Populism Politics in the Current Situation

as an Object of Political Analysis

Post-Democracy and Web Populism

Nubar Gurbanova

, Ulviyya Khalilova

, Rungthum Rangsikul

Faculty of Social and Political Studies, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

The Institute of History named after A.Bakikhanov, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan

Faculty of Humanities, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Keywords: populism, digital media, illiberal democracy, post-democracy, web populism, political transformation.

Abstract: In the modern environment, characterised by inconsistency and instability, there is a deep crisis in the socio-

economic, political and constitutional-legal spheres, and the phenomenon of populism has become

widespread in our society. The current political situation and the development trend in the US, Europe and

many developing countries can generally be described as a "crisis of leaders". This phenomenon brings

great uncertainty both in domestic and international politics. Modern liberal democracies are not able to

provide citizens with full access to participation in political life: that is why the grey electoral zone is

growing every year, and populist movements and leaders come to power in a number of countries. This

article is devoted to the phenomenon of contemporary populism. Attempts at its conceptualisation give rise

to a contradiction: populism is often described as a phenomenon which is completely ineradicable, but

marginal, receding when the situation is normalised; and at the same time, in discourses that interpret

modernity in the categories of post-politics, postmodernism, post-democracy, post-ideology, etc., populism

appears as a system-forming element of the modern political field. Recent situations in Turkey, Russia and

Myanmar were taken as a case for the paper. The aim of this article is to find answers to the following

questions: What does this concept mean and why does populism act as an impeding factor in the

development of democracy? What measures exist to minimise these political means that are dangerous for

today's reforms?

1 INTRODUCTION

The current political situation and the development

trend in the US, Europe (Mudde and Kaltwasser,

2012) and many developing countries can generally

be described as a "crisis of leaders". This

phenomenon introduces huge uncertainty both in

domestic and in international politics.

When it comes to populism, media and

commentators often suffer from historical myopia,

seeing in the emergence of populist politicians a

specific feature of the post-truth era. In fact,

populism as a phenomenon goes back deeper than

the recent political campaigns of Putin and Erdogan.

Turning to the technological characteristics of

modern populism, it should be noted that it is often

called web-populism, since its successes are largely

based on internet technologies and, first of all, on

working with the social network. Successful web-

populism understands the network not as a new

media, but as a technologically new way of

disseminating information, similar to newspapers

and agitation, but only on the internet. The network

is a set of horizontal interactions between people.

The internet becomes only a means of facilitating

communication between them.

In the 1990s, there was an increase in the

discontented migration and globalisation of right-

wing populists in France, Germany and Italy. Brian

Fishman, the Yale University researcher,

convincingly proves that jihadist movements in

general and the “Islamic State of Syria and Iraq” in

particular are forms of populism in the Islamic

world.

So, populism has acquired a truly global

character, which proves the political success of such

figures as Polina Henson in Australia, Rodrigo

Duterte in the Philippines, Recep Erdogan in

Gurbanova, N., Khalilova, U. and Rangsikul, R.

Populism Politics in the Current Situation as an Object of Political Analysis.

DOI: 10.5220/0008816400370041

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs (ICoCSPA 2018), pages 37-41

ISBN: 978-989-758-393-3

Turkey, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, or Vladimir Putin

in Russia. This means that the challenges faced by

these states, namely, the unjustified expectations of

the population, the demand for simplified solutions,

the expectations of paternalistic actions from the

state, the demagogy of irresponsible politicians and

the gap between the demands of citizens and the real

capabilities of the state – these challenges are not

unique. This state of affairs is also good news,

because the solution is being sought in Washington,

Buenos Aires and Manila. On the other hand, the

global nature of populism may portend the crisis of

the world political system to which we are

accustomed.

The varieties of populism are quite clearly

defined: right and left, political and economic. The

fundamental difference of right and left populism is

the image of the enemy. The enemy of right-wing

populism is the “immigrant”, “alien”, and “other”

(Schäfer and Streeck, 2013). The enemy of left

populism is the “world of capital”, “oligarchy”,

“banks”. But they both agree on one thing: officials

have moved away from the people and do not

represent the interests of society.

Recent situations in Turkey, Russia and

Myanmar were taken as a case for the paper.

Content analysis was used as a method in order to

enrich the discussion. The aim of the article is to

find answers to the following questions: What does

this concept mean and why does populism act as an

impeding factor in the development of democracy?

What measures exist to minimise these political

means that are dangerous for today's reforms?

2 DISCUSSION

2.1 Populism and Media

Populism (from the Latin populus – the people) is a

political stance or style of rhetoric appealing to the

masses of the people. Politicians and public figures

are obliged to appeal to the masses, because the

people are the source of the legitimacy of any

government.

However, the term has acquired a clearly

negative connotation, because, in most cases, it is

just about cheap, reduction populism when we are

dealing with unrealistic promises or overly

emotional PR-reasons on which politicians want to

raise their rating. It is worthwhile to understand that

such populism is certainly dangerous, but it has been

and always will be (Mudde, 2004). Therefore, it is

more important not to strive to eradicate it, but,

remaining within the framework of a public

consensus, to change it towards progress.

The ideological morphology of populism is quite

simple. The core of the ideology consists of four

coherent theses:

 In any organized community there are

"people" and elites;

 They are in a state of irreconcilable

antagonism between themselves;

 The people have the right to sovereignty;

 The people are the bearer of all social virtues,

therefore it is necessary to listen to its

thoughts and aspirations.

Semantic primitiveness and morphological

simplicity allow populism to adapt to the problems

and demands of a particular society, because any

social problems and troubles can be explained as the

result of a “conspiracy of greedy elites” but rather

solved by a simple “return of power to the hands of

an industrious and honest people”. Due to its ability

to adapt, it seems that populism can be “right”,

“left”, “religious”, etc. In fact, this ideology is only a

“collection of empty symbols”.

As shown in the book with the eloquent title

How Democracies Die by Levitsky and Ziblatt

(2018), when populists win elections, they often

paralyse the activities of democratic institutions and

try (consciously or not) to establish an authoritarian

regime. For example, of the five populists who won

the presidential elections in Latin America (Evo

Morales, Rafael Correa, Alberto Fujimori, Lucio

Gutierrez and Hugo Chavez), each significantly

weakened democratic institutions (Levitsky and

Roberts, 2013). This applies to R. Erdogan in

Turkey and V. Putin in Russia, that is, the “drift

towards authoritarianism” caused by the political

victory of the populists, which does not depend on

the cultural or historical context. As noted by Burton

and Higley, historical events show that when the

regime faces various crisis phenomena and

processes, the elites tend to begin to change

institutions in radical ways (Burton and Higley,

1998). This is especially evident in the last few

years, when the authorities of many transitional

political regimes are trying to strengthen control

over new media.

Specifics of the functioning of the media in

transitional regimes can be considered through the

concept of Bryant and Thompson (2004), who

develop Laswell's idea that the mass media perform

three main functions in society: observing the

external environment, linking fragments of the

external environment, transferring social norms and

regulations. The authors offer several models of

media impact on the audience: transactional,

expectations-estimates, use and dependence (Bryant

and Thompson, 2004, p. 149).

ICoCSPA 2018 - International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs

The instrumental nature of populism determines

the appeal to the values and traditions of the masses,

the simplification of the language, anti-elitist and

people-centered demagogy, that is, populism is one

of the driving forces for the formation of the

electoral behaviour of voters. This is an important

variable in describing specific models of populism is

the political culture of society, whereby, in terms of

Almond and Verba (1965), a participatory

subculture is developed, voters are more demanding

of their own influence on politics and more

stringently ask parties to fulfil election promises.

According to the American expert on populism

John Judis, speaking on behalf of the people against

corrupt elites is a typical example of left populism,

which is vertical in a way – the struggle of the lower

classes with the political elite, while right populism

is more like a triangle – the struggle of the lower

classes with the elites and another “parasitic” group,

which the elites allegedly “condone” (Judis, 2016).

2.2 Myanmar and Rohingya

Perhaps most clearly the price of the refusal to

counter the populist offensive on human rights

manifested itself in Burma. The growth of rabid

nationalist rhetoric by Buddhist extremists, high-

ranking military and individual members of the civil

government created the prerequisites for ethnic

cleansing against the Rohingya Muslims

(Rohingya), which was motivated by the attacks of

militants on security forces. The military operation

launched by the army resulted in massacre, mass

rape and arson in at least 340 villages. More than

640 thousand people fled to neighbouring

Bangladesh in order to save their lives. These are the

same crimes that the international community once

promised it would no longer tolerate.

The victory of democracy party that promote the

unity between minority and majority seem to be

populism activity because the new form of racism

was built against the Muslim minority especially the

Rohingya people. The campaign for democracy and

standing against ethnic conflict from NLD have

gathered minority and majority who are belong to

the similar identities as Buddhist. However, the

majority consider the Rohingya to be foreigners and

a danger to national identity (Buddhism), therefore

the Rohingya become the victims of racism under

the counter racism policy of the NLD against the

minority.

Aung San Suu Kyii, the founder and chairperson

of NLD, said “I don’t think there is ethnic cleansing

going on. I think ethnic cleansing is too strong an

expression to use for what is happening” (bbc.com,

2017). This is contrary to what was happening in

Arakan state and she refused to use the term

Rohingya in her speech in order to hide the fact. The

researcher assumed that she intended to promote a

counter ethnic conflict issue between the people of

Myanmar; on the other hand, facts regarding human

rights abuses and genocide have always been

revealed by the media and NGO organisations.

The researcher can conclude that the Rohingya

issue has never been discussed in the populist

shadow of the NLD. The figurehead of the party,

Aung San Suu Kyii in this case, seemed to avoid the

issue and distance herself from the problem to

maintain her majority popular vote.

2.3 Russia and Putin

Putin was the first to discover a breach in modern

liberal-democratic regimes: one can enjoy broad

popular support and at the same time act with

impunity in an authoritarian way, handing out empty

promises and using the political shortsightedness

and irresponsibility of the masses. According to this

theory, a new generation of populists is simply

trying to use Putin's recipe to undermine the

foundations of Western democracy.

The reasons for expressing mass discontent were

quite “legitimate”: the manipulation of the

constitution for the transfer of the presidential post

(“castling” of Putin and Medvedev), rigging

elections in 2011, abuse of power by high-ranking

officials, etc.

A separate line of unkind words, of course,

refers to state-controlled media, including federal

television channels and even such exotic things as a

“troll factory”. Unfortunately, however, all this also

does not explain the permanent electoral success of

the regime. First of all, it is possible to effectively

deceive only those who are deceived themselves.

Where a more powerful Soviet propaganda machine

did not save the Soviet Union from collapse, the first

approach to which was the election of allied

deputies.

It is necessary to distinguish between the

keynote of Putin's policy and its arrangement.

Repression, propaganda, falsification – all this is

secondary. The primary combination of three chords

is militarism, archaism and left populism. This is the

melody that the people want to hear today, and they

are not happy with anything else. Putin has learned

to perform political symphonies of any complexity

in a masterly way with the help of these three

chords. All this became possible only because Putin

managed to reformat the people “for themselves”

before the 14th year, that is, before the counter-

revolutionary coup. He crushed and subjugated the

elites, turning them into an appendage of state power

(novayagazeta.ru, 2018).

Populism Politics in the Current Situation as an Object of Political Analysis

Even before the “Russian spring”, the elites

ceased to play any independent political role in

Russia. This gave Putin the opportunity to “short-

circuit” his power “directly” to the “masses”. There

was a link between the leader and the masses, which

is now almost impossible to open. In this direct

communication of the leader with the masses –

bypassing the elite –lies, today, the main secret of

the stability of the regime, which explains, among

other things, record high voting figures for Putin and

record low voting figures for his opponents in the

March, 2018 elections.

Militaristic ethics always competed with liberal

ones. In Russia, one can say, there is a struggle

between militaristic ethics and the remnants of

liberalism.

2.4 Erdogan in Turkey

The presidential elections in Turkey ended in the

victory of R.T. Erdogan, and all the forecasts for a

possible second round were untenable even before

all the votes were counted. Immediately after the

announcement of the results, June 25, the new-old

ruler of Turkey said that his victory was “the victory

of the Turkish people, all oppressed in our region

and all oppressed in the world” (vesty.co.il).

The victory of Erdogan was the final stage of the

long reform carried out by the Turkish leader for

many years. He managed to gradually concentrate in

his hands such a volume of power, that foreign

analysts started talking about almost the beginning

of a dictatorship.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan turned Turkey into a

presidential republic, cutting down the powers of

parliament and subjugating the government and the

army. The post of prime minister will be abolished,

and the appointment of cabinet members will

become the prerogative of the president.

Populism began to occupy more and more places

in Erdogan's agitation. The latest example was the

readiness prepared by the president after the

elections to consider the possibility of abolishing the

state of emergency in the country (tass.ru, 2018).

Opponents and critics of Erdogan are convinced

that he has concentrated too much power in his

hands and almost abolished the system of checks

and balances that can support the democratic balance

in the state.

As for foreign policy, many observers are also

not inclined to optimistic forecasts. Most likely,

Erdogan will continue the populist course, which

strengthens the position of Islamists; the issue of

closer interaction with the EU will also not have

priority on his agenda. His pro-Palestinian stance

and Erdogan's populist rhetoric are well known to

Israeli diplomats. Relations between the two

countries, for a long time, have been at a level close

to crisis.

The collective West is certainly dissatisfied with

the haste of the Turkish leadership. For the EU and

the US, Erdogan's Turkey – a mixture of

nationalism, Islamism, pan-Turkism, an emphasis on

sovereignty, Islamic populism and, finally, anti-

Western behaviour – is absolutely unacceptable

(ria.ru, 2018).

3 CONCLUSION

As the well-known British Sociologist, Z. Bauman,

noted “Populism offers unrealistic methods for

solving real problems. The danger of populism in the

disregard of the rules of democratic play, the

reduction of politics to the struggle between good

and evil” (Bauman, 2008, p. 211).

In our days both in developed and developing

countries there is clearly a tendency for politicians to

rise from social movements. Of course, this is not a

new phenomenon. With each crisis, various social

movements have emerged in democracy, and always

a populist politician has emerged from such

movements. Right-wing and left-wing populists are

everywhere today. On the one hand, they create new

conditions for new politicians, including heads of

state; on the other hand, they introduce huge

uncertainty.

REFERENCES

Almond, G., Verba, S., 1965. The Civic Culture: Political

Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bauman, Z., 2008. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

p.211

Bryant, J., Thompson, S., 2004. Fundamentals of media

effects. Boston, Mass: McGraw-Hill. p.149

Burton, M., Higley, J., 1998. Political Crises and Elite

Settlements // Elites, crises, and the origins of regimes

/ Dogan, M. & Higley, J. (Eds.). NY.

Judis, J.B., 2016. The Populist Explosion. New York:

Columbia Global Reports. p.182

Levitsky, S., Ziblatt, D., 2018. How Democracies Die.

New York: Grown.

Levitsky, S., Roberts, K. M., 2013. The resurgence of the

Latin American left. JHU Press.

Mudde, C., 2004. The populist zeitgeist. Government and

Opposition, 39(4), 542–563.

Mudde, C., Kaltwasser, C. R., 2012. Populism in Europe

and the Americas: Threat or corrective for

democracy? Cambridge University Press.

Schäfer, A., and Streeck, W., 2013. Politics in the Age of

Austerity. Polity Press.

ICoCSPA 2018 - International Conference on Contemporary Social and Political Affairs

Aung San Suu Kyi: No ethnic cleansing of Myanmar

Muslim minority, 2017.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39507350

Популизм и российское общество: корни,

особенности, перспективы (Populism and Russian

society: roots, features, perspectives), 2018.

http://gefter.ru/archive/24585

Три президентские карты (Three presidential cards),

2018.

https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/03/24/7592

9-tri-prezidentskie-karty

О связи Трампа с Путиным и правом популизме (On

the connection between Trump and Putin and the right

of populism), 2017.

https://khodorkovsky.ru/mbh/press/bbc_populism/

Султанат досрочно: зачем Эрдоган зовет турок на

избирательные участки (Sultanate ahead of schedule:

why does Erdogan call Turks to polling stations),

2018.

https://ria.ru/analytics/20180421/1519095367.html

Кто может помешать Эрдогану провести блицкриг

(Who can prevent Erdogan from conducting a

blickrig?), 2018. http://tass.ru/opinions/5292728

Populism Politics in the Current Situation as an Object of Political Analysis