Why Populism?

Despite the connotations that accompany populism, it seems as if human nature may favor smaller groups, in which individuals are understood and their voices are easily heard. Historically, human society started in hunter-gatherer groups of 50 to 100 members; consequently, individuals understood each other and could rely on the social contract to encourage ideal behavior (“Morality among hunter-gatherers”).

 One could label this a local identity—shared only by members of this core group. Moreover, the populism epidemic seems to be exacerbated by the age of digital media, in which individuals can more easily find a group of people sharing a specific and localized nuclear identity, removing the need to compromise and argue respectfully between opposing identities and ideologies. Individuals can now reduce their interactions to only those with shared opinions, so when conflict arises between opposing ideologies, there is a gap in their knowledge of how to engage in respectful discussion.

As groups grow for economic or other cohesive factors, these principles may scale to regions—“a regional identity”— or even nations—“a national identity”. However, this social contract is harder to maintain in larger groups, contributing to the creation of written contracts: law codes.  This was first seen in the Sumerian Empire with the Ur-Nammu Law Code, followed by the notorious Code of Hammurabi (Tikkanen). Over time, there has been a succession of large international organizations, first through imperialism and more recently as IGOs such as the United Nations (UN), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the European Union (EU). The role of IGOs has been to expand the regional law codes to accommodate the global stage by creating a field of global governance to solve security and socio-economic issues (“Intergovernmental Organizations”).

Why may Globalism fail?  In the current period, the rationale for globalism may be fading for some individuals. Continued globalism requires member nations or groups or individuals to consent to potential intrusions of IGOs on regional identity for ‘the greater good’. When this trust falters, so may globalism. It is unclear how individual or ‘national’ psychologies may play into these competing attitudes towards nationalism or globalism. 

When the Cold War ended, globalism flourished beyond traditional IGOs. Paradoxically, in the current geopolitical climate — with a resurgent Russia and instability in the Middle East, the Sahel, and Asia — globalization is receding, and so is trust in IGOs. Intergovernmental organizations faltered because they attempted to manage issues beyond the immediate benefits of trade, and trodden into tight-knit and entrenched social issues (Gallarotti). As an example, Brexit in the UK is seen by many Britons as favorable to “national identity” and autonomy, despite its clear economic red flags. Of course, the EU has a difficult task of attempting to represent diverse nations, but Brexit was not a pressing issue before 2015 yet became a reality in 2016. One potential contributor could be the impact of charismatic and persuasive leaders —demagogues—  on individual and collective attitudes. In Britain, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage appeal to this vehement belief originating after WWII: of emboldened “independence” from the continent (Berend). This trend can be observed throughout Europe and in other parts of the world. Such nationalist movements in France, Germany, and globally have been criticized by some simply as tools for politicians to capitalize on fears (Cox). Nevertheless, from the discussion above, it seems likely that populist movements are more fundamental. 

Solutions. It is incredibly difficult to propose solutions. Considering anthropology and patterns of human choice over time, cooperation could be facilitated if representative organizations strive to continually understand and represent the needs, concerns, and identities of their constituents. The opposite may lead to populism. In theory, the U.S. should be an excellent example of this solution—placating the populist sentiment through appeasement—, in which the Constitution was designed to give each state considerable autonomy: regarding its ruling on local issues and its political voice: ultimately represented at the federal level. However, recent developments in the U.S., coinciding with widespread polarization in national attitudes and increasingly populist rhetoric, make us question if this approach is sufficient. With growing global instability and increasingly frequent discussion of “threats to democracy,” there is an urgent need to find creative regional solutions to regional problems.