Populist promises and messages endanger people's health, create insecurity and undermine democracy.
Populism is an old concept in politics, the phenomenon itself is also characterized by a specific political style, and this - in a way that is not condemnable in itself, since it is the long-term goal of any policy - serves as a strategy for gaining power. Populists often contrast "the people" (the common people) with the "elite" and of course claim to represent the interests of the "common people" in this struggle, and this is the first approach that faithfully reflects the 2002-2010 the vices of government policy, since according to contemporary French historian Jean-Pierre Rioux, one of the important paradoxical features and characteristics of populism is that parties and political actors who claim to be the speakers of the common people, most often belong to the upper, wealthier, sometimes more educated social class belong. This can also be seen with regard to the Hungarian left, which produced three billionaire prime ministers between 2002 and 2010.
It should be noted that while left-wing populism has achieved success in some Latin American countries, it has faced profound difficulties in turning these remarkable victories into sustainable democratic practice, often even in the face of opposition from the organizations and unions that brought them to power. This is no accident. The vertical structure of left-wing populism, the substitution of an imaginary community for actual people, and the call for nationalism to generate emotional identification, created a form of populism in which the left lost its soul without gaining voters (Didier Fassin).
If we look at what promises the Hungarian left led by Ferenc Gyurcsány, a billionaire post-communist oligarch, made and demanded in recent years? Just a few examples: MSZP and DK campaigned for "European minimum wage and European minimum pension". But they also promised a European family allowance, and the idea of a joint multi-tax was thrown into the EP campaign. However, politicians and experts within the party said that they would later make responsible governance impossible. came up with the idea of a completely irresponsible basic income that also threatens democracy The latter added, as an explanation: "Hungarian citizens who have lived in Hungary for at least 8 years will be entitled to a monthly basic income ranging from HUF 25,000 to HUF 100,000 in four eligibility groups."
THE NEW LEFT WITHOUT POPULAR LEADERS WANT TO APPEAL TO EMOTIONS AND PREJUDICES, THEREFORE IT IS WELL SERVABLE AND OFTEN INVOLVES POPULIST ACTIONS. PART OF THIS MAY BE BECAUSE THEY FEEL THEY HAVE NO CHANCE TO WIN IN THE CURRENT DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEM, OR IF THEY COULD, THE PRICE IS THAT THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT EVEN MORE DEMAGOGY.
Although their promises are often impossible to fulfill (for example, basic income, free beer or eternal life), they apparently do not have to face this problem in the opposition. However, we already have an example: in 2002, they came to power with such a populist campaign, and this is how the left-liberal government coalition was later forced into a permanent impasse of its election promises. And their irresponsible budget and economic policy brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. The populists of the left promise unrealistic things, they don't deal with the contradictions, they don't even explain it to their voters, and they rather sway them into believing that if they win the election and come to power, everything in the country will be much better anyway.
Socialist propaganda combined with denial of reality reached a new level during the pandemic. The pandemic tested and continues to test the health care systems of countries, the willingness of citizens to follow the rules, and the ability of national governments to see if they can stand their ground even in such a crisis and protect the population and the economy at the highest possible level.
AND THE QUESTION IS, IN THIS CRISIS MANAGEMENT PROCESS, HOW DO YOU POSITION YOURSELF IN TERMS OF YOUR OWN, SHORT-TERM POLITICAL INTERESTS OR LONGER-TERM NATIONAL INTERESTS?
Well, it seems that the Hungarian left chose the former. He bullies, intimidates and threatens. , who previously threatened doctors who showed resistance due to the restrictions with arrest (!), and the list he leads.
The latest trick of the left-wing brainstorming session is scientifically questionable magic with epidemiological data. In this regard, it is important that different countries prepare different COVID statistics differently. In our country, no matter what other illness the person has in addition to the coronavirus, they are classified as victims of the coronavirus, whereas in Slovakia, for example, only those who did not have any other illness other than COVID-19 are said to have died of the coronavirus. Also, if an 81-year-old man with severe heart disease gets the flu, goes to the hospital, and dies, the death certificate probably won't show the flu as the main cause of death."
Currently, in the case of the coronavirus, it is the other way around
It should be noted that some elements of the left-wing anti-vaccination narrative use outdated, more than a hundred-year-old methodology. During the smallpox epidemic of 1885, arguments similar to today's (uncertain origin, insufficient clinical trials) were put forward against vaccines, significantly shifting the time frame for recovery from the epidemic (Paula Larson).
It can be an interesting addition for professional hooligans, if we look at the data on flu deaths before 2010, we can see a hopeful trend.
The situation of the left in Central and Eastern Europe – including the left-wing parties in Hungary – is complicated by the fact that here their voters are less self-organizing, it is not possible to build an ideologically based movement on them based on experience, and they mostly do not resonate with the left's strong, often perceptibly contradictory populism. Moreover, some of them are even closer to the conservatives' national-centered social program - that is, many of the "blue-collar workers" prefer the right wing. The populist left also exists in the West, but Senator Bernie Sanders in America or Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labor Party involved in the anti-Semitic scandal in Great Britain, can partly build on the lower classes, so their situation is quite different compared to, for example, MSZP or Párbeszéd.
Of course, all of this represents a completely different agenda than, for example, the proposal of the centre-right conservatives. The right wing offered different solutions to the shock and shocking changes caused by the world crisis that broke out in 2008 to the middle class, which found itself in a predominantly more difficult situation - or to the already endangered, lower social strata - by pushing the nation-state aspects to the fore, including a comprehensive economic program with protectionism, work-oriented and social protection.
SINCE THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE HUNGARIAN LEFT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF ITS WESTERN EUROPEAN POLITICAL RELATIVES, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE "VISION OF THE COUNTRY", THEREFORE, RADICALIZATION HAS BECOME THE CHOSEN PATH, NAMELY THE TOOL OF POPULIST AND ACTIONIST POLITICS.
Since it cannot appeal to wider masses and expand its traditional voter base due to the lack of a clear program and target, it has been trying to compensate for this with increasingly loud, radical and demagogic slogans and tools in recent years. This culminated in the opposition's late 2018 parliamentary disruption or MTVA headquarters scandals.
Left-wing populists always present those in power as evil and enemies of the people. Therefore, those who represent different values and therefore consider other priorities than the supporters of populism are declared to be against the will of the people. This is the classic basic position of populist tendencies, which in left-wing propaganda is often connected with elements of social demagoguery or, for example, eco-populism.
ALL THIS MAY BE A PARTICULAR DANGER FOR POLITICALLY AWARE YOUNG PEOPLE. FOR A LONG TIME, SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THE DECLINE OF CONFIDENCE IN POLITICS OF THE YOUNGER AGE GROUPS, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR EVEN IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL TREND FOR THEM; IN THE LONGER TERM, THIS IS NOT VERY ENCOURAGING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SURVIVAL OF DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS.
The level and nature of mistrust among young people varies from country to country, but can also be observed, for example, in the most diverse regions of Europe. However, it is primarily about the countries of the southern periphery, such as Spain or Greece, while the immigrant background of a significant number of young people in the French- and German-speaking center countries of the continent can pose a serious challenge in this regard, who often have a different - non-Western, bourgeois - value system in principle, and much they can be grasped more easily with populist and radical voices.
All in all, it can be stated that, even with the greatest goodwill, the left-wing populists in fact instead of a coherent program for solving social problems, instead of promising their own voters, especially young voters, with vague statistical data. You yourself know about the basic income that its introduction would cost a lot of public money, it would not be sustainable, it would put the emphasis on aid again, and it would not encourage following a work-based value system. However, in contrast to the politics of socialist demagoguery, an arsenal of values that puts work, the goal of fair enforcement, and the family at the center can offer a real alternative. Recent years in Hungary have proven that the clear presentation and emphasis of important values in communication is an effective weapon against the messages of radical populists, and all these social principles and values must be shown primarily to young people.
Source: Origo
