Ever since the double disasters of 2016 — the UK’s Brexit referendum and US President Donald Trump’s election — there has been widespread anxiety about a “global wave” of populism and hand-wringing over the follies of so-called direct democracy.
In the UK, the electorate was asked to answer an overly simplistic in-or-out question; in the US, the 2016 US Republican Party primaries were handed over to irresponsible voters and radical activists.
Since then, there have been calls to re-empower the “gatekeepers,” which is a polite way of saying that the unwashed masses should be kept as far away from political decisionmaking as possible.
Yet, this liberal impulse reflects a misreading of recent history: It was elites, not the masses, who enabled Brexit and Trump. Moreover, an unashamedly elitist disdain for direct democracy not only confirms populist rhetoric, but also ignores that referendums can be highly effective weapons against populists.
Trump and Brexit agitators like Nigel Farage do not owe their victories to some fatal flaw in direct democracy, but rather to the elites who collaborated with them along the way. British conservative leaders might have held their noses at Farage, but many ultimately deemed his case for Brexit to be sound, just as the Republican establishment granted Trump its formal imprimatur.
Yes, millions of British voters would go on to vote for “Leave” and millions of Americans voted for a manifestly unqualified presidential candidate.
However, that is partly because they had been assured by familiar figures like now-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and former US speaker of the house Newt Gingrich that they were doing the right thing.
Moreover, party elites did not just give populists their stamp of approval, they also abdicated their own responsibility for formulating coherent policy platforms. The Brexit referendum was a direct result of Conservative leaders’ inability to come to a collective, binding decision on the question of EU membership. The Republican Party effectively outsourced its candidate selection process to private cable TV stations, whose main concern is attracting viewers.
Still, are liberals on to something when they allege a deeper connection between populism and direct democracy? After all, populist politicians usually try to establish a direct link between themselves and the citizenry, cutting out traditional political parties and, when possible, professional journalists.
A figure like Beppe Grillo, the founder of Italy’s Five-Star Movement, invariably criticizes established politicians and traditional media in the same breath. All populists claim to have unique knowledge of the “real people” and their will, and promise to serve as their “voice.”
This claim is entirely theoretical: both “the people” and “the voice” are merely symbolic constructions. In practice, no one except the populist leader actually needs to speak.
A referendum, then, has a very particular meaning for populists. Having already constructed the “real people,” the answer to any question about the people’s will is known in advance. Thus, for populists, the role of “the people” is completely passive. They need only check the right box to confirm what the populists have already been saying.
However, that is only one conception of direct democracy. Another approach views a referendum as one point in a broader and, above all, open-ended process of deliberation, wherein citizens weigh different claims — and the evidence for and against them — before eventually coming to a decision. Rather than playing into populists’ hands by re-empowering gatekeepers, it should be asked how referendums could be made to serve their proper democratic function.
Of course, some have said that the damage is already done, at least in countries like Hungary, Turkey and Poland, where populists have used elections, and sometimes highly manipulative “national consultations,” to consolidate their power.
Social scientists are only just beginning to grapple with the question of how authoritarian populist regimes can be transformed back into proper democracies. New strategies are needed for confronting what has variously been called “democratic backsliding,” “constitutional retrogression” and “autocratization.”
One idea is to focus on the fact that many authoritarian populist governments benefit from a highly divided opposition, which is sometimes the result of conscious engineering by the populists themselves. A divided opposition has more difficulty forming coalitions and selecting the best possible candidate for challenging entrenched populists — because every party wants its own champion in the mix.
Consider the tortured discussions surrounding Hungary’s parliamentary election last year. After debating whether the far-right Jobbik party should — or even could — ally with the liberal left, the opposition parties remained largely separate and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz-KDNP alliance took 133 of 199 parliamentary seats.
Needless to say, forming a coalition of the far right and the left is highly problematic, but another problem is that even if voters want a change in government, they might be reluctant to engage in tactical voting that could yield an equally bad or even worse alternative. Hungarian liberals can hardly be blamed for refusing to cast their votes for a Jobbik candidate.
Referendums offer one way out of this dilemma, owing to their binary structure. Although they often bring together unusual coalitions, that scarcely matters to the individual voter. Once the referendum is over, the purpose of the coalition has been served.
Even better, referendums could be crafted in such a way as to expose the unpopularity of a populist government, thereby undermining its claim to represent the will of the people.
Understanding the truly democratic potential of referendums, some authoritarian populist governments — in Hungary, for example — have made genuine bottom-up initiatives more difficult. It might seem contrary to conventional wisdom, but direct democracy could work against populism.
There is no guarantee that such a strategy will succeed in any given context, but it is better than just waiting for salvation from the gatekeepers.
Jan-Werner Mueller is a professor of politics at Princeton University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations