The 21st century is one of populist politics. Democracies around the world are moving in the direction of such populist thinking.
 |
| Photo (https://unsplash.com/photos/ERSKz8OrZIQ) |
The word "populism" is definitely one of the most used political terms in the 21st century. As true as the word has become, it has become one of the most talked about in recent times. In diverse countries such as India, Hungary, Brazil, the Philippines, and Italy, it is common to see political leaders with different ideologies but populists coming to power. Many of these populist leaders also seem to have taken over the entire scope of socio-political developments.
Not just for the last several decades, but for many centuries the search for the answer to the question of what exactly is Lokanunaya has been going on. Of course, the universal interpretation of populism given by experts in political science from all over the world is not available today. There is a large section of the common man who thinks that the ruling class is ignoring his feelings, or that we are not in bondage because he is not holding on to them. In the minds of such people, the political art of being their savior, of believing that we can free them, and of turning such people to our side is seen in the general sense of Lokanunaya. Importantly, if we look at the role of the mainstream media in such a situation, there is a tendency to create a negative image of such populist leaders. Of course, this is not the case.
The political class is well suited to exploit the political sentiments of the citizens and their latent fears. Another way to keep doing the same thing is to say populism. Of course, just as there is a difference between apples and oranges, so too does populism appear to be in different forms. That is why it is useless in a sense to compare the leaders who make popular decisions with each other. That is why they should be compared in one place.
Right-wing populists
The most common feature of populism is to create a situation where there is a direct rift among the voters or to create some degree of confusion. Now, if we look at right-wing populist political leaders, it seems that we are fighting for the social rights of those who call themselves nationalists or patriots, especially at the societal level, who can be said to have infiltrated immigrant, foreign or intergovernmental organizations. These leaders are trying to impress. And these leaders continue to work with the intention that our supporters will continue to grow around us on such issues. In such an approach, in economic and socio-political terms, Efforts are constantly being made to emphasize that local, domestic and foreign enemies are a threat to national security and unity. Getting out of this fear, and giving priority to the country and its citizens, is the favorite activity of such populists.
Campaigns run by Donald Trump and Nigel Farage include "Make America Great Again" and "Leave". We also need to think about what these campaigns look like. Through these campaigns, both of them have come up with a definition of who is a national citizen according to their ideology. Refugees, immigrants, and those who may be called foreigners are clearly excluded from this definition.
Leaders who are inclined to such an ideology are consistently claiming that those who consider themselves "citizens" need to be represented. Importantly, some people are accusing a certain political class of supporting so-called third groups, such as refugees, Islamists, and African Americans. It is a picture of right-leaning people taking action against such accusers. Apart from this, in order for something to happen according to our ideology, the speeches and statements of such leaders consistently refer to "the nation first in any situation" along with the established elites / authorities / thinkers.
Leaders with such tendencies constantly pretend to have ethics in their motives and actions, and thus have a profound effect on one's conscience. Because of this, people's emotions are manipulated, and they begin to feel that such leaders are their savior. They begin to worship such leaders as if they were worshiping a god. Thus the morality of an ideology or a leader begins to form, then certain groups of voters begin to form, and people begin to vote unanimously to support only the political ideology they like, without any logic.
Of course, populism leaning towards such right-wing ideologies also seems to take different forms. In the United States, for example, the support given to populist leaders is not because of such leaders, but because of their anti-refugee policies. On the other hand, if we think of India, it seems that people who believe that we are religious / ethnic and nationalist or patriotic / ethnic in India have opened a big front against the corruption of the establishment. Of course the differences were more intense. Given its broader nature, all of this had an anti-nationalist and anti-establishment edge, and the notion that we wanted our "true" representation beyond that was an important feature of this whole opposition.
The path of left-wing populists
Now, on the other hand, the left-leaning populists seem to be opposed mainly to the economically dominant or dominant establishment. The reason for this is that such establishments continue to exploit the majority of the poor, and thus themselves remain at the center of power forever. Globalization is one of the main reasons why such leaders are getting richer and richer. Based on this principle, they touch on the sentiments of the people, and demand a policy in the national interest, in which more and more demands will be an obstacle to the economic process. It is worth noting that the left-leaning historian Michael Cousin made a point. He says, “To bring people together, demolish the level or specific class, not confined to such a mold of personal interest, a common vision or common interest should be valued. At the same time, the common people who are opposed to the establishment, see such establishment only as selfish and anti-democratic. And at the same time unite the former to fight against the latter. ”
Left-leaning populist leaders take the side of those who oppose the establishment or a system. Their politics tends to move in a vertical line, with the people at the bottom and the middle position opposing the people at the top. They are constantly struggling with the systems, and their demands are in a form that can be said to be generally impractical. An important point to note here is that not taking certain things into account is a feature not only of right-wing ideologues but also of left-wing populists. Left-leaning populists do not integrate or place in their political process not only the people, but also many areas related to the services of neo-liberal cooperation globally within the established institutions.
Verne Sanders, a senator from the Vermont region of the United States and a presidential aspirant, made a statement that was about to "overthrow the big bank." He had said that the big banks that have created a cloud of crisis in the lives of the working class in the United States in the form of educational loans, artificially created chauvinism and economic recession should be uprooted. More importantly, as with the Torres and Labor parties in the UK, the Republicans and Democrats in the United States have lost much of their mass base because of their tacit consent to the demands of the economic capitalists. In fact, it is because of this that the populists are showing through their statements or speeches the hope that we will have a better future by fighting against the exploitation of the global corporate sector.
At the local level, however, supporters of populism abroad
Given the current situation, left-wing and right-wing policies, as well as the growing tendency in liberal democracies around the world to downplay the grievances of citizens, have made populism an effective means of meeting the demands of the people. However, it should be noted here that populist leaders who place more importance on localism, when they come to the international arena, also behave as if they are globalists.
In many bilateral or multilateral programs, they openly express their desire for more foreign trade and investment in their respective countries. Because they know that it can really boost the economy of the country, and benefit the citizens of the country.
Leaders like Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan constantly raise questions against their known enemies at the local level, and take advantage of the strong feelings in people's minds about it. For example, both Modi and Erdogan want S-400 missiles from Russia. Both want important positions in the nuclear supplier group, as well as in the European Union. Similarly, populist leaders in countries such as Hungary, Italy and Austria have staged rallies and demonstrations in their respective countries to protest against the European Union's policy on foreign nationals or immigration. Opposed. However, at the same time, all these countries are unhesitatingly benefiting from the open and free market provided by the European Union. In a sense, why did they all come to power once.
The important and funny thing to note about the changes that take place in such populist regimes is that these leaders follow in the footsteps of the decisions they make when they come to power, and how these decisions are made to fulfill the promises that the people have made to them. They also prove that they are necessary. In fact, these populist leaders do not want to go completely against the prevailing global equations. They want to come to power only on imaginary temporary events, with the politics of giving importance to localism. Of course, these leaders then make some decisions with "so-called citizens" at the center, which could jeopardize the socio-economic fabric of society. However, this matter is either very secondary in such decisions or is deliberately ignored. Importantly, even if such policies or decisions are unfortunate,
It would not be fair to conclude that populism is an ideology created by the media, or that political leaders or parties have imposed it "on the people" outright. On the other hand, we have to see that, in fact, populism depends on the social status of the people, which in turn contributes to many events that determine who is a "citizen" and to demonstrations in the form of rallies against the establishment. However, in order to understand why democracies around the world are moving in the direction of such populist ideology, one must also understand how dangerous the state of political principles has been in recent times.
The 21st century will be the century of growth of populist politics. It will also be a reference for many thinkers or scholars, as well as for many who are pursuing a career in the political arena, to understand how the various manifestations of this populist ideology have spread around the world.
Post a Comment