Antipopulism

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.

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.

En la visión de Krauze, el populista es un agente en extremo peligroso, pues a través de la repartición económica y su relación cercana con el “pueblo”, siempre alienta el “odio de clases”. Tal odio es provocado por la
demagogia del líder, pero nunca se debe a la existencia de la inequidad y la injusticia social en aquellos países en donde el populista obtiene relevancia. Planteado de esta forma, el populismo es un peligro constante, entre su demagogia, los deseos malévolos del líder, y la torpeza de los pueblos arengados por el discurso.

Κυκλοφόρησε η ελληνική έκδοση του βιβλίου "Λαός δίχως εξουσία
Μια σύντομη ιστορία του αντιλαϊκισμού" (τίτλος πρωτοτυπου: The People, No. A brief history of anti-populism) του Τόμας Φρανκ από τις Εκδόσεις Εκκρεμές. http://www.ekkremes.gr/portal/my_pages/bookdetails.php?id=159
Μετάφραση: Αντώνης Γαλανόπουλος
Πρόλογος: Γιάννης Σταυρακάκης

The aim of this article is to investigate “antipopulism” as a distinct discursive repertoire that marginalizes “the people” as the legitimizing cornerstone of democracy. After providing an account of the Greek post-democratic transition from the mid-nineties onwards, I will then delve into what could be described as the “populism/anti-populism” ideologicopolitical divide, as it manifests in the Greek political system and also on the European level during the past few years, and especially withinthe ongoing crisis. The main hypothesis is that “anti-populism” can be seen as a crucial aspect of post-democracy, introducing what could be described as a peculiar Ideological State Apparatus in the Althusserian sense; a way to marginalize disagreement and democratic dissensus and discipline a public sphere in an age dominated by technocratic virtue, expert knowledge and ‘consensus politics’.

Key words: the people – populism – anti-populism – post-democracy – Greece

Resumen

El propósito del artículo es investigar el “antipopulismo” como un repertorio discursivo diferenciado que marginaliza a “el pueblo” como la piedra angular legitimadora de la democracia. Luego de dar cuenta de la transición postdemocrática en curso en Grecia desde la mitad de los 90, ahondo en lo que puede describirse como la división ideológica-política “populismo/antipopulismo” tal como se ha manifestado en el sistema político griego, y también a nivel europeo, en los últimos años y especialmente en la crisis en curso. La principal hipótesis es que el “anti-populismo” puede ser visto como un aspecto crucial de la postdemocracia, introduciendo lo que puede ser descripto como un peculiar Aparato Ideológico del Estado en el sentido althusseriano; una manera de marginalizar el desacuerdo y los disensos democráticos y de disciplinar la esfera pública en una época dominada por la virtud tecnocrática, el conocimiento experto y los “consensos políticos”.

Palabras clave: pueblo – populismo – antipopulismo – postdemocracia – Grecia

‘Populism’ is often treated as a democratic malaise or a social disease. It is supposed to be an irrational Manichean view of society that misguides the ‘immature’ masses, releases uncontrolled social passions and thus threatens to tear society apart. Taken in this manner, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that most of the European media saw the impressive rise of Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement in Italy as an alarming ‘populist flood’, a real threat to Italy’s effort to overcome the crisis. A few months earlier similar concerns were voiced by European media on the occasion of the Greek elections and the collapse of the Greek two-party system that backed the austerity agenda. This time the ‘populist danger’ was incarnated by the radical left SYRIZA and its intention to go against the austerity agenda. Europe seems to have found its ‘bogeyman’. In this paper we intend to challenge this orthodoxy and underline the dangers for democracy that such a narrow-minded and unhistorical take on populism entails. Drawing on recent theoretical elaborations and historical experience we purport to show that populism isn’t good or bad, democratic or antidemocratic per se. We maintain that each historical case should be treated separately and in a comparative perspective so that we can come up with safer conclusions as far as the politics and ideology of each movement is concerned. Furthermore we will suggest that the deeply post-democratic turn of contemporary Europe poses a far greater danger to democracy than a loosely defined ‘populism’. In making our case, we will briefly refer to the discussion on contemporary Greece and the comparison (and often equation) between SYRIZA and the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. This case illustrates in our view one of the most common and dangerous side-effects that oversimplifying approaches on populism tend to produce.