Review: Left Populism
Chantal Mouffe's For a Left Populism was published in 2018. Almost eight years later, it remains an insightful and catalysing work. We are still in the "populist moment" described by Mouffe, though the intensity differs geographically (for example, it seems to have spread to Japan, intensified in the UK, and not quite yet able to gain a foothold in Australia and New Zealand). Her thesis, that the only way to counter right-wing populism is to make use of a left-wing populism, ought to be taken seriously.
Her case is for left populism, a political movement that aims to create categories of "the people" versus "the elite" that can overcome similar divisions made by right-wing populists. After mobilising significantly large sections of society, left populism aims to reform liberal-democratic institutions to create "radical democracy", agonist in nature.
The strategy rests upon a few key presumptions. First, that populism does not necessarily involve authoritarianism. While right-wing populism is associated with authoritarianism, this has more to do with the prevalent of the concept of hierarchy in right-wing thought, not anything essential to populism itself. Secondly that social categories do not exist necessarily, but are constructed (anti-essentialism). Mouffe rebukes what she calls the "traditional left", which she says focuses too much on class as an essential social category.
The objective of left populism, per Mouffe, is not socialism but radical democracy. This means a "radicalisation" of existing liberal-representative democracies, particularly the principles of liberty and equality. The objective of the left ought to be to fight for the real expression of those core principles, making use of the "symbolic resources of the democratic tradition". Radicalising these concepts allows for immannent critique and a degree of affective power. The ultimate result is a "new hegemonic formation ... putting democratic values in the leading role". Mouffe is doesn't consider it necessary to state what this formation is or ought to be, leaving it to the left populist movements to decide based on their "contexts and national traditions".
The strategy to achieve this outcome centers around the construction of a "people" capable of engaging with existing political institutions. This construction requies the "creation of a different regime of desires and affects through ... discursive/affective practices that will bring about new forms of identification". Specifically, the identification with a "people" opposed to an "elite" (the oligarchy). This requires a "crystillisation of a collective will sustained by common affects aspiring for a more democratic order". So, enough people need to want democratic reform.
Mouffe doesn't just expect to find aspirations for democracy floating around. This isn't the default position for individuals to hold - most people don't think about politics more than they have to (despite what my Bluesky bubble would lead me to believe). And the thesis that inequality will lead to more demands for democracy is also flawed - experience shows us that it is easier for people to be turned against each other than to unite against oligarchs (as shown by the success of right-wing populism, which aims to place the chosen national/ethnic/racial group in a hierarchy above other groups). The "crystallisation" she speaks of isn't just the capture of existing sentiments, but the creation of those sentiments through the aforementioned discursive and affective practices.
Having covered the basics of the theory, here are some of my concerns regarding it.
The aim of left populism to create a "people" to counteract right populism's "people" risks breaking society up into factional publics competing against each other, but not listening to each other. Mouffe's agonist approach requires each group to acknowledge the legitimacy of the other, but it seems just as likely that the quest for power between right and left will turn bitter. This is already happening in countries like the United States, with a severe cultural, social, and geographical divide between Democrats and Republicans, and a deadlock in their legislature causing a government shutdown.
There's also the question of how effective the left can be in this strategy. Right-wing populism has moneyed power, media power, and preexisting notions of nationalism and ethnic identity behind it. In particular, right-wing and neoliberal control over the mainstream information ecosystem is all but absolute. Is it really possible that a left populism could surmount all of these advantages?
Mouffe argues that the rallying ideals for left populism should be democracy and social justice. Both of these are absolutely worthy and necessary goals. But I don't find either of them convincing to mass audiences - though democracy more so than social justice (right-wing populism also nominally decries the dictatorship of elites). Linking social struggles under the banner of social justice doesn't seem as effective as the right-wing populist strategy of fighting for a superior place in a hierarchy, based on an existing national/ethnic myth. Left populism needs to convince everyone that they have a shared interest against the elites and injustice more broadly. This will be a hard pill to swallow in a West that is seeing a rise in anti-migration sentiment, and growing divides between the city and country.
Despite her terminology of "radicalism" (even "revolutionary reformism"), Mouffe is making a rather moderate case for left politics. She approvingly references Norberto Bobbio's vision of "liberal socialism", which involves a liberal economoic framework with socialist characteristics. While I value liberal norms of liberty, equality, rule of law, procedural fairness and the like, I view liberal economics to be fundamentally incompatible with both democracy and socialism. Private ownership (assisted by neoliberal policies, granted) is the direct cause of oligarchisation, inequality, and right-wing populism. Mouffe is basically arguing for a more democratic social democracy with a progressive tinge (and an emphasis on agonism over consensus, but that's a different concern).
To remain hung up on this point, Mouffe states that "there is no necessary relationship between capitalism and liberal democracy", implying that socialism and liberalism are perfectly compatible. History seems to disprove this point - liberalism emerged alongside capitalism, capitalism was weakened under social democracy, and neoliberalism has multiplied the profits of the owners of capital. Mouffe states that the "consitutive principles of the liberal state" are "division of power, universal suffrage, multi-party systems and civil rights". But I would argue that these are principles of democracy, not of liberalism. The constitutive principle of liberalism is the separation of politics and the economy, as was the intent of its early theorists. Democracy (as in, popular sovereignty) is not possible without democratic control over what society produces.
I have problems with Mouffe's conception of left politics and her strategy of left populism. Nonetheless, it is hard for me to see any alternative to a way of doing politics which could be called populism. Assuming (as I do) that politics ought to be for the many, not the few, and that the few largely control political power, it follows that a progressive politics needs to successfully mobilise the many against the few. The strategy of forming a "people" united purely in a desire for a more democratic and equal society seems to be the most effective way to do this.
However, efforts should always be made to reach out across the divide to people to have right-wing preferences (obviously to a limit, see Bächtiger and Dryzek). The agonist mode of politics risks partisanship and social division, when taken advantage of by elements of the media.
Democracy is an excellent focal point for progressive politics. It is comparatively easy to show that democracy can enhance the quality of peoples' lives and improve their personal security, and that our current politics isn't democratic enough. This ought to be coupled with a focus on climate emergency, which requires immediate political action and social control over the economy, and has the urgency that may be capable of rallying society together.