These are probably the two terms we've heard most often in recent years. Yet democracy and populism are two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, the sovereignty of the people; on the other, the demagogic exaltation of the people in opposition to the elites. These are, in fact, the central themes of political and social research today. Much has been written about them, and numerous authors and scholars are still analyzing their relationship. The landscape of populism is constantly evolving and continually presents new examples. But what does "populist" mean? What is populism and how does it arise? Is it an anomaly and therefore a risk to democracy, or is it instead a new form of sovereignty?
A difficult definition
It must be said that the concept of populism is difficult to define. Its definition, on the contrary, is temporally and culturally variable. There are different populisms both across space and time, making this concept quite "slippery" for scholars, both due to its polysemy and ambiguity. There is American populism, Trump's, Latin American, Russian, and obviously Italian populism. Although different, they all share common characteristics, albeit partial ones compared to the overall complexity of the problem, namely, the conception of the existence of two units of homogeneous subjects: interclass people, holder of sovereignty to which a charismatic leader is usually linked, and the eliteThese entities are in opposition to each other and if the first is assigned positive values, the second is responsible for the political decadence e social of the system. We easily find these elements in today's political debate, in newspapers, on TV, on social media. How many times have we heard talk of a "political caste," "the elite," "the rich," "the politicians," "the privileged," corrupt and evil, against "the people," "the citizens," "the Italians"? But is it really like this or is it just a strategy for create consensus?
How does populism arise?
Populism is actually a broader social process, and to better understand it, we need to start from the beginning—from how it originates. In addition to common characteristics, different populisms share common social dynamics that characterize their genesis and institutionalization. The first is a real polarization structural within society. A fracture is created, not only rhetorical but socio-economic, within society. As is happening in the current context, at the root of populism there is a widening of differences within social classes, between the upper and lower classes, with a drastic reduction of the middle class. This obviously turns into a political conflict. This also leads to a political disintermediation, both quantitative and qualitative, between citizens, local and peripheral contexts, left to their own devices, and the central and national political dimension of the country. Many individuals, therefore, who are discontented or even distrustful and indifferent towards politics, find in the immediate and simple populist message a new alternative has always been new hope for change, of reappropriation of one's sovereignty and rights. The recent financial and economic crisis, the political party crisis, and the various government crises in Italy have merely served as a catalyst for this entire process. According to some authors such as Ingleart, however, from a cultural perspective, "Populism would be a reaction by that part of the population that sees the values of political correctness, multiculturalism and tolerance as a threat and hopes for a simplification of the world and the return of traditional values and nationalism.".
Italian neopopulism
The Italian case represents a particular instance of populism due to the fact that our national context represents an arena where different populisms and anti-political phases clash and have clashed over time, with different tones and styles. A significant shift in this sense was the transition from the First to the Second Republic in 1993. With the scandals of "Tangentopolis" and the "Clean Hands" investigation, we moved from a society strongly dominated and mediated by political parties, from political organizations deeply rooted in the territory, to a new anti-political mentality and the search for new forms of legitimacy. There was initially a strong trust directed towards the magistrates, as recalled by the political experience of PM Di Pietro, considered less corruptible and more reliable than politicians. Subsequently, with the entrance on the scene of Silvio Berlusconi and other entrepreneurs we have had a definite form of tele-populism, so called because of the massive use of mass media. A phase in which voters hoped that these professionals would make the country function better, just like a company. Finally, to move on to the case of the web populism of the M5S. Starting from an online blog with a constant anti-establishment appeal, it aimed to move towards direct democracy through online voting and discussions (an often contradictory project that was gradually abandoned). And then there's the populism of the League, that of Di Battista, of Meloni; some even consider Renzi's experience of the "scrapping of old party members" during the 2013 primaries to be included in this category. All populisms, all different in style and content. Such widespread diffusion is perhaps due to the ease with which a message can generate consensus in a historical period like this, characterized by strong political uncertainty.
Pathology or new democracy?
But let's get to the point. We can say that populism manifests itself starting from a crisis situation of the political system, a situation in which the political class fails to understand the needs of citizens, who feel distant from the institutions, and a strong polarization between politics and society is created. Its action, however, is not always aimed at restoring popular sovereignty. There is the risk of a autocratic drift. Because the exaltation of the people and direct democracy could instead translate into a form of power that is excessively centralized and at the mercy of the leader. The most important example is theVenezuelan experience with Chavez It would almost have ended up in a regime. This would lead to the exclusion of many political parties, minorities, and a weakening of the rule of law, all rhetorically done in the name of the people but, in reality, endangering democratic principles. In a democracy, no office is above the laws (established democratically), and power is mediated and balanced by institutions. This is what we must be very careful about right now in Italy: we must be wary of those who play with voters' perceptions, those who play with the news, those who focus everything on themselves. Past experiences also teach us that, ultimately, more than "anti-politics," we need a class of serious politicians, prepared, competent e capable. Especially in difficult times.
Valerio Adolini
