Many people expect the big political story of 2017 to be the triumph of populism in Europe. But that didn't happen. Instead, the biggest story is the so-called "movements" that have spread and replaced traditional political parties.
Let us first take the Republic party in the movement of French President Emmanuel Macron, which won the presidential and parliamentary elections in that country. Or let's think about how, at the end of the year, 31-year-old Sebatian Kurz became the chancellor of Austria after the transformation of the conservative Austrian People's Party into a movement called Sebastian Kurz's List - New People's Party.
On the European continent, more and more voters think that traditional parties are self-serving and power-loving. In developing countries, parties that have a good reputation, such as The African National Congress in South Africa is now considered corrupt. In many cases, traditional parties have become what political scientists call cartels: they use state resources to stay in power and, regardless of their political differences, often work together to keep competition at bay.
Young voters show less interest in working for traditional parties, which they find endlessly bureaucratic and, therefore, boring. Here I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's famous cynical remark about the problem with socialism: it takes up too much of the evening. It is not surprising that the most innovative political experiments in Europe in recent years have been born out of street protests and mass gatherings that avoided the hierarchical form of organization.
For example, the Spanish left-wing party Podemos was formed after the mass demonstrations of Indignados in 2011. Italy's populist Five Star Movement (M5S), which came out on top in Italy's 2013 parliamentary elections and is expected to win again this year, emerged from large rallies organized by comedian Beppe Grillo against "la caste" - which is a derisive term for what he considers a caste of professional politicians and journalists who run the country.
At the same time, there is something amusing about the sources of these movements - the spontaneity in relation to street protests, but also to the electoral success that follows. The irony of fate is that their charismatic leaders concentrated even greater power in their hands, even as they continued to propagate horizontal forms of organization and participatory democracy.
For example, the general secretary of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias, has come under fire from idealist activists within the movement itself for "hyper-leadership" and "online Leninism". Iglesias replied that "one cannot storm heaven with consensus".
Grillo does not have an official position in the Five Star Movement, which describes itself as a "non-association", but nevertheless has a blog that has become crucial to the Movement's success, as well as the copyright to the movement's official symbol. He revoked the right of the members of the Movement to use that symbol for allegedly violating the "rules" - or what is officially called the "non-statute" of his anti-party. And those who run for public office within the M5S must sign a contract promising to pay fines if they violate the party's principles.
Unconditionally, political movements are not necessarily populist in nature. As the Greens and feminists have shown, a movement can challenge traditional forms of politics without claiming to represent "real people" or the "silent majority."
But today's political movements also tend to be less pluralistic than the major parties that dominated postwar European politics. This makes sense if we take into account that "movement" implies not only dynamism, but also the assumption that all participants are in full agreement on which way to go next.
The problem is this: when everyone agrees on where to go, then there seems to be no need for broad democratic discussions. In this way, the movement that emerged in Europe in recent years - both left and right - concentrated more on strengthening its leaders than on the rights and opportunities of the base, even when they emphasize participatory democracy as a principle.
Both Macron and Kurz tapped into a sense of dynamism and purpose, which are usually key features of a single-issue political movement. Kurz subjugated the entire ANP to his will. In addition, he renamed it, reorganized its internal structures and changed its official color - from black to turquoise. Nevertheless, the conservative platform practically remained the same, indicating that its leader's steps are primarily aimed at marketing and consolidating his personal authority.
At the end of the day, Podemos, the Republic on the Move, and Momentum, the youth movement that helped Jeremy Corbyn change the platform of the British Labor Party, do not matter because they do not represent movements in their own right. Rather, it will be that they are important because they provide greater political choice to citizens, especially those who are disillusioned with the existing dualism - political systems dominated by two old parties offering virtually identical political programs.
In Corbyn's case, political movements could restore Labour's progressive capacity and reverse what many, during former prime minister Tony Blair's tenure, saw as an embrace of neoliberal policies. But it would be naive to think that the movements alone could have made European politics more democratic. But, they could act less democratically than traditional parties thanks to their strongly expressed plebiscitary forms of leadership.
The author is a professor of politics at Princeton University
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2018.
Bonus video:
