Assessing varieties of populism: From Europe to Asia

On 1 March 2017, Dr. Yaprak Gursoy (St Antony’s College, Oxford) gave a seminar on variants of populism in a comparative perspective at SEESOX with Prof. Michael Freeden (Emeritus, Mansfield College, Oxford) as discussant. In the seminar titled “Assessing varieties of populism: From Europe to Asia,” Gürsoy compared Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), Thailand’s Thais Love Thais Party (TRT) and India’s People’s Party (BJP). The event was part of SEESOX’s Hilary Term seminar series dedicated to the rise of illiberalism in South East Europe and chaired by Karolina Wigura. Gürsoy kicked off by mapping the vast array of definitions currently attributed to populism. There are three approaches to defining populism: Populism as an ideology, populism as a strategy and populism as style.

While Cas Mudde in his 2004 work considers populism as a thin-centered ideology that separates society into two ‘homogenous and antagonistic groups’ as ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite,’ Jan Müller describes the populist world view as “morally pure and fully unified –but … ultimately fictional—people against elites who are deemed corrupt or in some other way morally inferior.” (Müller 2016) As Gürsoy argued populism being an ideology is contested but considering populism as a strategy does not provide an intact definition of the phenomenon either, but it correctly emphasizes the importance of leaders. On the other hand, through this approach, populism can be seen as adaptive to neoliberalism due to its low institutionalization agenda which is also directly linked to the charismatic leader factor who “reaches the followers in a direct, quasi-personal manner that bypasses established intermediary organizations, especially parties…» (Weyland 1999, 381)

Gürsoy analyzed that discerning populism as a style has it advantages because this approach sits well with other approaches and also compatible with where other categories stand as almost all scholarly work seem to agree that populism is about appealing to the emotions such as fear. Bringing the literature she has put forth together, Dr. Gürsoy defined populism as “a mode of appealing to constituencies by claiming to represent a segment of the local people against enemies, where the enemy always includes the elites, proudly displaying the selective languages, desires, beliefs, tastes and/or practices of the local people, and advocating decisive, quick, and unmediated action in the name of the local people against real or imagined crises and threats.”

In light of this definition, Gürsoy examined the pursued populism of three political parties, which have almost nothing in common and selected for this paper precisely for that reason. Turkey’s AKP represents the pious masses against (old) secularist (state) elites (especially the Kemalist military, judiciary and the CHP). Even though its Kurdish policy has nationalistic overtones, it welcomes Syrian refugees. Regarding economic policies, AKP had diligently followed the prescriptions of the IMF after the 2001 crisis. 90 percent of all proceeds from privatizations in Turkish history were gained during the AKP years. It has utilized targeted distribution and assistance to its constituency while also increasing public spending on healthcare. But ironically this caused more reliance on private services and monopolization. AKP has as thick party organization. As the 15 July botched coup had indicated, it has the ability to mobilize its supporters even against the coup plotters.

BJP represents Hindu nationalists against secular Indian National Congress Party (INC). The party is anti-Muslim as demonstrated by the 2002 Gujarat violence but welcomes Hindu immigrants. It also has a thick party structure with 88 million members and has a paramilitary group called National Volunteer Organization (RSS).

The third party which Dr. Gürsoy focused on through her comparative approach was Thailand’s TRT. TRT represents the poor against the (state) elites around the monarchy, which consist of the military, judiciary, and Privy Council. Even though it is less nationalistic in discourse, it appears to be equally repressive against the Malay insurgency in the deep South. The Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra wages war on drugs and depicts himself as the redeemer of Thailand’s morals. TRT’s policy towards immigrants can be described as welcoming them as workers.  Like it is the case in Turkey, TRT is the benefactor of the poor in the North and Northeast via targeted benefits. Its membership is claimed to be around 13 million and has a paramilitary group like India’s BJP.

After analyzing these parameters, Dr. Gürsoy had explained the reasons behind these similarities among three populist political parties in exceptionally different countries as follows:  20th-century modern state formation of which its elitist project was alien to peasants. The monopolization of religion by the elites and statist economic development that resulted in extreme inequality among peoples. 

Seminar’s discussant Prof. Michael Freeden had agreed with Dr. Gürsoy’s comparison method and acknowledged her ardous task of laying down the ever-changing literature on populism. According to Prof. Freeden populism has become an over-used label nowadays to define nationalism, authoritarianism and illiberalism.

Ezgi Başaran, St Antony's College, Oxford