.png)
The paradox of Populism: the French Revolution and its lessons
Across Western democracies since 2008, poverty has often worsened, economic growth has slowed, and trust in national governments has eroded, resulting in an angry population manipulated by extreme parties on the left and right. Right–wing parties are soaring up the polls and even making it to government. The USA has Trump’s GOP. France has Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and the UK has Farage’s Reform UK. The populism these parties represent creates a paradox that strikes at the very core of democracy itself: the people and the legitimacy they grant.
Populism is defined as a “thin-centred ideology” that divides society between “the corrupt elite” and “the pure people”, believing that politics should be an expression of “the general will”. We can see this pattern of dividing society in the election speeches and literature of today. Trump sees society as locked in a battle between the “deep state” and his “American patriots”. Le Pen and Farage cast their countries as split between a failed elite bringing in migrants and the average citizen. But the key to understanding 21st-century populismcentury populism lies in the past, with the defining populists of their age: the French revolutionaries of 1789–1799.
A crucial and underexplored aspect is the “general will” – a rather undemocratic idea developed by the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762). It starts with the belief that an objectively correct solution exists to every issue that can be reached by deliberation, and when the people supposedly arrive at these solutions, it is the law. If a citizen were to dissent from the general will, they should be “forced to be free.”
Rousseau was a key influence on French revolutionaries. Everyone from the supposedly incorruptible Maximilien Robespierre to the demagogic Jacques Hébert believed they represented the people and the general will. After the overthrow and execution of Louis XVI and his queen, Marie Antoinette, the undemocratic nature of the general will began to make its mark in the Reign of Terror, identifying enemies of the people to meet the same fate as Louis did.
At first, some rebels and royalists faced the guillotine, but then it became ordinary people who were simply not passionate enough about the revolution who faced death. The local baker, cobbler, and farmer were considered enemies of the people for voicing the mildest of criticisms. The thought never dawned on the revolutionaries that, in the name of the people, they labelled those same people as their enemies and had them executed.
Populism harms the very people it supposedly represents, and when those same people raise criticism, they are labelled as traitors. The populist’s general will is by no means general, for it claims the voice of the people without even listening to that voice. This is the paradox of populism, and it is not limited to 1789–1799. It is alive and well today.
Historians would warn against drawing such parallels; France in the 1790s was a different time and political system compared to the democracies of today. That’s true, and it’s highly unlikely that Le Pen will guillotine her own voters. However, the populists of the 1790s and 2020s share a defining focus on the general will. Trump is the perfect example. His electoral coalition in 2024 included a record share of Latino voters making up his patriotic Americans, yet when those same communities felt the violent impacts of immigration enforcement, their protest was dismissed and demonstrations labelled “domestic terrorism”. How dare Trump’s own voters criticise his policy? Do they not know that Trump represents the will of the people?
The ingredients for the paradox can be seen within populist parties that are yet to enter government. The stripping back of rights to tackle immigration promised by Farage would harm the freedoms of the ordinary Britons he claims to represent. Yet, if you criticised Farage as a member of Reform, you could be suspended or, as a voter, have your concerns dismissed. All whilst the party claims to be on the side of the people – a contradiction truly worthy of Robespierre’s and Hébert’s legacy.
Non-populist parties must highlight these contradictions, unmasking the “solutions” of the populists for what they truly are. These are policies that, at best, are overly ideological and ill-thought-out and, at worst, deliberate attempts to deceive the people. However, arguing this is not enough. Non-populist parties and politicians must remember that populism is the manifestation of legitimate anger and its causes must be tackled. Poverty, education, and public services must be significantly reformed in an approach that actually listens to the people.
Ultimately, the way to beat the populists is to embrace democracy’s greatest strength, the ability to take criticism and evolve. The populists of both the 1790s and 2020s could never understand that. That is what makes them so dangerous, but that is also why they can be beaten.
Public Domain.
No image changes made.
Comments