Sociology of institutions week 6
Mudde – Europe’s Populist Surge: A Long Time in the Making
Terrorist attacks and the eurozone crisis have helped push populist movements to the center of
European politics.
Problem: because so much commentary on contemporary populism overlooks its deep historical
sources, many observers fail to appreciate the durability of today’s populist appeals and the likely
staying power of the parties built around them.
Populism = an ideology that separates society into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the
pure people’ and ‘the corrupt elite’, and that holds that politics should be an expression of ‘the
general will’ of the people.
Most populist parties are right-wing, but some are left. On average populist parties in Europe score
16,5% of the vote in elections (and 65% in Hungary). They control the largest share of parliamentary
seats in Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland.
Explanations for this trend:
1. Globalization and the economic crises of 2008 in Europe
2. Convergence of center parties deindustrialization and a steep decline in religious
observance weakened the support enjoyed by established center-left and center-right
parties. So the center parties shifted away from their historical identities and adopted more
centrist and pragmatic approaches to economic and cultural issues. This lead to convergence.
Two massive transfers of authority that took place in the second half of the 20 th century:
- From national governments to supranational entities such as the EU and the International
Monetary Fund
- From democratically elected officials to unelected ones such as central bankers and judges
Issues as border control and monetary policy were no longer the exclusive responsibility of the
national government. This led to the emergence of TINA politics (there is no alternative), which
meant that the elite’s responsibility to the EU or the IMF outweighed their duty to be responsive to
the demands of voters.
Although populism is not necessarily antidemocratic, it is essentially illiberal, especially in its
disregard for minority rights, pluralism, and the rule of law. In Hungary, populism is not merely a
campaign strategy or a style of political mobilization that leaders shed as soon as they achieve
political power. No left-wing populist party have successfully managed to succeed at national level,
with the exception of Spain.
Even in countries without a populist government, a populist Zeitgeist has taken hold. In many cases,
populists now set the agenda and dominate public debate, while mainstream politicians merely
react, sometimes even adopting elements of populist rhetoric, peppering their speeches with
references to ‘the people’ and condemnations of ‘elites’.
Many scholars content that European populism is an episodic phenomenon, but that is wishful
thinking. Deep structural changes in European societies produced the current populist wave. Those
changes are not likely to be reversed anytime soon, so there is no reason to anticipate that populism
will fade in the near future.
, Cordons sanitaires (coalition governments that seek to exclude populist parties) will become difficult
to sustain. At the same time, it will become harder for establishment parties to govern alongside
populist parties.
The dilemma for populists between responsiveness and responsibility presents opportunities for
liberal democratic parties, but only if they do not simply attack the populist vision but also provide
clear and coherent alternatives.
Conclusion: the populist surge is an illiberal democratic response to decades of undemocratic liberal
policies. To stem the populist tide, politicians will have to listen to the crucial issues of the 21 st
century (immigration, neoliberal economics, integration) and offer a consistent alternative to the
often shortsighted and simplistic offerings of the populists.
Uitermark – Longing for Wikitopia: The study and politics of self-
organisation
Hypothesis: self-organisation is an inspiring ideal but often misunderstood and it may produce
adverse consequences when used as a policy guide.
All sorts of complex structures have been analysed as the outcome of self-organisation.
Self-organisation has not only gained ground as an explanatory concept but also as a political ideal. It
is embraced by governments. The Dutch cabinet states that the society’s self-organising capacities
are growing. The welfare state must transform into a participation society. Networked communities
rather than hierarchical states have come to be seen as the source of welfare, prosperity, and
happiness.
This paper examines the uneven and contradictory development of self-organisation and the clumsy,
creative reconfiguration of relationships within communities and between communities and the
government.
The irresistible rise of self-organisation
Self-organisation represent the city as akin to a biological system with a natural order in which every
attempt at design or control is problematic or destructive. The only effective way to manage cities
will be to discover their intrinsic bottom-up principles of self-organisation and to work with those.
The ideology of self-organisation is a distinction between on the one hand ‘the system’ with its
endogenous (van binnenuit ontstaande) principles of self-organisation (the market and civil society)
and on the other hand ‘interventions’ as carried out by some agent alien and exogenous to the
system (the state).
Wikitopia = the ideal of the self-organized city, a city where people are not directed by central
authorities but cooperate voluntarily in communities and for the public good. An ideal city where
bottom-up cooperation coalesces into an ingenious and complex social organization.
Wikitopia has political and ideological appeal to both left and right as it promises that the power
investing in rigid institutions will be distributed across communities capable of taking control over
their own affairs. At the same time, the government’s idealization of citizens and the boasting about
civic power raises suspicions. Just as the state can fail, so can the market and so can civil society.
A Macroscopic view
With a macroscopic view we can examine where self-organisation takes off and where it does not.
Mudde – Europe’s Populist Surge: A Long Time in the Making
Terrorist attacks and the eurozone crisis have helped push populist movements to the center of
European politics.
Problem: because so much commentary on contemporary populism overlooks its deep historical
sources, many observers fail to appreciate the durability of today’s populist appeals and the likely
staying power of the parties built around them.
Populism = an ideology that separates society into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the
pure people’ and ‘the corrupt elite’, and that holds that politics should be an expression of ‘the
general will’ of the people.
Most populist parties are right-wing, but some are left. On average populist parties in Europe score
16,5% of the vote in elections (and 65% in Hungary). They control the largest share of parliamentary
seats in Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland.
Explanations for this trend:
1. Globalization and the economic crises of 2008 in Europe
2. Convergence of center parties deindustrialization and a steep decline in religious
observance weakened the support enjoyed by established center-left and center-right
parties. So the center parties shifted away from their historical identities and adopted more
centrist and pragmatic approaches to economic and cultural issues. This lead to convergence.
Two massive transfers of authority that took place in the second half of the 20 th century:
- From national governments to supranational entities such as the EU and the International
Monetary Fund
- From democratically elected officials to unelected ones such as central bankers and judges
Issues as border control and monetary policy were no longer the exclusive responsibility of the
national government. This led to the emergence of TINA politics (there is no alternative), which
meant that the elite’s responsibility to the EU or the IMF outweighed their duty to be responsive to
the demands of voters.
Although populism is not necessarily antidemocratic, it is essentially illiberal, especially in its
disregard for minority rights, pluralism, and the rule of law. In Hungary, populism is not merely a
campaign strategy or a style of political mobilization that leaders shed as soon as they achieve
political power. No left-wing populist party have successfully managed to succeed at national level,
with the exception of Spain.
Even in countries without a populist government, a populist Zeitgeist has taken hold. In many cases,
populists now set the agenda and dominate public debate, while mainstream politicians merely
react, sometimes even adopting elements of populist rhetoric, peppering their speeches with
references to ‘the people’ and condemnations of ‘elites’.
Many scholars content that European populism is an episodic phenomenon, but that is wishful
thinking. Deep structural changes in European societies produced the current populist wave. Those
changes are not likely to be reversed anytime soon, so there is no reason to anticipate that populism
will fade in the near future.
, Cordons sanitaires (coalition governments that seek to exclude populist parties) will become difficult
to sustain. At the same time, it will become harder for establishment parties to govern alongside
populist parties.
The dilemma for populists between responsiveness and responsibility presents opportunities for
liberal democratic parties, but only if they do not simply attack the populist vision but also provide
clear and coherent alternatives.
Conclusion: the populist surge is an illiberal democratic response to decades of undemocratic liberal
policies. To stem the populist tide, politicians will have to listen to the crucial issues of the 21 st
century (immigration, neoliberal economics, integration) and offer a consistent alternative to the
often shortsighted and simplistic offerings of the populists.
Uitermark – Longing for Wikitopia: The study and politics of self-
organisation
Hypothesis: self-organisation is an inspiring ideal but often misunderstood and it may produce
adverse consequences when used as a policy guide.
All sorts of complex structures have been analysed as the outcome of self-organisation.
Self-organisation has not only gained ground as an explanatory concept but also as a political ideal. It
is embraced by governments. The Dutch cabinet states that the society’s self-organising capacities
are growing. The welfare state must transform into a participation society. Networked communities
rather than hierarchical states have come to be seen as the source of welfare, prosperity, and
happiness.
This paper examines the uneven and contradictory development of self-organisation and the clumsy,
creative reconfiguration of relationships within communities and between communities and the
government.
The irresistible rise of self-organisation
Self-organisation represent the city as akin to a biological system with a natural order in which every
attempt at design or control is problematic or destructive. The only effective way to manage cities
will be to discover their intrinsic bottom-up principles of self-organisation and to work with those.
The ideology of self-organisation is a distinction between on the one hand ‘the system’ with its
endogenous (van binnenuit ontstaande) principles of self-organisation (the market and civil society)
and on the other hand ‘interventions’ as carried out by some agent alien and exogenous to the
system (the state).
Wikitopia = the ideal of the self-organized city, a city where people are not directed by central
authorities but cooperate voluntarily in communities and for the public good. An ideal city where
bottom-up cooperation coalesces into an ingenious and complex social organization.
Wikitopia has political and ideological appeal to both left and right as it promises that the power
investing in rigid institutions will be distributed across communities capable of taking control over
their own affairs. At the same time, the government’s idealization of citizens and the boasting about
civic power raises suspicions. Just as the state can fail, so can the market and so can civil society.
A Macroscopic view
With a macroscopic view we can examine where self-organisation takes off and where it does not.
