The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation

by Benjamin Moffitt

Once seen as a fringe phenomenon, populism is back. While some politicians and media outlets present it as dangerous to the U.S., Europe, and Latin America, others hail it as the fix for broken democracies. Not surprisingly, questions about populism abound. Does it really threaten democracy? Why the sudden rise in populism? And what are we talking about when we talk about "populism"? The Global Rise of Populism argues for the need to rethink this concept. While still based on the classic divide between "the people" and "the elite," populism's reliance on new media technologies, its shifting relationship to political representation, and its increasing ubiquity have seen it transform in nuanced ways that demand explaining. Benjamin Moffitt contends that populism is not one entity, but a political style that is performed, embodied, and enacted across different political and cultural contexts. This new understanding makes sense of populism in a time when media pervades political life, a sense of crisis prevails, and populism has gone truly global.

Genres: Politics, Political Science, Nonfiction

240 pages, Paperback

Published September 5, 2017

Reviews

[Mayim de Vries · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have read books that claimed many different things about populism.

Some authors viewed it as a technique, others as opportunist strategy or ideology (Populism) albeit sometimes “thin-centered” (Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe), or associated with “accompanying properties” (Populist Parties in Europe: Agents of Discontent?) such as political discourse (rhetoric), or culture e.g. politics of protest or politics of resentment, (for details check Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe, not that I recommend it), political syndrome or even a pathology in the system (proposed by Paul Taggart in Democracies and the Populist Challenge) or its structural ambiguity.

Moffitt wants to be original so he proposes to look at populism in terms of specific type of political style. Pffft.

Frankly speaking, the question of representation is far more interesting.

In essence populism is a promise to make democracy great again. Democracy’s fundamental elitism tries to hide that the people’s contribution to the system is little more than the participation in the selection of their rulers. Connected with the heart of democracy – the rule of the people - is the question of representation. Perhaps it can be said that the assorted strands of populism have one in common: the claim that the ruling elite has lost contact with its electorate. After all, division between ‘the people’ and ‘the elite’ is what populists thrive on and enables identifying populist actors.

Populists are not against politics as such, but against representative politics. While populism is more negative for democracy in terms of public contestation, it remains somewhat positive in terms of political participation. On the other hand, the issue of representation remains caught between the two opposing poles as politicians increasingly face tension between their roles as political representatives and responsible agents. Eventually, populist initiatives aimed at strengthening the position of the people against the elites that represent them in a bad way (or sometimes not at all) introduces the ochlocratic element in politics and change "democracy" into "democrature" – dictatorship of the masses.

[Reading · Rating 4 out of 5]

1. Introduction

2. Since its beginning in US and Russia, the concept of populism has covered a wide range of activities. Populism is referred to as discourse (a thin-cantered ideology), but there are conflicts in its definition.

3. The author holds that populism is a political style, a type of performance rather than its contents.

4. The populist is the performer of this show. The focus on populism should be shifted to how the populists perform, from what they contest.

5. The media and the populist is a good marriage. In particular that the modern media (TV, Internet) fit very well into the populism settings.

6. The show has to have buy-ins from the audiences. Audiences should accept the performance (not its contents), and they should be “touched” by the populist actors, and the audience is not limited to those who supports populism (the people).

7. In this show, often plots of crisis are played out. 1) the crisis is a performed one through media;2) it is triggered by an external event, but is echoed by something internal;3)the crisis helps in define “the people”, as well as the enemy (often the “elite”);4) there is an empirical model of the performance in crises-playing; 5) a performances crisis is not crisis politics.

8. There is debate on whether populism is, or is not democracy. There is also debate on whether populism improves, or disproves democracy. It is however noticeable that democracy can also be a style. In this regard, the relationship between populism and democracy is complex.

9. To conclude, populism is not a problem, an illness, or an disease to democracy. It is merely a performance style. It fits very well in the contemporary mediation settings of politics. It will stay and prevail.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Moffitt is a simple mind inhabiting a simple world. Democracy that he does not condone is Populism and Populism he likes is Democracy. Here are 200 pages in which he tries to draw some lines in the sand.

[David Chappell · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book describing the key features of populism as a political style. Moffit's conception of populism as a political style is interesting if not without its flaws. He looks for unifying features from 52 politicians that are generally viewed as populist. This creates a comprehensive picture of how populists perform and achieve success. It also creates a flexible definition that can easily be applied to different contexts. But, the downside of this is that it doesn't provide clear boundaries of what is or is not a populist. Most of Moffit's descriptions either lack clarity or can be used to describe the behaviour of non-populists. As a result, Moffit's descriptions of populist behaviours are perhaps more accurate than others, but not as useful. Still, I'm glad I read this book, as it helped me to better grapple with the slippery concept that is populism.

[Marcin Jezewski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good read and interesting perspective of populism as a style

[Ben Brostrom · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this about a year ago and I couldn't tell you anything about its contents that differentiated it from any other research on populism. Maybe it's just integral to the field?

[Muhammad Farrag · Rating 5 out of 5]

Original, well structured, every organized, easy to follow.

[sheisreadingagain]

glad it's over

[Benji · Rating 4 out of 5]

In democracy power is not occupied by a king, a party leader, an egocrat or a Führer, rather it is ultimately empty; no one hold the place of power. Democracy entails a disincorporation of the body politic, which begins with a literal or metaphorical act of decapitation. Populism, then, can be read as an attempt to re-embody the body politic, to suture the head back on the corpse (after performing a frontal lobotomy), and provide unity in the name of the people through the leader.

Off with their heads !!

Joking aside, this is an informative, nuanced perspective on populism. It's here to stay, and a matter of degree, incorporating democratic and antidemocratic tendencies with crisis as an internal feature.
A fruitful line of future research would consist of scoring politicians' political style. This would probably show it's widely dispersed across the entire ideological spectrum, even among the ones we least suspect, just think of e.g. highly educated politicians confessing their guilty (aesthetical) pleasures.