Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Even though populism has a mark in Europe, it always had a marginal political idea. It began
initially in the end of 19th century in Russia. Narodniki were a minor group of nobles who
couldn’t try to bring a peasant revolt. Even though they were not successful in Russia, they have
a strong impact on Eastern Europe, where many agrarian political groups existed in the 20 th
century. Many of them had less political impact in major nations at that time. Also, when both
fascism and communism took help of political rhetoric, specially while the movement level, both
regimes and ideas were significantly noble.
After war Europe witnessed very less populism till the 1990s. In France, there was “Poujadism”
during the 1950s, the Norwegian Progress Parties in the 70s, PASOK in the 80s and the Danish
but these movements were mostly sui genesis instead being a part of wider populist movement.
This began the populist radical right during in the 80s. Even though the old ones of this such as
Flemish Bloc, National Front began as high groups they gained a populist stage with slogans
such as “The Voice of the People” and “We Say What You Think.” Populism has also began in
Southern Europe recently.
This method states that populist ideas emerge out as the signs of detrimental impacts of
globalization and revolution, which bring the working class to marginalization, unemployment
and administrative outsiderism by neo-liberal and after-industrial set of rules. The losers of
modernization and globalization acknowledged their exclusion and marginalization by refusing
the main political groups and their conversations and creating an idea against migrants of ethnic
competition.
The increasing population in the EU say that the nobles have brought liberal rights like oversea
dealings, gay rights, gender equality, mobility etc against the consent of people who constitute
majority of the country.
The political approach in this method, is an addendum to the idea of the leader who encompasses
as Manichean understanding of the universe.
Bad manners of leaders – As per the drunken dinner guest statement, politicians take interest in
showing bad conduct, by showing a negative tone to the argument and low picture of politics.
This statement shows aggressiveness by using ironies, sarcasm and personal attack. This also
lower level of emotional stability.
Investing in crisis, breakdown or threat – Politicians invest in crises. They maintain the
support by scandalizing issues or make up crisis. By that they imprison rivals, starting wars on
drugs just to secure the people against the so called risks. Such issues justify the leaders identity
as externals leading them to pose as the solution of the problem.
Appeal to the people versus to the elite – The leader also states to represent real people. Here
these people strive against a bad noble that opposes the, but secures the illegal parties such as
minorities who rob people. The meaning of elite is defined by the politician; in the US, the
president may be called elite, yet he has redefine it as the Washington establishment thereby
calling himself as an outsider representing the people.
Lastly, populism is better. Its not like calling it a chameleon. It hardly exist in the true form, as
most the leader relate it with several ideas. This is called host ideology. The left leaders will
relate populism with socialism while the right ones will do it with nationalism. Now, its more on
the left in Southern Europe and on the right in Northern Europe.