Consequences

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Afp
La Jornada Maya

Martes 04 de julio, 2017

Robert Louis Stevenson once wrote that “sooner or later we all sit down to a banquet of consequences”. Constant attacks by populist leaders on the very institutions of democracy – an independent judiciary, and strong legislative branch, and a vibrant media that keeps the government honest – will leave consequences in the short term and long term.

In his recent book, “What Is Populism?”, Princeton University’s Jan-Werner Müller argues that populists “claim that they, and they alone, represent the people.” They try to define a “single, homogeneous, authentic people,” and “treat their political opponents as ‘enemies of the people’ and seek to exclude them altogether.”

“We” is becoming the political slogan of the 21st Century. The political leader who makes it all about him or herself is giving way to the leader who speaks of the “we” factor – together “we” can overturn the system and make it work for all of us. Yet, in the case of populists, the “we” in question is more “me” – follow me and I will take you to the promised land. I embody all of your aspirations and fears.

The inclusive “we” seems to bring people together. To forge a common identity based on shared values. To invite those who are different to participate and contribute, enriching society and opening it up to all. Gays, straights, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, indigenous peoples, blacks, whites, Orientals, men and women all participate as equals. Each bring their own wealth to the mix, creating a society that is vibrant and forward looking.

The exclusionary “we” is the “we” of populism. It centers around the leader as the only person who can lead a homogenous group against its enemies – real or imagined – and take them back to a better place. That is the thesis of today’s populist leaders in a nutshell. It is what their diehard followers believe, and what sustains them.

But what are the consequences?

There is no disagreement that the traditional political parties in many countries have lost touch with the vast mass of voters living in search of a better future, and whose lives are perceived to be threatened by forces alien to them – globalization, multi-culturalism, racial and cultural integration.

This is the essence of populism. Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote about American society that “I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all”. This is where many of today’s followers of populists find themselves. Afraid to move ahead and leave behind the comfort zone of an illusionary and imaginary past.

In the mind of US supporters, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” seeks to recreate a fictional past that never really existed. Ask blacks, gays, women, indigenous peoples, Asians, and Latinos about the good old days in the United States, and you will get a different impression than that of the middle class white Anglo-Saxon protestants whose past is diminishing and whose future is uncertain as minorities slowly become the majority in the United States. Hence their concerns about the impact of immigration on their future, and the impact of emerging multi-culturalism in their societies.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a 'life lie”.

It is precisely this vision of multiculturalism that creates the sense of the “other” so prevalent in populist creed.

And in this, the immigrant has as much responsibility for marginalization as does the populist.

By seeking to reproduce their culture in the receiving state, immigrants threaten the homogeneity that was the basis for traditional nationalism. By refusing to integrate into the majority, the immigrant creates a barrier that is then used by the populist to attack the concept of migration and the equality of all members of society.

No society is free of this phenomenon.

In Canada in 1995, when Quebec separatists lost the referendum on independence, then Premier Jacques Parizeau blamed the defeat on the “ethnic” vote, playing to the Quebecois notion of “pure laine” (pure wool – the old pure French-speaking Quebecois) against immigrants who did not share the nationalist aspirations of the separatists. In the first decade of the 21st Century, the then ruling Canadian Conservative party called for the creation of “hot-lines” for citizens to report “un-Canadian behavior” – interpreted by many as Muslims and their practices.

Not something Canadians should be proud of, but also a reflection that no society is immune from populist forces, even one as progressive as Canada.

Both the immigrant and the receiving societies have responsibilities if nations are to avoid falling into the populist trap.

Immigrants have to leave their past behind and adapt to their new homeland, accept its values, and transform. The first generation will find it hard at first, but succeeding generations will assimilate better into their new environment.

Receiving states government’s and civil society organizations also have the responsibility to educate their citizens about how new blood can enrich a society, contribute to its economic and cultural well-being, and expand its horizons by bringing it closer to other societies in this global village we now inhabit.

It is up to all of us to make this work and not fall into the populist trap of hatred and conflict. We must not only hold our leaders up to certain standards of behavior and discourse, but we must hold ourselves to those same levels.

In short, it is up to all of us, not just some of us.