Conclusion

Abstract

Poland, the Philippines, France, Argentina, the United States, and Turkey span a diverse transcontinental sweep of the political phenomenon of populism. Each country carries with it the flame of populism in the form of movements, parties, and, all importantly, personalities which personify populism. In each case, the populists personify the Rousseauian claim of the legislator beholden to the general will. This is not to say there is not immense variation in the content of populism, whether it be the penal politics and quasi-fascist extrajudicial killings of the Philippines’ Duterte, the Islamic conservativism of Turkey’s Erdoğan, or the socialist revolutionary fervour of France’s Mélenchon. Yet, what all of these forms of populism have in common is that they express some grievances, whether real or perceived, which are then assembled into a meta-narrative of redemption. This call to arms from the populist to the people helps manufacture “the people” through a narrative reifying a historically and socially constructed division between the people and the elite.

There are people who look at a problem … and shake their heads, thinking it can’t be done. There is a name for people like that: Governor. Then there are people who talk about the issue, throw around other people’s money, and maybe even show you drawings. There’s a name for those people, too: Senator.

– Donald Trump (Green and White, in this volume, “Populism in the United States”)

I am sure you have seen what happens when a tree falls over a road and many people gather around it. Here you always have two kinds of people. Those who have great ideas how to remove the tree, and share with others their wonderful theories, and give advice. Others simply realize that the best is to start pulling the tree from the road.

– Viktor Orbán (Müller 2017, 26)