The European and american election years - what are we actually talking about?

I have, for the past four months, been following American politics as well as the ongoing EU election. While these processes are largely different—where, for instance, Americans vote for a president rather than a party, and the election does not revolve around parliamentary seats—I can still see a worrying aspect in both elections. This aspect involves how the populist right (with Trump as the leading figure in the US and the Identity and Democracy group in the EU Parliament) has shaped the political discussion to revolve around the character of these groups rather than their political message. Consequently, voters are unable to understand what they are voting for on key issues and instead focus on who they are voting against.

Among scholars today, for instance, Ruth Wodak has coined the term "politics of fear" to describe how right-wing groups mobilize by invoking tensions between "citizens" and "immigrants," establishing a fear that the majority will lose everything from employment and traditional values to state security to immigrants. Historically, such arguments had significant difficulties gaining mainstream political influence until the early 2000s. This was partly due to the memories of World War II when the population saw the absolute consequences of racism. However, in the early 2000s, and perhaps even earlier, there was a shift towards an increased understanding of the right wing as having a point, thereby gaining them electoral support. Like all drastic shifts in politics, this development was met with resistance, such as the massive political mobilization during the French presidential election of 2002 and the efforts against the Sweden Democrats in the 2006 election. Yet, ultra-right movements have made significant progress over the past decade, while the rhetoric of their counterparts remains the same.

The politics of fear thus seem relevant for many people in both the US and Europe. What is interesting is that it also silences democracy on all issues other than those of immigration and integration. Having followed the Swedish elections for the better part of a month, I fully understand how the parties relate to one another on issues of migration, but I know almost nothing about other areas of politics. Therefore, the ability to make an informed decision requires one to read through the party groups' ideas on their web pages, but this is not something an ordinary person has the time to do. And this is where another key concern comes into play: namely, the legitimacy of the political system.



Drawing inspiration from the works of David Beetham, legitimacy can be understood as part of a wider social conflict, where society needs to organize itself hierarchically to be effective and managed. Such power relations, however, demand legitimacy, where those governed feel that the institutions in play have the right to create laws and manage issues of resource distribution. From the perspective of the current political climate, such legitimacy can be derived from voters who make an informed decision and then vote for the party they believe can best represent their interests. However, this is an act of giving consent to power, and this consent can easily be withdrawn by not voting in the following elections. Following this line of thought, it becomes clear that the overall focus on the populist right's way of speaking, rather than the content of their message, can create a legitimacy crisis for the power institutions in Europe. If voters do not have the ability to make informed decisions, they will eventually feel their politicians do not represent them, which in the end jeopardizes the entire political system.

So, what does all of this mean? Perhaps it means that journalism and conventional politicians should look beyond non-viable political agendas such as building a physical wall around the European Union. Instead, it might be time to talk about the more mundane questions such as work regulation, environmental policy, and so on, in order to give the people the best possible circumstances for voting. If not, I fear that the politics of fear will actually be successful, as it can dismantle the entire political system.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The use of history and why historians should mind the gap

Image
 Around two decades ago we can to some extent see how a paradigm hit Swedish history science in full force. This paradigm consisted of studies on how history was used in society and often came with a theoretical luggage from the German and English tradition. After having supervised student theseses on this area I still remain somewhat doubtful as too how students, and historians, often uses these theories. Perhaps this is also due to my PhD-thesis containing a similar approach when it comes to putting the past into neat little boxes. My criticism towards this paradigm is that it have come to be utilised as a way to only package uses of history, rather than what these packages contains. Let us for instance take the form of studying uses of history as narratives or if one so wishes, tropes. The idea here is to study how certain forms are expressed as stories of trauma, grief or “from darkness to light”. What this actually is about in the more theoretical work is to study how history ...
Read more

Contemporary Sexual Politics: Efforts to Silence Sexuality in Politics

Image
Following up on last week’s post, we can ask ourselves where questions of sexuality are being challenged in politics. From a contemporary perspective, I would argue that we are currently witnessing global attempts—particularly from conservative actors—to banish issues of sexuality from public discourse. In Foucauldian theory, we can speak of several forms of the exercise of power. Foucault uses the concept of biopower to analyze social views on sex, capitalism, and power. One of the central aspects of biopower is that it often operates through the individual, who is expected to internalize social norms rather than be externally forced to accept them. Yet, in the case of sexuality, we have over the past decades witnessed rather forceful attempts to silence it, thereby making people unaware of important aspects of their own sexuality. In such cases, the effort seems to lie in banishing "unwanted" expressions from public discourse, thereby limiting the individual’s scope for a...
Read more

Contemporary Sexual Politics: a Background

Image
This is the first part in a series of three posts in which I aim to discuss contemporary sexual politics from a more theoretical and research-based perspective than in my other posts. It forms part of a broader discussion on how sexuality can—and perhaps should—be understood as constituted by a multitude of actors. Therefore, we might not be able to speak of a single contemporary politics of sexuality, but rather of a range of political positions. During the 20th century, numerous philosophers and researchers attempted to write “the history of sexuality,” but the one who has influenced me the most is the French philosopher Michel Foucault. I have actually read all three of his original works on sexuality, but I believe the first book covers the essential foundations for discussing and understanding sexuality. Broadly, this can be said to consist of two levels of particular interest to this series of posts: a) the repressive hypothesis b) the discussion on power/knowledge and the multi...
Read more