Fighting illiberal populism — Part III

This is the third of three parts on how to fight illiberal populism. The following nine recommendations are taken from the Dialogue on Europe’s Thinking Lab on Populism, which I facilitated for more than one year.

Check out the intro to these thoughts in Part I and the 5 short Key Findings in Part II.

Fighting the Root Causes of illiberal Populism: Nine Recommendations

Illiberal and undemocratic populism is not a challenge that will be solved by simply implementing policy recommendations. It is a systemic phenomenon that requires not only appropriate measures, but also a thorough understanding of its root causes. Those root causes lie hidden in a myriad of policy fields, institutional realities and shortcomings of political communication. It is a symptom of a number of failures of the political establishment in the past, but also of broader societal trends. It also means that a new relationship between citizens and politics needs to be found. This is why we propose to tackle illiberal populism by focusing on its root causes. These root causes arise from the default mode of how mainstream politics works in most European countries, and from often outdated democratic institutions and processes which need reform to serve 21st century societies. Those who hope for quick fixes will have to abandon that hope. Just as it has taken a few decades for illiberal populism to take root in Europe it will take time to eradicate the root causes of it. Moreover, it will require the willingness to move political decision making beyond the current status quo.

Ultimately, when we talk about fighting the root causes of illiberal populism, we talk about important changes in the political architecture of Western democracies that need to be implemented:

• the innovation of political institutions that are able to create solutions for the existential problems we face (climate change, digitisation of the labour market, national and global inequality, etc.);
• those changes should be based on the realisation that providing not only a life in material dignity, but also structures which facilitate lifelong development and learning beyond the needs of the job market, is the basic ethical duty of politics in the 21st century;
• the structural facilitation of identity and purpose beyond economic status, wealth and materialism;
• the political realisation that it may be time to focus on how we can equip citizens for permanent change in the light of an ever faster digitalisation, automation and globalisation;
• Instead of focusing on the illusion of stability and short-term solutions that undermine public trust even further, an approach based on productive disagreement and a more fruitful political debate.

The following recommendations therefore focus on strategic fields of action, and try to avoid mere short-term answers to the populist tide. We constructed a sort of ‘semantic framework’ for a much-needed revision of the way policy-making processes are implemented in a representative democracy. The definition of practicable policies stemming from these recommendations is an urgent requirement we hope to contribute to with this text, and which is complemented by the policy proposals from the other Thinking Labs in the Dialogue on Europe project.

Our recommendations are mainly directed at those in power nowadays, i.e. centre-left and centre-right parties that would like to actively combat populism in the longer term. But they are also directed to every citizen and civil society organisation that wishes to see a future in Europe that is democratic, pluralist and culturally liberal.

1. Strengthen democratic Institutions and Decision-Makers

Root Cause: Largely accepted public Disdain for Elites and Institutions

For decades, public opinion and the media have advanced a discourse which criticises democratic institutions for lacking responsiveness to the challenges society faces. Whether left or right, progressive or conservative, young or old — whichever group you look at, you will find broad acceptance for publicly shaming democratic institutions and the political class. Populist parties have used this growing distrust and augmented it with an ‘anti-establishment’ rhetoric; they have made political capital out of the general but genuine frustration of people with the past lack of responses from decision makers. This general atmosphere of distrust and frustration has made it easy for illiberal populists to denounce the overall legitimacy of established political and economic elites, and to even question the idea of representation itself.

Recommendation: Rebuild Trust in democratic Institutions and Decision-Making Processes

History shows that weakening the legitimacy of democratic institutions and their representatives is the prerequisite for the establishment of illiberal and anti-pluralistic regimes. Thus it is vital to argue more forcefully for the basic idea of representative democracy and to defend its institutions, as well as those elites that take populate these institutions. Integrating the sphere of decision making has to encompass both respect for the interests of society as a whole and the capacity to deliver prospects for a shared future. This includes defending the less desirable aspects of democracy: its slowness, its messiness, the imperfection of how democracy is enacted. This is not about glorifying the past. The argument for the basic ideas of representative democracy can only be made when intertwined with the demand for institutional reform. Democracy needs to continuously adapt to a changing environment, whilst at the same time finding the right (political) answers to the challenges which arise in that environment. At the EU level this implies accepting and fostering debate of different positions, as well as reinforcing the democratic accountability of EU decision making. But first and foremost it means strengthening the roles, power and accountability of directly elected bodies (both national and European parliaments) instead of those which are only designated (such as the European Commission or the European Central Bank).

2. Shift mental Models: Constant Change is the new Normal

Root Cause: Fear of negative Consequences of Change and Longing for a Sense of Control

After decades of relative political, economic and social stability, citizens are struck by the impression that the pace and intensity of change around them has increased. The world as we know it is constantly challenged, and politics does not manage to move beyond “crisis mode”. This makes many people feel insecure and afraid, especially because they experience changes as a threat to their own position, role and status within society. Illiberal populism appears to offer resistance to such change; to be an antidote to the existential fear of losing one’s country. Many people long for a sense of control which increases individuals’ willingness to vote for leaders or parties who promise simple solutions to complex problems, and who aim to stabilise the world around them — even at the expense of liberal and progressive policies of the past decades.

Recommendation: Normalise Change in Politics and provide the Infrastructure to enable Citizens to adapt to a volatile and complex Environment

The world around us is constantly changing — as it always has — and will certainly continue to do so at an increased pace. Societal and technological transformations fundamentally alter the fabric of our societies. This is why it is so important that politicians and the media stop framing change as an anomaly. The opposite is true: change is constant, stagnation and stability are the exception to this rule. It is therefore an absolute necessity for the political sphere to start normalising change in the public discourse. Furthermore, policy makers need to think more intensely about how politics can foster an increased individual and collective ability to successfully live a life in an environment which is constantly changing and, thus, requires great adaptability and resilience. The narrative of “we have to endure a limited time of change, and then everything will go back to normal” is not an option anymore in a “VUCA world” (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world). In future the best possible form of “taking back control” is to shape the process of change as much as one can — to adapt to volatile environments quickly and smartly, and to equip people with the tools that enhance their ability to navigate these new environments. This means — among many things — adapting educational and training systems, as well as reforming and investing in life-long individual and professional development. Politicians will hereby also have to start working on a public discourse which frames a common purpose and identity. A compelling, positive vision for a shared future is the best antidote against illiberal forces that have nothing to offer but a supposedly glorious past that is simple to deal with but cannot be returned to.

3. Promote Access to Information and Culture on a wide scale and enable equal Opportunities

Root cause: Increasing social and cultural Inequality in a digitised World

Over the past decades, economic, social and political imbalances have grown between white-collar and blue-collar workers, between poor and rich regions, between urban and rural areas, between well-connected regions and ‘digital deserts’. Digitalisation functions as an amplifier of these inequalities. It affects social equality, mobility, access to information, education and equality of opportunities. Populism taps into an increasingly widespread “fear of loss” and creates a conflict in order to reinforce duality between a supposedly corrupt ‘elite’ and ‘normal’ citizens. Illiberal and undemocratic populism exploits the fear of those feeling left behind or even betrayed by a political class that seems to rule the world.

Recommendation: Make the EU a Driver of social Mobility and Cohesion

Until now, investments in social cohesion and employment policies have been primarily made at the national level. Yet to lay the ground for a ‘Social Europe’, the EU should focus on the well-being of all its citizens and on creating a sense of belonging. Narrowing all the gaps — territorial, economic, cultural, generational — which threaten to divide societies in the EU has to be the priority when defining policies and providing a sense of justice against all types of inequality. In order to empower people the EU has to be (put) in the position to help national governments to provide better opportunities for their citizens, including access to education and an adequate social safety net. Furthermore, the EU should focus its budget and programmatic efforts towards increasing social mobility — which means empowering people in professional, educational, cultural and social aspects, in particular those who have no higher education. The EU and its member states should create a new, comprehensive investment programme for this, and give more budgetary powers to the European Parliament in order to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of funding priorities and ensure it focuses on people’s well-being.

4. Restore Trust in the political Establishment by reconnecting Politicians with Citizens and vice-versa

Root Cause: The Experience of multiple Crises and the lack of Connection between Politicians and Citizens

The populist surge of recent years is directly related to the multiple and complex crises European societies have been confronted with. The root causes of these crises partly stem from many years of political and economic mismanagement, and from various forms of corruption (depending on different EU countries). Both at the EU and national levels these crises also arise from the lack of an effective and sustainable crisis management on the part of the political establishment. Moreover, the interventions of the European Central Bank, the European Commission, the Eurogroup — and the lack of democratic accountability of some of their measures — have contributed to an image of institutional bullying rather than problem-solving based on solidarity. That said, the rift between citizens and the political sphere runs far deeper. It reflects the complacency, and the lack of a healthy political culture and common vision displayed at the EU level. This has made various political parties indifferent and arbitrary in dealing with the needs and desires of ordinary citizens.

Recommendation: Implement and communicate Decisions in a more citizen-centred Fashion

Losing trust is very easy; gaining it back takes much longer. Listening to the needs, fears and desires of citizens is the starting point to rebuild trust between the public and the political spheres. Identifying new, more direct ways of communication with citizens and opening up the decision making process through active citizen engagement would help to re-establish an eye-level relationship — one which shows that citizens’ demands are being taken seriously. Citizens will only listen to decision makers if political representatives back up their words with actions, and if they deliver on their promises. This means decision makers have to work more closely, alongside citizens, and harder than before to tackle the challenges identified — whilst at the same time being honest about the complexity of the issues and the time needed to find appropriate solutions. The public sphere and many politicians will have to become more tolerant of alternative political ideas, rather than dismissing new ideas as invalid for being “unrealistic”, “ideological” or constantly repeating that there is no (economic) alternative.

5. Promote democratic Innovations for Institutions and Processes

Root Cause: The growing Impression that established Institutions and Processes are not well-equipped for today’s Challenges

Parliaments and governments have an increasingly difficult time responding to current challenges in a timely, meaningful and sustainable manner. Despite this, both democratic institutions and processes remain largely unchanged, sticking to the same structures and working principles which have been used for decades. This lack of appropriate policies and political responses to pressing issues — and the growing gap between political responses and the rapidly changing world — makes it easy for illiberal populists to attack and discredit democratic institutions and decision making, fuelling a dynamic which undermines public trust and lowering legitimacy.

Recommendation: Foster adaptive, agile and modern Processes in democratic Institutions

Many organisations in the private sector have realised that due to a complex and volatile global environment, they need to create mind-sets, structures, and processes which enable them to permanently adapt quickly to changes around them. Politics, conversely, does not need yet more management or further laborious technocratic decision making. Rather, the world of politics and public administration needs to prioritise its own development and to start to foster organisational cultures that are fit for the 21st century. The development of working cultures, structures, and processes which allow institutions to provide timely and meaningful proposals for a shifting world are what is called for — not merely reacting to it. This development includes a higher degree of organisational agility, intensified horizontal and international collaboration, as well as smarter citizen participation. It demands also capacities for the consideration of a large array of data and of stakeholders in designing and implementing policies. If democratic organisations manage to do this it will strengthen their adaptiveness and responsiveness, and thus the legitimacy of democracy. Nevertheless, the unique structure of political responsibility in public organisations such as ministries makes it hard to copy-and-paste frameworks for self-organisation and for greater agility from other organisations or other sectors. It takes intense experimentation to find solutions that fit with public institutions’ main purposes, namely providing good public services to citizens and ensuring democratic representation and accountability. Prototyping different governance configurations at different and flexible territorial levels (local, trans-local, regional, supranational etc.) should be encouraged and supported.

6. Take into Account different Experiences of Democracy in EU Member States

Root Cause: Varying Perceptions of Democracy in different EU Countries

The debate about the root causes of populism in Europe often neglects the different social, economic, political and historical contexts of the respective countries. However, the current crisis of democracy being experienced is also shaped by the countries’ individual history, culture and singularities. For instance, in Central and Eastern European states, the relatively late democratisation and the traumatising experience of radical market liberalisation after 1990 that came with it have led to a significantly different perception of liberal democracy and its benefits than in Western Europe. The association of liberal democracy with disorder, the weakening of community and economic anxiety has bred a fertile ground for illiberal populists, who contrast this experience with promises of order and control.

Recommendation: Foster a European Understanding of Democracy and the Rule of Law

To establish strong European democracies, EU member states should start a dialogue on what constitutes a vibrant democracy, and where this differs from the status quo. History lessons at schools should have a broader horizon, including the history of other European countries, emphasising the historical roots of the rule of law and a humanist worldview — including what this means in practice. Teaching and learning in cross-national groups should be promoted, for example with an expansion of the Erasmus, the establishment of a European voluntary service or through cross-national cooperation in border regions. In addition a more Europeanised media would enable a break from the narrow, national frames often given to EU politics and in reporting on the state of affairs in neighbouring countries. To create a genuinely European media landscape, more financial resources have to be mobilised by the EU and its member states to this end. National policy makers should also increase the EU focus of their press and communication strategy. Whilst the diversity of democracies in Europe should, of course, be valued and even promoted, increased cooperation in the education and cultural sectors as well as in the media could help to promote a better understanding of a neighbour’s singularities and commonalities, and help foster important shared European values based on democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

7. Offer distinctive political Visions and give more political Orientation to Citizens

Root Cause: People feel stuck in the current political Status Quo without alternative political Visions

Many citizens today feel that they are stuck in their daily routines and that decision makers do not provide new political visions for the future. Today’s societies lack overarching narratives of how they should develop in the future, and what values should drive this development — making it easy for populists to delve into nostalgia and to promote an idealised imaginary past. This image of a glorious past responds to the unfulfillable desires amongst citizens to win back control over and orientation in a complex world.

Recommendation: Develop bold and distinctive political Visions for a common Future

Political parties need to engage more actively in the competition for political ideas, and need to publicly convey different approaches if they want to tackle the frustration of their populations with politics. By providing different visions for the future, parties can promote the political debates necessary for a healthy democracy. Parties must invest time and effort in developing political visions, and need complement these with a strategy to make sure they reach citizens and voters. Only if they are able to create distinct, coherent visions of how they want society to develop and of what changes are needed to get there will they be able to create meaningful narratives that are compelling enough to challenge illiberal populist tropes. Parties can do a lot of good if their visions help people to realise that the future can be a good place — but that requires change now. Only if there is an attractive place to move towards will people willingly start to cope with change, instead of trying to re-establish a simpler past that never existed.

8. Recreate a Sense of Community

Root Cause: Today’s globalised World destabilised national Identities

Citizens today face a globalised, complex and rapidly changing world, whilst institutions that gave meaning and structure in the past have lost their power and relevance — be they trade unions, churches or local community organisations. The policies that led to growing inequality, decreased educational opportunities, volatile labour markets and less social security have a strengthening of identity-based politics, the social isolation of citizens and a widespread fear of the future. The increase of radical Islamist terrorism in Europe, coinciding with a surge in migration flows from the Middle East and African countries, have facilitated the perceived interlinkage and thus the strategic misuse of both phenomena — terrorism and migration. Europe’s fumbling response to those challenges did not offer any sense of being in control, or of humanitarian or safety capacities. Struggling media markets faced with digitalisation and increased competition have added to the dangerous right-wing populist narratives and are catalysing the fragmentation of values in society. Every change is now perceived as a threat to national identity. Neoliberal decision making, in addition to societal trends resulting from globalisation and digitalisation, have made people highly responsive to populists — to those who promise to protect their identities and to solve complex problems with simple, pseudo-solutions.

Recommendation: Focus on inclusive Community building and Participation

Established political actors should not try to beat the populists at their own game and to try and outperform illiberal populists by making use of their rhetoric. Rather, they should realise the importance of social cohesion, better education and job options, and of further policies that will ensure greater equality of opportunity. These are the means by which to dismantle hatred and resentment within society and across nations. Further, they should work to find modern-day alternatives to those institutions, such as churches, which in the past enabled people from less privileged backgrounds to have access to a better education and greater societal participation. An increased focus on community building beyond national frames would help to strengthen a sense of relatedness and mutual support in an interdependent world, especially in an EU context. This is a prerequisite for fighting feelings of fear, anger and helplessness which are the biggest drivers of political distrust and aggression against minorities.

9. Address People’s Fears and Needs in the public Sphere instead of ignoring them

Root Cause: The increasing Dichotomy between individual Fears and public Discourse

In the Netherlands, France, and to some extent in Germany, illiberal and undemocratic populist forces gathered steam because established political actors were unwilling to publicly address issues such as radical Islamism, migration, terrorism, national identity and ‘traditional’ family values. Instead, established politicians often left the field wide open to populist players who placed those topics at the top of their political agenda. As a result, it was the populists rather than politicians from the centre who framed the debate, defined the political solutions in those policy areas, and reframing them in-line with their ideology. Compounding this, democratic politicians failed to promote a more inclusive political debate. Rather, they ‘pushed the buttons’ of potentially intolerant people by advertising diversity, promoting an open society, and communicating clearly the advantages of those — without making these resonate with those groups so that they could see the advantages of these values in or for their own lives. This has led to a further polarisation of society and pushes these people into the hands of populists.

Recommendation: Promote an open, inclusive and fair public Debate on key Issues

When certain policies or developments in society and politics become worries for a considerable part of the population, liberal democrats have to address them head-on and with an inclusive discourse. They need to show that they know what their fellow citizens are concerned about, and to include these concerns in their solutions. It also offers democratic politicians an opportunity to frame the debate by being (seen to be) the ones who take on these issues important to the electorate. This helps to keep worried citizens in the democratic frame of discourse, rather than losing them to populist voices. Hence actively addressing controversial issues — be it Islamist terrorism or migration — in the democratic sphere, rather than simply ignoring them, helps to avoid a political vacuum which can be exploited by illiberal and undemocratic populists.