With the growth of insurgent political parties that challenge the status quo, scholars are presented with a dilemma about how to categorise them. Takis S Pappas argues that nativist and populist parties are two distinct categories, and offers a set of criteria for classification

Pappas, Takis S.

English

LSE Research Online

What	makes	nativists	and	populists	distinct?		With	the	growth	of	insurgent	political	parties	that	challenge	the	status	quo,	scholars	are	presented	with	a	dilemmaabout	how	to	categorise	them.	Takis	S	Pappas	argues	that	nativist	and	populist	parties	are	two	distinct	categories,and	offers	a	set	of	criteria	for	classification.Marine	Le	Pen	in	the	European	Parliament.	Picture:	European	Parliament,	via	(CC	BY-NC-ND	2.0)The	recent	surge	of	various	challenges	to	democracy	in	Europe	has	presented	scholars,	policy	makers,	journalistsand	other	pundits	with	an	empirical	muddle.	As	we	now	try	to	make	sense	of	Europe’s	fast-changing	politicallandscape,	we	are	faced	with	the	following	predicament:	still	lacking	well-defined	concepts	and,	therefore,	unable	toclassify	our	empirical	cases	into	mutually	exclusive,	jointly	exhaustive,	and	empirically	useful	categories,	thetendency	is	to	lump	together	disparate	challengers	to	contemporary	democracy	under	the	ill-defined	‘populism’label.	Yet,	at	the	end,	the	result	is	data	misgathering	and	the	comparison	of	nonequivalent	units	under	theerroneous	assumption	that	they	are	equivalent.	This	amounts	to	wasteful	research.	It	also	eludes	sensibleresponses	to	the	various	challengers.In	this	short	essay,	I	put	forward	the	point	that	not	all	challengers	to	contemporary	representative	democracy	arethe	same.	And	leaving	apart	those	who	explicitly	militate	against	it	(such	as,	for	instance,	Greece’s	Golden	Dawnneo-Nazi	party),	I	aim	to	provide	a	clear,	empirically	based	differentiation	between	two	other	major	party	groups	thatare	often	treated	as	belonging	in	the	same	analytical	category:	populists	and	nativists.	Who	are	they?In	the	group	of	populists,	I	include	the	currently	ruling	Fidesz	in	Hungary;	both	leftist	Syriza	and	rightistIndependent	Greeks	(ANEL),	which	form	Greece’s	coalition	government;	Poland’s	Law	and	Justice	(PiS);Slovakia’s	Direction-Social	Democracy	(SMER-SD);	and	Spain’s	opposition	Podemos,	among	a	few	other	minorparties.The	group	of	nativist	parties	is	larger	and	among	its	most	important	representatives	one	finds	Austria’s	FreedomParty	(FPÖ);	the	Dutch	Party	for	Freedom	(PVV);	the	Danish	People’s	Party	(DF);	Norway’s	Progress	Party	(FrP);the	Sweden	Democrats	(SD);	the	Finns	(PS,	formerly	known	as	the	True	Finns);	the	Swiss	People’s	Party	(SVP);the	UK	Independence	Party	(UKIP);	the	more	recent	Alternative	for	Germany	(AfD);	as	well	as	the	Italian	League(La	Lega),	which	is	currently	undergoing	a	transformation	from	regionalist	and	secessionist	into	a	purely	nativistparty.How	are	those	two	groups	of	parties	distinct?	I	have	identified	ten	specific	characteristics,	or	conditions,	which	set	aclear	boundary	line	between	nativists	and	populists.	As	my	distinctions	are	based	on	empirical	evidence,	my	hope	isto	lift	the	curse	of	misclassification	for	good,	suggesting	instead	more	meaningful	categories	of	challenger	parties,which	in	turn	promises	to	open	up	important	areas	of	robust	comparative	research.Democratic Audit: What makes nativists and populists distinct?  Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-03-28Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/03/28/what-makes-nativists-and-populists-distinct/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/1.	 Ideologically,	nativist	parties	stand	invariably	on	the	conservative	right,	battling	to	conserve	their	countries’ethno-cultural	identity,	which	they	believe	is	threatened	by	modernity	itself.	They	occasionally	drift	to	the	‘far’or	‘extreme’	right,	but	without	violating	constitutional	legality.	If	they	do,	they	have	already	turned	intoantidemocrats.2.	 Programmatically,	the	nativists’	appeal	is	based	on	specific	right-wing	conservative	policy	packages,specifically	about	anti-immigration	policies	and	how	to	thwart	further	EU	integration.	Note,	in	passing,	that	allnativists’	foes	are	either	allegedly	illiberal	(such	as	the	non-Christian	heathen)	or	faultily	liberal	(for	example,Polish	or	Greek	economic	migrants).3.	 Ideationally,	nativists	discard	the	populist	idea	that	society	is	ostensibly	divided	between	‘the	people’	andsome	elite.	Instead,	they	conceive	their	respective	societies	as	culturally	unified	wholes	(communities	ofnative	autochthons),	whose	unity	is	threatened	by	alien	heterochthons,	such	as	Muslims,	illiberal	EasternEuropeans	or	poor	Southerners.4.	 Rhetorically,	nativists	are	not	generally	intent	on	using	a	socially	and	politically	polarising	discourse.	Unlikepopulists,	who	exploit	accumulated	social	resentment	from	economic	inequality,	political	exclusion	and	socialinjustice	to	generate	polarisation,	nativist	parties	stick	for	the	most	part	to	their	programme	and,	in	general,refrain	from	causing	extra	adversity	among	natives.5.	 Electorally,	impeded	as	they	are	by	liberal	conservative	forces,	the	nativists	find	it	impossible	to	win	electoralmajorities	and	govern	singlehandedly.	Post-electorally,	too,	although	in	some	cases	nativist	parties	have	beenallowed	into	coalition	governments	as	junior	partners	(and	in	the	cases	of	SVP	and	Austria’s	FPÖ	as	majorones),	the	mainstream	parties	still	forbid	such	coalitions	(as	shown	by	the	cases	of	the	Swedish	SD,	theFrench	FN	and	the	German	AfD).6.	 Existentially,	being	the	programmatic	parties	that	they	are,	the	nativists’	fate	is	intricately	linked	with	thespecific	policies	they	espouse.	There	are	two	possibilities:	if	their	policy	programmes	are	achieved	(as	withanti-EU	UKIP	and	the	2016	Brexit	referendum),	they	are	bound	to	disappear;	if	their	programmes	pertain	toongoing	political	issues,	their	fortunes	will	depend	on	developments	related	to	such	issues.7.	 Prospectively,	nativist	parties	do	not	tend	to	promise	redemption	–	in	the	form	of	social	justice,	economicequality,	the	people’s	sovereignty	or	national	independence	from	the	EU.	Nor	do	they,	unlike	the	populists,perceive	politics	as	a	battle	between	the	moral	and	principled	forces	of	good	and	those	of	corrupt	andwrongful	evil.8.	 Organisationally,	nativist	parties	are	distinguished	by	their	relatively	weak	–	and	certainly	non-charismatic	–leadership,	factional	conflicts	and	even	open	infighting.	In	many	cases,	leadership	is	collective	rather	thanindividual	(as	in	SVP,	the	Finns	and	AfD),	organisation	structures	are	either	nonexistent	or	hardly	working	(asin	PVV	or	SD)	and	internal	strife	is	conspicuous	(as	in	the	FN	and	UKIP,	among	others).9.	 Emblematically,	almost	all	nativist	parties	are	led	by	members	of	their	respective	societies’	elites:	renowneduniversity	professors	(Pim	Fortuyn	and	Jörg	Haider);	a	scion	of	political	family	(Marine	Le	Pen);	a	CEO(Christoph	Blocher	of	Switzerland’s	SVP);	a	commodities	trader	in	the	City	of	London	(Nigel	Farage);	aninvestment	banking	economist	at	Goldman	Sachs	(Alice	Weidel	of	AfD),	and	even	a	recipient	of	the	order	ofknighthood	in	Denmark	(Kristian	Thulesen	Dahl).10.	 Psephologically,	as	shown	by	the	comparative	study	of	trends	in	voting,	the	foremost	characteristic	uniting	allnativist	parties	in	a	statistically	significant	way	is	their	negative	stance	against	immigration.	No	such	specificcharacteristic,	or	group	of	characteristics	has	so	far	been	detected	in	the	study	of	populist	parties.In	closing,	when	using	the	comparative	method	in	a	methodical	and	systematic	way,	we	find	an	abundance	ofindicators	that	speak	of	a	clear	demarcation	line	between	nativist	and	populist	parties.	Our	neglect	of	suchindicators	betrays	the	unconscious	ways	we	still	perceive	changes	in	the	real	world,	and	prevents	us	fromdistinguishing	between	the	modern-day	dangers	to	liberal	democracy.Democratic Audit: What makes nativists and populists distinct?  Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-03-28Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/03/28/what-makes-nativists-and-populists-distinct/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/This	article	represents	the	views	of	the	author	and	not	those	of	Democratic	Audit.	It	is	an	adaptation	from	twoprevious	works	by	the	author:	‘The	Specter	Haunting	Europe:	Distinguishing	Liberal	Democracy’s	Challengers,’Journal	of	Democracy,	27:4	(2016);	and	‘How	to	Tell	Nativists	from	Populists,’	published	in	the	Journal	ofDemocracy,	29:1	(2018).Follow	the	debate:	This	is	one	article	in	a	debate	on	the	distinctions	between	populism,	nativism	and	liberalism,which	also	includes	an	article	by	Ben	Margulies,	also	published	today.About	the	authorTakis	S.	Pappas	is	an	independent	scholar	studying	comparative	politics.	His	booksinclude	Populism	and	Crisis	Politics	in	Greece	(2014),	European	Populism	in	the	Shadow	of	theGreat	Recession	(2015;	coedited	with	Hanspeter	Kriesi),	and	On	the	Tightrope:	National	Crisesand	Brinkmanship	in	Greece	from	Trikoupis	to	Tsipras	(2017,	in	Greek).Similar	PostsBook	Review	|	Other	People’s	Politics:	Populism	to	Corbynism	by	J.A.	SmithBook	Review	|	The	New	Populism:	Democracy	Stares	into	the	Abyss	by	Marco	RevelliPopulist	politicians	on	both	sides	of	the	Atlantic	are	plundering	history	for	persuasive	purposesBook	Review	|	This	Is	Not	Propaganda:	Adventures	in	the	War	Against	Reality	by	Peter	PomerantsevDo	populist-leaning	citizens	support	direct	democracy?Democratic Audit: What makes nativists and populists distinct?  Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-03-28Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/03/28/what-makes-nativists-and-populists-distinct/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/

What makes nativists and populists distinct?

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/109601/1/dit_com_2018_03_28_what_makes_nativists_and_populists.pdf

What makes nativists and populists distinct?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online