STRATEGIC RESPONSE TO POPULIST PARTIES

Populist parties have established themselves with solid electorates. They now command a significant political weight and are capable of shifting mainstream political debate. This situation poses a growing political challenge to the process of European integration itself and mainstream political parties, which are portrayed by populists as self-serving and corrupt. Furthermore, anti-EU parties have prodded mainstream parties across the European Union to harden their stance on Europe

Definitions

Euroscepticism is the body of criticism of the European Union (EU), and opposition to the process of political European integration, existing throughout the political spectrum. Traditionally, the main source of euroscepticism has been the notion that integration weakens the nation state. Other views occasionally seen as eurosceptic include perceptions of the EU being undemocratic or too bureaucratic. Euroscepticism is found in political parties across the left and right spectrum. There can be considered to be two different types of Eurosceptic thought, which differ in the extent to which adherents reject European integration and in their reasons for doing so.

Hard euroscepticism is the opposition to membership of, or the existence of, the European Union as a matter of principle. In western European EU member countries, hard euroscepticism is currently a hallmark of many anti-establishment parties.

Soft euroscepticism is support for the existence of, and membership of, a form of European Union, but with opposition to specific EU policies, and opposition to a federal europe.

Alternative names for 'hard' and 'soft' euroscepticism are respectively 'withdrawalist' and 'reformist' euroscepticism. Some 'hard' eurosceptics such as UKIP prefer to call themselves euro-realists rather than 'sceptics', and regard their position as pragmatic rather than "in principle". Also many on the left tend not to use the phrase to refer to themselves even though they share many of their criticisms of the European Union and they may use phrases such as euro-critical or just call themselves democrats or socialists

Populism: Populism is rather a political attitude, rhetoric or practice than an ideology, a programme or a party. There can be right-wing and left wing populism, depending on the emphasis on different issues. Populist parties are defined by several recurrent features:

• They promote direct democracy, claim a direct link between the government and the people and reject the established political system;
• They offer immediate and demagogical solutions to people’s day to day problems (Populists have clear, simplistic and demagogical message. They throw slogans implying that the happy days will return, if people vote out corrupt ruling political class and reclaim powers from Brussels);
• They spread simplistic and antagonistic images such as the sovereign nation, the ‘sane’ people vs the ‘corrupted’ and ‘technocratic elites;
• They idealise the nation and its perceived traditions, fueling the criticism of any supranational political system;
• They hold an anti-globalisation discourse aimed at protecting vulnerable people from the consequences of the competitive capitalist market;
• They oppose immigration and the European project of political and economic integration. This is combined with anti-establishment and anti-Brussels rhetoric;
• They usually have protectionist tendencies;
• They capitalise on economic malaise, high levels of unemployment, anti-immigrant feelings, crime which is very often associated with immigrants, and disillusionment with the European Union.

People who support  populist parties are mostly not driven by ideological preferences, or, in other words, are not ideologically committed to these parties. The voting behaviour is rather a by-product of dissatisfaction with main political parties and distrust of political institutions. Brussels is viewed by them as remote, elitist and hostile. Politicians from mainstream parties should partly be blamed for this situation, because they very often accuse Brussels for what is bad and take full credit for created wealth. Support for populist parties has also been boosted by the euro crisis and tough austerity measures, which are meant to combat the crisis.

Strategic Response

There is no clear-cut answer to the question of what the right strategy is in the battle against  populists. Neither is there a clear path to success. Finding effective tools in the battle against the advance of these demagogues is a challenge for the whole of society. This does not mean that the establishment of populist parties must be seen as inevitable. Democratic forces must fight back against populist attacks and openly confront their propaganda.

Right-wing and/or Left-wing populists are basically both demagogues and ‘Nay-sayers’. They mobilise ‘against something’ or ‘against somebody’, but rarely do they offer a constructive proposal for a given political or societal problem. There are voters who are—for different reasons—relatively easily inspired by the populists’ simple messages and their negative campaigning. But democratic forces are required to show the public what the populists’ messages really are: mostly empty propaganda without a trace of a solution. Even if the democrats’ explanations take more time than the rightwing and/or leftwing populists’ easy polemics and even if the democrats’ explanations of complicated political questions sound too complex to many voters, the democratic parties must explain to the public, patiently and openly, their ideas, goals and plans for action. In this respect, the populist propaganda may even help the democratic parties to more easily identify those problematic policy fields with which a portion of the electorate is dissatisfied or worried. In this way right-wing and national populist parties can be seen—at least temporarily—as a helpful early-warning system  whose signals the established democratic forces must interpret correctly.