Ever since the double disaster of 2016 - the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump - the fear of a "global wave" of populism has been spreading and the shortcomings of so-called direct democracy have been highlighted. In the United Kingdom, the electorate was asked a simple question - do we stay in Europe or not; in the USA, party elections in the Republican Party are left to irresponsible voters and radical activists. We keep hearing cries that we need "gatekeepers" (gatekeepers), which is a euphemistic way of saying that unwashed masses should be kept as far as possible from the place of decision.
However, this liberal impulse misreads recent history: it was the elites, not the masses, who made Brexit and Trump possible. Moreover, the shamelessly elitist disdain for direct democracy not only confirms populist rhetoric, but at the same time ignores the fact that referendums can be extremely effective weapons. against populist.
Trump and Brexiteers like Nigel Farage did not win thanks to some fatal flaw of direct democracy, but thanks to the elites who were ready to collaborate with them. Britain's Conservative leaders may have looked down on Farage, but many among them found his Brexit case compelling, just as the Republican Party establishment in the US gave its blessing to Donald Trump. That's right, millions of British voters voted to leave the EU, and millions of Americans voted for a presidential candidate who is clearly unqualified for the job.
However, this was in large part because they were encouraged by famous figures such as Boris Johnson and the former speaker of the US Congress, Newt Gingrich, that it was the right choice.
Moreover, the party elites did not just give their blessing to the populists. They have also abdicated their own responsibility to formulate coherent political platforms. The Brexit referendum was a direct result of the Conservative leaders' inability to reach a common, binding decision on Britain's membership of the EU. The Republican Party in the US is de facto "outsourced" its candidate selection process to private cable televisions, whose main concern is attracting viewers.
However, are liberals right when they claim that there is some deeper connection between populism and direct democracy? Finally, populist politicians usually try to establish a direct link between themselves and the citizenry, disintermediating traditional political parties and, where possible, professional journalists. Figures like Bepa Grillo, the founder of the Italian 5 Star Movement, without exception and in the same breath criticize established politicians and traditional media. All populists claim to have a unique knowledge of the "real people" and their will, and promise to listen to their "voice".
This claim is almost entirely theoretical: both "the people" and "the voice" are only symbolic constructions. In practice, no one but the populist leader actually has to speak. Therefore, the referendum has a very special meaning for populists. Since the "real people" are already pre-constructed, the answer to any question about the will of the people is known in advance. That is why for populists the role of "the people" is completely passive. He just needs to confirm the will of the populists by rounding it up.
However, this is only one conception of direct democracy. A different approach sees the referendum as just one moment in a broader and above all open decision-making process, in which citizens weigh different claims - and arguments for and against them - before reaching a decision. Instead of playing a game that suits populists by empowering "gatekeepers", we should ask ourselves how referendums can serve their proper democratic function.
Of course, one could point out that the damage has already been done, at least in countries like Hungary, Turkey and Poland, where populists have used elections, and sometimes highly manipulative "national consultations", to consolidate their power. Social scientists are just beginning to address the question of how authoritarian populist regimes can be transformed back into true democracies. We need new strategies to deal with what has been called "democratic backsliding", "constitutional retrogression" and "autocratization".
One idea focuses on the fact that many authoritarian populist governments profit from facing an extremely divided opposition, which is often the result of conscious engineering by the populists themselves. The divided opposition has difficulty forming coalitions and choosing the best possible candidate to face the populist rulers (because each party wants its own representative). Take for example the grueling discussions surrounding the Hungarian parliamentary elections in 2018. After a debate about whether the extreme right-wing Jobbik should - and can - enter into an alliance with the liberal left, the opposition parties went to the polls mostly independently and the coalition of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán won is 133 out of 199 seats in the parliament.
It goes without saying that the formation of a coalition between the left and the extreme right is extremely problematic. But another problem is that even if voters want a change in government, they may be reluctant to engage in tactical voting that would bring an equally bad, if not worse, alternative to power. It is hard to blame Hungarian liberals for not wanting to vote for Jobbik's candidate.
Referendums offer a way out of this dilemma, thanks to their binary structure. Although they often establish unusual coalitions, this does not disturb the voters, because they disappear with the end of the referendum. Even better, referendums can be shaped to expose the unpopularity of a populist government, thereby undermining its claim to represent the will of the people.
Realizing the true democratic potential of referendums, some authoritarian populist governments - for example in Hungary - make it even more difficult to submit authentic spontaneous initiatives. Although it goes against conventional wisdom - direct democracy can work against populism. There are no guarantees that such a strategy will work in every context, but it is certainly better than waiting for the "gatekeepers" to save us.
(Project Syndicate; Peščanik.net; translation: R. DINIĆ)
Bonus video:
