Prior to attending Professor Heinisch’s lecture entitled “Populism: Into The Mainstream” about the many diverse forms that populism can take, I was largely unaware of the extensive spectrum that Populist parties can span. Of course, I knew better than to believe that “populism” fit perfectly into the single homogeneous categorization like the media attempts to portray. However, the extent of difference between the European Populist parties is quite shocking. For example, as Professor Heinisch explained, the distinction between populist parties in the East, West and South are significantly different from each other – varying along the lines of style, scapegoat, etc. Furthermore, even the public’s reactions to these populist parties vary geographically; in the West, traditional political parties attempt to isolate populists and refuse to cooperate with them, while in the East traditional parties shift their alliances to benefit from the populists.
That said, I was equally as surprised by one of the similarities that European Populist parties have in common – “the Putin connection.” As Professor Heinisch explained, populist parties across Europe have continuously received financial aid and media support from Russia. Initially, it seemed odd that Europeans were not more outraged by this connection – attempting to use it against the populist parties. However, after Professor Heinisch explained the division between populist voters and traditional-party voters, it became clear that the Russia connection would make little difference in political elections.
Given the number of varying strategies that have been used to eliminate populist parties in Europe, my question to Professor Heinisch would be which strategy he believes is most efficient, or if there is no single strategy for combating Populism that can be universally applied seeing as populists adapt to the current political climate of a given country. I was particularly curious about Professor Heinisch’s comment about traditional parties that have allowed the Populist party take power, fully expecting them to flounder and thus lose public support. From my perspective, this strategy seems like a rather uncertain gamble but, if it is common for populist parties to fail after taking office, perhaps the risk is worth it? I would like to know the percentage of populists that thrive while in power, as opposed to those that fail.