Populism and counter-populism – The News International

Populist leaders portray themselves as capable of jolting the failed status quo and dynastic politics by invoking the rhetoric of the aam admi, asserting to bring in an egalitarian society to attract the lower rungs of society. However, once in power, populists largely end up with some variation polarizing society, threatening democratic institutions and norms, and eroding individual rights and freedom. Pakistans democratic institutions and norms, civil society and liberties and governance are under the threat of Khans populism.

Cas Mudde, a political scientist, argues that populism is a thin-centered ideology that divides society into two homogeneous and antagonist groups of pure people (led by a populist) and corrupt elites (generally led by traditional politicians). Populists construct an enemy through rhetoric and slogans that is not an outsider but their fellow countryfolk that generates polarisation within the society.

For instance, Trump used the Save America rhetoric to paint the news media, big tech organizations, political opposition and the Supreme Court as an enemy of peoples freedom of speech and thought. Modis Hindutva ideology clearly differentiates Hindus as the pure people of India and has portrayed the corrupt elite of the Indian National Congress as secularists that do not represent Hindus the pure people.

In their attempt to construct an enemy and implement their agenda of change, populists start hurting individual and minority rights. Trumps hostile policies against Blacks, Muslims and Hispanics, and Bolsonaros rhetoric of anti-migration are cases in point. Moving towards South Asian populism, Khan claimed to stand for minority rights but had to reverse his decision of appointing economist Atif Mian in his Economic Advisory Council. His recent reaction to the Hazara communitys protest over the murdered Hazara miners showed his wavering commitment towards his claim to support minority rights. In India, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a glaring manifestation of Modis anti-pluralistic populism. Furthermore, Modis slogan of Sabka saath sabka vikas contradicts his actions of infringing minority rights.

Slogans are important for populists as they help them connect with the people and portray them as the only hope to change the system. To assert and implement those slogans, populists require an authoritarian style of leadership that damages democratic institutions and norms. Political scientists call populists tenure democratic backsliding. Populists ascendancy to power relies upon using their rights and free press to express their frustrations with the government and to mobilise support under democratic pluralistic governments. Once in power, they turn out to be the real menace to those institutions.

The populist rhetoric of all leaders is based on extensive use of the personal pronoun to portray themselves as the only agent/leader who can change and enhanced emphasis on creating a deep divide between corrupt elites and people of the country. For example, Modis I am new India was used to bring himself and his party in equilibrium with the nation. Comparatively, Khan constructed his image as the Kaptaan who is the one capable of driving forward. Such populist authoritarian leadership comes in direct confrontation with civil society, that is responsible to defend liberal democracy, and adversely affects civil society and civil liberties.

Trumps claim of drain the swamp was to overthrow the existing political setup and then, being an agent of change, revive the system. To fulfil his claim, authoritative Trump blamed the judiciary, lawyers, political opposition, bureaucracy and journalists supported by the establishment for all the ills existing in the system. By the same token, Khan built his rhetoric of Naya Pakistan on the discourse of removing the evil of political corruption and bringing in transparent governance.

His slogan Naya Pakistan met a different fate, though. He promised to bring new faces to govern Pakistan but landed in government with the same old technocrats and electables that have been part of every government and who are supported by powerful quarters. Khans larger-than-life claim that his fight is against the corrupt political elite of Pakistan suffers when he is seen surrounded by friends like Zulfi Bokhari and Pervez Khattak (under pending NAB investigation), Jahangir Tareen and Khusro Bakhtiar (top beneficiaries of the sugar crisis), Abdul Razzaq Dawood (conflict of interest contrary to Khans claim of conflict of interest before coming to power). Khan himself had to pay a meagre fine to regularise his illegal encroachment to construct his Bani Gala palace.

Evidently, the basic assumptions about populist leaders are that they tend to stay in power for long and threaten democratic institutions through their authoritarian style of leadership. Nonetheless, examples of South Korea and South Africa are important reminders where populist leaders remained under pressure from the electorate to follow their reform agenda. Hence, citizens have a critical role in defending democracy and fundamental rights from being manipulated or undermined by populism.

Furthermore, Trumps defeat is an important reminder for populist leaders who, once in power, tend to undermine democratic institutions and norms. Americans rise against Trumps populism is an encouraging sign for countries with populist leaders. Nonetheless, to restore the damage done to democracy and address the deep polarization carried out under the period of populist rule is a daunting challenge for the counter-populist leader coming to power after a populist rule. The next elections in Brazil (2022), Philippines (2022) and Pakistan (2023) could prove critical for such efforts in maintaining and/or restoring democratic institutions and norms in those countries. Among these, Philippines has an advantage because presidents there are limited to one six-year term in office thus there is a hope that after Dutertes illiberal rule ending in 2022, Philippines could get an opportunity to restore the damage done by Duterte to institutions if he is not succeeded by another populist leader.

In Pakistan too, there is hope. Progressively developing as it seems to be, the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) emerged as a counter-populist movement that is questioning Naya Pakistan and Khans claim to be a peoples leader to eliminate the common citizens economic miseries. The PDM has also challenged Khans reliance on the establishment. Khans recent attack on the Election Commission of Pakistan is also a glaring example of his populist tendencies.

Claiming to be a proponent of free press and the right to dissent before, suddenly the PMs thinking seemed to have changed completely; under his government the media has faced severe restrictions on its independence, including the finances of media houses being curtailed, journalists censored and even arrest of a media house owner. This is done to curb any criticism on poor governance and squeezing the space for the PDM to organize and mobilise public grievances effectively.

And, yet, the PDM is moving forward. Importantly, within the PDM the PPP has an instrumental role in defending democratic institutions and norms from being damaged further as the party has continued its emphasis to bring the PDMs fight within the remit of constitutional and parliamentary practices such as contesting by-elections, Senate elections, and in the process constraining space for populism to inflict lasting damage to Pakistans nascent democracy and prevent democracy backsliding in country.

The writer is a London-based writer and teaches at Kings College London.

Email: [emailprotected] com

Continue reading here:

Populism and counter-populism - The News International