Populism is a political and social phenomenon that arises from the common man, typically not well-educated, being fed up with 1) wealth and opportunity gaps, 2) perceived cultural threats from those with different values in the country and from outsiders, 3) the “establishment elites” in positions of power, and 4) government not working effectively for them. These sentiments lead that constituency to put strong leaders in power. Populist leaders are typically confrontational rather than collaborative and exclusive rather than inclusive. As a result, conflicts typically occur between opposing factions (usually the economic and socially left versus the right), both within the country and between countries. These conflicts typically become progressively more forceful in selfreinforcing ways.

Within countries, conflicts often lead to disorder (e.g., strikes and protests) that prompt stronger reactions and the growing pressure to more forcefully regain order by suppressing the other side. Influencing and, in some cases, controlling the media typically becomes an important aspect of engaging in the conflicts. In some cases, these conflicts have led to civil wars. Such conflicts have led a number of democracies to become dictatorships to bring order to the disorder that results from these conflicts. Between countries, conflicts typically occur because populist leaders’ natures are more confrontational than cooperative and because conflicts with other countries help to unify support for the leadership within their countries. 

In other words, populism is a rebellion of the common man against the elites and, to some extent, against the system. The rebellion and the conflict that comes with it occur in varying degrees. Sometimes the system bends with it and sometimes the system breaks. Whether it bends or breaks in response to this rebellion and conflict depends on how flexible and well established the system is. It also seems to depend on how reasonable and respectful of the system the populists who gain power are. 

In monitoring the early-stage development of populist regimes, the most important thing to watch is how conflict is handled—whether the opposing forces can coexist to make progress or whether they increasingly “go to war” to block and hurt each other and cause gridlock.

Classic populist economic policies include protectionism, nationalism, increased infrastructure building, increased military spending, greater budget deficits, and, quite often, capital controls.
In the period between the two great wars (i.e., the 1920s-30s), most major countries were swept away by populism, and it drove world history more than any other force. The previously mentioned sentiments by the common man put into power populist leaders in all major countries except the United States and the UK (though we’d consider Franklin D. Roosevelt to be a quasi-populist, for reasons described below). Disorder and conflict between the left and the right (e.g., strikes that shut down operations, policies meant to undermine the opposition and the press, etc.) prompted democracies in Italy, Germany, Spain, and Japan to choose dictatorships because collective/inclusive decision making was perceived as tolerance for behaviors that undermined order, so autocratic leaders were given dictatorial powers to gain control. In some cases (like Spain), strife between those of conflicting ideologies led to civil war. In the US and UK, prominent populist leaders emerged as national figures (Oswald Mosley, Father Charles Coughlin, Huey Long), though they didn’t take control from mainstream parties. 

Eoin Treacy's view

Here is a link to the full report.

Fiscal austerity is a hard pill to swallow. Whether it is for people who lost their homes during the USA’s credit crisis or those who had wages and benefits slashed as a result of the EU’s banking and associated sovereign debt crisis. 

Generally speaking the best outcomes arise when fiscal austerity is associated with a major currency devaluation. That way the boost to competitiveness softens the economic blow while the austerity bred reforms cement the potential for future growth. 

Unfortunately, the central bank and government response to these crises was to socialise the debts which has impaired government balance sheets while central bank extraordinary monetary policy has created a very one-sided recovery. Large numbers of people feel disenfranchised and are therefore revolting through the ballot box. 

These are not trends which play out overnight. It is still open to question whether the EU will see populists take power this year but the longer austerity goes on, with no real improvement in living standards, the greater the potential for populists to gain traction. That is why fiscal stimulus is such an important tool. It fulfils the dual objectives of putting money in people’s pockets and removing the burden of austerity. 

While not in the mould of either Brexit of Trump, Martin Schulz’s Europhile version of populism has the potential to become a powerful force in this year’s German election.