predominated the politico-social landscape, and populism has been defined through anti-populist discourse. But what is populism after all? Can we define it without ideological, stereotypical blinkers?
Utilizing the innovative work of Ernesto Laclau and the so-called Essex
School (Laclau 2005; Laclau and Mouffe 2001; Howarth et al. 2000), the
POPULISMUS research project has employed a rigorous yet flexible
method of identifying populist discourses.2 It has thus attempted to
remedy methodological deficits, arguing in favor of a ‘minimal criteria’
approach, as the phenomenon of populism is quite complicated and the
utilization of an unsuitable analytical approach may cause comprehension gaps of the issue. In particular, populist discourses should include:
(1) prominent references to ‘the people’ (or equivalent signifiers, e.g., the
‘underdog’) and the ‘popular will’ and to the need to truly represent it,
(2) an antagonistic perception of the sociopolitical terrain as divided between ‘the people’/the underdog and ‘the elites’/the establishment
(POPULISMUS Background Paper 2015).
According to the Essex School of Discourse Analysis and the
POPULISMUS approach, both criteria need to be present for a discourse
to be classified as ‘populist’. Hence, populist discourse always involves a
division between dominant and dominated. An important aspect of
Laclauian theory, which is strongly influenced by Gramscian theories on
hegemony, is that the formation of a populist discourse occurs through
the connection of heterogeneous popular demands (logic of equivalence) and the construction of a collective identity (through the identification of an enemy) (Laclau 2005). Moreover, a vital feature of Laclau’s theory of populism is the ‘nodal point’, namely, a central signifier that gives meaning to a discourse, to a discursive articulation. According to Laclau and Mouffe, ‘any discourse is constituted as an attempt to dominate the field of discursivity, to arrest the flow of differences, to construct a center. We will call the privileged discursive points of this partial fixation, nodal points (Lacan has insisted on these partial fixations through his concept of points de capiton, that is, privileged signifiers that fix the meaning of a signifying chain)’ (Laclau and Mouffe 1985: 112). Hence, ‘discourseshould be conceived as an articulation (a chain) of ideological elements around a nodal point, a point de capiton’ (Stavrakakis 1999: 79).
Within the frame of the POPULISMUS project, this paper uses the
methodological tools of Laclauian theory (nodal points, empty signifiers,
etc.), combining them with a computer-based lexicometric methodology. In the last few years, it has been proposed that corpus-driven lexicometric procedures can greatly assist in the study of populist discourse (cf. Caiani and della Porta 2011; Rooduijn and Pauwels 2011). In particular, a lexicometric approach is considered compatible with discourse-theoretical analysis drawing on the Essex School of discourse analysis, which POPULISMUS employed, to the extent that it brackets the supposed intentions behind discursive articulation, while it considers meaning as formed by the relations established between lexical elements (Glasze 2007: 663f.).
The recent forceful re-emergence of populist parties around the world has rekindled the debate over populism and its impact on (liberal) democracy. Many mainstream research analyses utilized a strong criticism on populism through a stereotypical perspective, identifying specific pathological features on the phenomenon, while a number of studies kept its distance from distorted theoretical readings. In Greece, the case of SYRIZA turned the academic interest again on populism. There have been many researchers who have tried to study and understand radical left’s transition from a party of movements and youth to a party of power through discourse analysis. In this paper, we attempt to study the concept of populism and the case of SYRIZA after the eruption of the economic crisis. Firstly, we use three important theoretical approaches [Ernesto Laclau and Essex School (discursive), Pierre Ostiguy (socio-cultural), and Benjamin Moffitt (performative)] to define the notion of populism, while we emphasize some of the stereotypical anti-populist approaches. Subsequently, we highlight the special characteristics of various populist experiences over the years. Finally, we focus on the case of the Greek radical left (SYRIZA), with the aim of examining the features of its political discourse in opposition and power (2009-2019). Did Alexis Tsipras express a populist discourse? What were the effects of left-wing populism on democracy, society and politics?
Στη συγκεκριμένη παρουσίαση έχουμε στόχο να παρουσιάσουμε συντόμως την ιστορία του Περονισμού από τα μέσα του 20ου αιώνα μέχρι σήμερα, επικεντρώνοντας το ενδιαφέρον μας κυρίως στην αριστερή του έκφραση, τον Κιρσνερισμό, ο οποίος διαμορφώθηκε μέσα από την πολιτική σκέψη και δράση του Νέστορ Κίρσνερ (1950-2010) και της συζύγου του Κριστίνα Φερνάντεζ ντε Κίρσνερ (1953-) στις αρχές του 21ου αιώνα. Μερικά από τα ερωτήματα που θα επιχειρήσουμε να απαντήσουμε στην παρουσίαση είναι: Ποιες ήταν οι βασικές αρχές του κλασικού Περονισμού και με ποιον τρόπο εμφανίστηκε τα τελευταία χρόνια; Τι είδος πολιτικού λόγου εξέφρασε στο παρελθόν και τι εκφράζει στις μέρες μας; Πως επηρέασε τις εξελίξεις στην χώρα αλλά και στην Λατινική Αμερική η άνοδος του αριστερού Περονισμού μετά την κρίση του 2001; Το κενό που υπάρχει στην ελληνική βιβλιογραφία σχετικά με τον Περονισμό και τις μορφές που έχει λάβει στο πέρασμα των χρόνων, μας δημιουργεί την ανάγκη ιχνηλάτησης της ιστορική του ρίζας και των εγγενών του χαρακτηριστικών, καθώς και της μορφής που λαμβάνει τα τελευταία χρόνια, η οποία συνεχίζει να επηρεάζει άμεσα τις πολιτικές και οικονομικές εξελίξεις της Αργεντινής.
Όπως είναι γνωστό, κάθε λαϊκιστική κινητοποίηση δημιουργεί μια αντι-λαϊκιστική αντίδραση. Εντούτοις, ενώ ο λαϊκισμός είναι ένα φαινόμενο που έχει μελετηθεί σε σημαντικό βαθμό μέχρι σήμερα, ο αντι-λαϊκισμός παραμένει ένα σχετικά παρθένο πεδίο έρευνας. Αυτό προξενεί ιδιαίτερη έκπληξη καθώς ο αντι-λαϊκισμός, τόσο στην Ελλάδα όσο και την Αργεντινή, αναπτύσσει σημαντική δυναμική στο πολιτικό και δημοσιογραφικό τοπίο.
Ο κυρίαρχος λόγος στις δύο χώρες μπορεί να χαρακτηριστεί ως μια ιστορία για τους κινδύνους του λαϊκισμού. Πολιτικοί, δημοσιογράφοι και ακαδημαϊκοί περιγράφουν τον λαϊκισμό ως ένα αποκλειστικά αρνητικό φαινόμενο, ενώ τον αναλύουν μέσα από στερεοτυπικές ιδέες. Ο λαϊκισμός παρουσιάζεται ως το «απόλυτο κακό». Ο κυρίαρχος λόγος κατανοεί τον λαϊκισμό ως ένα φαινόμενο που αποτελεί τον μέγιστο κίνδυνο για τις (φιλελεύθερες) δημοκρατικές αρχές και τον παρουσιάζει σχεδόν πάντα με αυταρχικές και ολοκληρωτικές τάσεις, εξισώνοντας τον με τον εθνικο-λαϊκισμό.
Αυτό το άρθρο θα προσπαθήσει να αναζητήσει τα κεντρικά χαρακτηριστικά του αντι-λαϊκιστικού λόγου σε Ελλάδα και Αργεντινή, στοχεύοντας στην αναγνώριση πιθανών ομοιοτήτων, αλλά και διαφορών, μεταξύ των δύο χωρών. Στη συνέχεια, θα επιχειρήσει να περιγράψει τον τρόπο με τον οποίο οι αντι-λαϊκιστικοί λόγοι παρουσιάζουν τον λαϊκισμό και τροπό με τον οποίο εννοιολογούν τη δημοκρατία. Τέλος, το άρθρο θα θέσει το ζήτημα της (αντι-) δημοκρατικότητας του αντι-λαϊκιστικού λόγου, υπογραμμίζοντας τους κινδύνους που ενέχει η αντι-λαϊκιστική λογική για την πολιτική και την κοινωνία.