In the last decade, populism has moved from a marginal site in the public discourse to an influential orientation in economic and political policies in a number of countries, driven by the decline in confidence in international institutions and the increasing feelings of frustration among sectors of citizens.
Populism is no longer a subject of academic discussion, but rather a real phenomenon that reformulates many national priorities, starting with public budgets, passing through taxes and spending, and reaching trade issues and economic sovereignty.
With the rise of this current, populism played a growing role in directing economic discussions, based on a simple speech and direct promises that interact with people’s daily concerns. Can it be considered a new international path? Or does it reflect a deeper defect that requires careful treatment?
This article raises fundamental questions:
- What is populist?
- What distinguishes her speech?
- How do you affect economic policies? and
- Do you represent a legitimate expression of the aspirations of peoples, or do they involve dangers that affect stability and institutions?
Definition of populism and its content
Populism is not an organized political ideology, but rather a method of thinking and discourse, based on depicting society as if it is divided into the “real people” on the one hand, and “political and economic classes” on the other hand, which is seen as far from the concerns of people.
In this context, the populist leaders themselves as direct representatives of the will of the people, and they are giving them a stronger voice, using great promises and a simple speech that touches the feelings of frustration with many people, and raises the ceiling of expectations towards a better future.
This speech often appears when confidence in political elites decreases, so people search for those who address them clearly and promise them to a rapid change.
Populism does not belong to a specific political stream, but it can be issued by any direction that sees itself closer to people and is able to represent them. It often appears as a reaction to the demands that have been ignored, and seeks to restore what you see as a missing voice for the people. For this reason, populism is described as a “flexible political style”, more than an integrated political thought.
How did populism evolve throughout history?
Populism began in the 19th century as protest movements against economic elites and political classes, especially among farmers. Then it turned into political currents speaking in the name of the “real people” in the face of those who are seen as representatives of the elite.
In the twentieth century, populist leaders emerged that mixed national discourse and social policies, with great dependence on individual leadership. It fell after the Second World War, but it returned in the eighties with the escalation of globalization and economic austerity.
The reasons for its rise in the modern era
The rise of populism in recent years was not surprising, but rather the result of the accumulation of crises directly that affected people’s lives. Many countries faced economic difficulties, were involved in political and military conflicts, as well as affected by major crises such as the global financial crisis in 2008.
These factors affected people’s income, and reduced job opportunities, especially for medium and poor groups.
On the other hand, the international system that is supposed to help solve crises seemed to be absent or unable to interfere effectively. Rather, many have seen part of the problem, not from the solution.
Over time, other problems such as corruption, decline in services, and inequality have been exacerbated. In the face of all this, many citizens felt that their voice was unheard. Here, populism came as an alternative option, because it addresses people in their language, and promises them with answers close to their urgent questions, even if these promises are not always realistic.
The language used by populist discourse
The populist discourse depends on a simple, easy -to -understand language, far from the complexity and elite terms. Society is often divided into “ordinary people” on the one hand, and “other parties” that are said to not understand or do not represent them.
Popular leaders speak in a language close to the street, and use direct and attractive slogans such as: “We first”, “restoring dignity”, or “the people are the one who decides.”
This discourse focuses on feelings of frustration or anger from the existing situation, or nostalgia to a better past. The populist leader is presented as a different person from traditional politicians, closer to people and understands them more.
Often, this discourse is offensive, and holds the responsibility of crises to specific parties, such as politicians, media, or even external parties. It also raises the ceiling of expectations through rapid and large promises, but it often lacks a clear implementation plan.
In short, the populist discourse attracts people through its simplicity and emotional influence, but in return it may simplify the problems too much, and marginalize in -depth discussions about real solutions.
How do populism view the economy?
Populism believes that the economy must serve the ordinary citizen first, not major companies or global markets. Therefore, traditional policies refuse and offer simple promises such as tax cuts, wage raising, poor support, and price reduction.
These procedures are rapidly popular, but they may exhaust the state budget and increase the deficit if they are not carried out with caution.
It is preferable to protect local products by imposing fees on imports and encouraging the national industry, which satisfies people, but it may lead to high prices and decline in competition and investment.
Responsibility also questions independent financial institutions such as central banks and calls for “restoring economic control” with internal decisions away from external influence.
Simply put, populism uses the economy to gain popular support, but it often neglects accurate financial balances, making their long -term risky policies.
The difference between right -wing populism and left -wing populism in the economy
Populism differs in its economic orientation according to the political position:
- Right populism He focuses on nationalism, that is, giving priority to the benefit of the state and citizens, and calls for the protection of local industries to impose taxes on imported goods, refuse immigration to protect the labor market, and contradict international agreements that restrict freedom of economic decision. Contrary to the traditional right -wing currents that secure the freedom of the market, right -wing populism does not mind the state’s intervention to protect the national economy.
- Left populism It aims to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, and calls for higher taxes on the wealthy and major companies, and to increase spending on public services such as health and education. Globalization is criticized, because it sees that it serves large companies and neglects the weak classes.
Despite this difference, the two slots are similar in using a simplified emotional speech and raising quick policies to gain popular support. These policies may seem attractive in the short term, but they often lack sustainability, and lead to poor confidence in state institutions and the creation of long -term economic turmoil.
What is the effect of populism on economics and politics?
Populism is a phenomenon with a double impact on the economy and politics. On the one hand, it highlights real crises that citizens suffer, such as poverty and decline in services, and the existing systems are pushing to review their policies and respond to the street.
On the other hand, it depends on rapid promises that may lack study, such as lowering taxes or excessive spending, which leads to financial deficit and fluctuation in the investment environment.
The populist discourse, which often doubts in state institutions, weakens confidence in it. Therefore, the continuation of populism without an economic and institutional balance exposes public stability to a real danger in the long run.
What are the positive aspects that may accompany populism?
Despite the political and economic dangers that populism carries, it has some positive effects in certain cases:
- It sometimes contributes to drawing attention to real issues that people suffer, such as poverty, unemployment, and the decline in the quality of public services, and these problems often have been neglected by governments.
- Responsibility also pushes some governments to review their policies and interact with the demands of citizens, which helps to break the political stagnation and stimulate change.
- Thanks to its direct and simple language, populism encourages people to take care of public affairs and political participation, even if this is accompanied by a bit of division within society.
In short, populism can be considered, in some contexts, a message of protest from marginalized groups calling for a more just economic system, and the door may open for real reforms if it is confronted with responsibility and political calm.
But despite these positive aspects, populism is not without serious negative effects, especially on the long term, which we will discuss in the next paragraph.
The negative effects of popularity on the economy
- Weakening the independence of institutions: Popular governments sometimes interfere in the work of central banks and financial institutions, which weakens their credibility and increases the dangers of economic fluctuations and eroding the value of the currency.
- budget deficit: To secure popular support, spending or tax reduction may be expanded without sufficient financing, which exacerbates the deficit and leads to the accumulation of public debt and the postponement of the necessary reforms.
- Protection and economic isolationImposing customs duties and rejecting commercial agreements may raise prices, reduce competition, and reduce export opportunities.
- An unstable business environmentSurprising decisions and repeated changes in policies lead to investor concerns and the flight of capital.
- The standard of living declined: Unbalanced policies lead to inflation and the decline in purchasing power, which negatively affects the life of the citizen.
- Slowness of economic growthStudies indicate that the populist countries recorded a decline in the local product of the individual after 10 to 15 years of implementing this approach.
- Weak international confidenceUnconventional policies The state loses the confidence of global markets, which raises the cost of borrowing and negatively affects the credit rating.
- Politicizing the economic decisionThe economy is sometimes used as a tool to gain popularity, rather than relying on realistic studies and studied plans.
- Freezing repairs: Fear of the popular reaction causes governments to postpone important structural reforms, such as raising subsidies or retirement repair.
- Increased corruption or favoritismSometimes positions are granted based on political loyalty, not efficiency, which weakens institutional performance and encourages corruption.
- The marginalization of expertsResponsibility reduces the role of specialists, which leads to the exclusion of professional opinion in making economic policies.
Responsibility can be considered, in some contexts, a protest message from marginalized categories calling for a more just economic system, and the door may open for real reforms if it is confronted with responsibility and political calm.
How does populism affect countries’ relations in international politics?
The effects of populism extend to external relations, where populist governments prefer to focus on national sovereignty instead of international cooperation, which changes from the state’s position in the world and its presence in the international system is weakened.
These systems believe that globalization was a major cause of economic decline, industry erosion, and job loss. Therefore, it tends to gradually withdraw from the globalization system, and re -prioritize its priorities for the interior, at the expense of international cooperation.
This closure is not limited to the economy, but extends to foreign policy, and affects the state’s relations and strategic balances on the one hand:
- Weakening international cooperation: Popular governments tend to withdraw or disrupt international agreements, especially those related to trade, environment, or migration, which confuses the global system based on pluralism and teamwork.
- Tension relations with the allies: The populist discourse prefers the method of confrontation and accusation, which leads to the deterioration of relations with traditional allies, and reduces the chances of building stable partnerships.
- International isolation and the decline in influenceOver time, the populist state loses its position in regional and international institutions, which reduces its ability to influence global decisions and weakens its voice on major issues.
Responsibility doubts with independent financial institutions such as central banks and calls for “restoring economic control” with internal decisions away from external influence.
Is populism a threat or an opportunity?
Despite its economic negative effects and their long -term challenges, populism is a natural result of a long path of economic and social policies that accumulated the gap between citizens and decision -making centers.
And when they neglect the needs of individuals and retreat confidence in institutions, many tend to adopt simple speeches and direct promises, even if they seem unrealistic or risky.
The successive crises, from financial crises, helped political tensions and regional conflicts, accelerate the rise of populist currents to influence sites. No, because it necessarily provided better solutions, but rather because it touches the ordinary citizen to those who understand and represent him.
The ordinary citizen is not occupied by the complexity of economic policies or the details of the discussions, as much as it means one thing: how will he save his day, secure the future of his family, and live in dignity under stable circumstances.
The arrival of some populist movements to decision -making today reflects the people’s search for an alternative to listen to their voice.
The question remains open: Does populism represent a long -term alternative, or is it a circumstantial reaction to a deeper crisis?
The answer will depend on the ability of the international system to read this shift accurately, and interact with it with realistic reforms that restore a balance between the aspirations of peoples and the requirements of stability.
