République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire

Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique

Université des Frères Mentouri Constantine
Faculté des Sciences de la Technologie
Département d’Electronique

Filière : Génie mécanique

Spécialité : Système énergétique Industriel

Thème

Les Centrales Solaires Thermodynamiques

Présenté par :

OUNISSI Zin Edine

 Abstract :
The central political paradox of the times is that the factors
that contributed to the success of democracy are the ones
that threaten it today. The crisis of trust in democratic
institutions in Europe is the outcome not of the failure of the
democratisation of European societies but of its success. The
question is no longer how elites can regain the trust of the
people; the question is how a liberal democracy can function
in an environment in which the elites will be permanently
mistrusted, regardless of what they do or how transparent the
mechanisms of governing are.
 Populism is seemingly sweeping the globe, threatening the established
status quo. Optimistically, it promises to bring about much needed change
to what appears to be a corrupt political and economic order. More
ominously, it is dangerously promoting racism, sexism, xenophobia,
jingoism, and attacking basic human rights around the world.

It is therefore important not to blithely conflate different populist and

grassroots movements. The left-wing movements championing greater
inclusion are plainly very different from right-wing ones keen on reinforced
or increased exclusion. But despite their profound differences, they have
one thing in common: they claim to represent a supposedly victimised
popular majority, “the people”.

Exactly who these “people” actually are is far from clear. All sides are
embroiled in an ongoing struggle to determine how to define which
populations count and which do not. Lost in the public outcry regarding
populism is a deeper conflict over who matters socially, economically and
politically.

In the wake of the recent upsurge in populist movements, there have been a
number of attempts to better define what the word “populism” actually
describes. Perhaps the best and clearest recent definition comes
from Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell, who write that populism:

Pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and

dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting
to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity,
identity, and voice.
But populism doesn’t just appeal with an “us-versus-them” attack on elites;
it also offers its supporters a passionate sense of solidarity. It mobilises
individuals and communities under a common identity, one that can be
socially invigorating and politically empowering. Populism is therefore an
opportunity to dramatically redefine the political landscape, and to fill the
relatively vacuous term of the “people” with any of various new meanings.

But just as some ideas of “the people” are exclusionary, others are radically
inclusive.

Different demands for different people

The late political theorist Ernesto Laclau declared that at its roots, populism
is linked to a specific politics – that even the most seemingly mundane
protest can reveal the limitations of an existing system and the potential to
establish something radically different. If those in power cannot meet these
demands, they and the values they represent will suddenly look vulnerable
and replaceable.

While Laclau was writing about the general logic of populism, the content of
this demand matters greatly for the specifics of these fraught times. Calls for
greater democracy, for instance, focus popular attention on democratising
political and economic organisations. By contrast, fearmongering against
immigrants (to take one example) seeks to restrict political power and
economic benefits, making them the preserve of a chosen population.

Donald Trump’s people aren’t everyone’s people. EPA/Tracie Van Auken

The ideology driving these demands and identities is therefore of
paramount importance. The resurgence of authoritarian and fascist rhetoric
speaks to the dangers of demagogues playing on the dissatisfaction of the
majority for the creation of a more repressive and less equitable social
order. However, the infusing of progressive ideals with a populist spirit can
catalyse movements and identities that broaden politics to reach previously
invisible groups.

Narrow and broad

Populism has the radical potential to foster not just exclusion, but greater
inclusion. By instilling a shared sense of injustice, inclusive movements can
alert their followers to the plight of other people whom they’ve been
socialised to ignore, forging bonds first of empathy and then of solidarity.
This in turn means their preferred definition of “the people” can be
expanded to include more and more citizens.

In recent years, a number of scholars and commentators have challenged

how far the label “populism” should be extended. They question whether
figures such as Jeremy Corbyn should even be called populists, arguing
that failing to make the distinction between exclusive and inclusive
movements reflects lazy and even disingenuous thinking. When any
challenge to “sensible”, “moderate” politics is derided as populist regardless
of its stated aims, the political dominance of the establishment is
consolidated.

This argument for a tighter definition of populism is prudent, but inclusion-

minded movements shouldn’t be let off the hook entirely. If movements on
the left remain fixated on bringing down maligned or incompetent elites,
they will tie themselves to a dangerous politics of sovereignty, one where the
overriding goal is simply to take power. This is a very narrow vision.
Instead, the imperative must be to find new ways to more equitably
organise society and share power.
 Conclusion :
Ultimately, these sorts of political movements should always be thought of
as beginnings, not ends in themselves. Radical, inclusive politics should be
much more than a critique of those at the top; it needs to be an ongoing
debate over who “we” are and how “we” can be empowered. In an age when
the forces of xenophobia and nativism are on the rise, these concerns are
perhaps more timely than ever before. Modern politics isn’t just a struggle
between left-populists and right-populists: it’s a race to define and expand
who the “people” are and what they can achieve together.