When the world of politics meets the world of communication tout court, a union emerges that gives rise to a definition of populism that can be seen in the aggressive, sometimes even verbally violent, attempt to oppose —and demonize —oligarchies, whether cultural, social, or merely economic, in order to exalt the values, traditions, and way of life of the popular component of a community corpus . This process gives the term a decidedly negative connotation and, at the same time, superimposes its semantic universe onto that of the concept of demagogy , boasting analogical dynamics that, in reality, prove to be unfounded.
The origins of populism: Peronism
The most representative and exhaustive example of the populist socio-political scenario is certainly the one embodied by Juan Domingo Perón which strongly personalized the concept so much so that it was called, in that case, Peronism and which was fundamentally embodied in a political practice, typical of South American countries developing from an agricultural to an industrial economy, based on a direct relationship between a charismatic leader, Peron precisely, and the popular masses; a relationship barely endorsed by the bourgeois and capitalist classes, who could thus more easily monitor, manage, and advance the processes of industrialization and growth of their countries and their businesses. This notion, however, appears outdated and anachronistic, showing unmistakable signs of obsolescence in its attempts to explain current political phenomena, being better suited to analyzing past scenarios born of historical and socio-economic contingencies different from those of today.
In the name of anti-politics
The current context reinforces the above-mentioned concept and identifies the populist as someone who considers the only and authentic legitimacy of political power to be that which derives from the will and the popular consensusThis legitimacy is considered the condition necessary and sufficient to overcome the limits placed on the exercise of political power by the normative superstructures constituted by the Constitution and the laws. Populism, in its current conception, it is not tied to any ideological instance of the right or left revealing instead an unsuspected tendency bipartisan which relegates its use to mere circumstantial, contextual or convenient political events such as mobilization of anti-politics: positions of criticism, disaffection, and estrangement from the functioning of democratic institutions and key political actors. This dimension is based on resentment stemming from feelings of dispossession of popular sovereignty, betrayal of the idea of the sovereign people, and the urgent demand for strong, charismatic leadership.
Demagoguery: Between False Promises and Fanaticism
La demagogy, instead, represents a political behavior that through empty promises, which have no foundation and will never be realized, potentially satisfies the desires and needs of the people, thus aiming to gain their loyalty and consensus. modus operandi the demagogue stimulates the people by exacerbating irrational feelings and latent social demands, fueling fear, suspected, the hate and the resurgence of violent attitudes toward ethnic or religious minorities or the political adversary of the moment, parties who embody the "scapegoat" to be fought. This scenario creates a synergistic front, solidly cemented by the common denominator of the fight against a common and dangerous enemy, a united front immune from any apparent or substantial form of dissent. Demagoguery thus reveals a well-defined structure that, according to mechanistic dynamics, arises, as mentioned by false promises e ideals steeped in fanaticism Their implementation leads to violent and irrational forms of struggle. According to several political analysts, demagoguery shares its innate roots with populism, as both appear as a sort of morbid exasperation, a sick and irremediably compromised declination of democratic forms of government.
Seeking consensus
I totalitarian regimes The first half of the last century, such as Fascism, Nazism, the Soviet Union, and most dictatorships in general, are a perfect example of the direct and consistent relationship in political intentions between the leader and the popular masses, and therefore of what is defined as populism. However, this definition remains historically vague, allowing its use in various circumstantial contingencies as an all-encompassing, pangea-like term, a residual category, suitable for cataloging a wide variety of regimes resistant to clear-cut classifications, but in which some common elements can be found: the pompous and theatrical nationalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric, the constant appeal to the masses, and the considerable personal power of the leader. charismatic leader and faithfully venerated by the masses. Populism represents a "transversal container" for political movements of various types (right, left, reactionary and progressive, and so on) always united by the rhetorical element based on the clear rejection of political and economic oligarchies to exalt the natural virtues of the people, thus gaining consensus in moments of deep crisis and distrust in the ruling class in power.
Political weaknesses
Another element traceable to the very essence of populism is the simplification of politics , a sort of governmental shortcut that arises when politics itself enters into crisis and is no longer able to satisfy the needs and respond to the demands that the governed pose to those who govern. The people become a sort of indistinct entity in which individuals are lost, becoming a single corpus with a single will, the vox populi , and incontestable reasons. When politics reveals such weakness, a transience that loses its purpose, frustrates its interventions, and delegitimizes its institutional role, at that moment the " strong man " becomes a viable prospect. And charisma becomes the primary indicator for judging his value and political utility for the people he must lead. In short, when politics abdicates its duties of leadership and representation to personalize itself in a leader who embodies the desires of the nation at a given historical juncture, in that case populism emerges. In the age of mass media , the filter of public discussion, debate, and cross-examination has slowly but inexorably disappeared.
Marino D'Amore
