This Party’s Just Getting Started – Special Report Part I

Mathew Preston
July 3, 2019
The election of Donald Trump, the vote for Brexit and the eruption of the gilets jaunes movement in France exemplify the global rise of populism. It’s a phenomenon the international commentariat has condemned as a dark and dangerous political disorder arising from the far right end of the political spectrum. In the first of a special two-part series, Matthew Preston examines successful populist movements in Australia, Italy and Denmark. They are more complex and politically diverse, Preston’s reporting reveals, than can be contained in a simplistic left-versus-right, sensible-versus-extreme narrative.

Politicians and journalists have a weakness for grand narratives. One of today’s goes like this: the democratic world is in the throes of a dangerous, nasty populist-nationalist moment. In country after country, it is mobilizing passions that threaten to disrupt if not destroy democracy itself. The dark clouds of fascism are about to descend. It’s just like the 1930s! Variants of this scenario have sprung up and are endlessly recycled by differing elite segments in each country. The narrative has also become the fervently held belief of the world’s transnational elite, who have applied it to phenomena ranging from Britain’s Brexit vote to France’s gilets jaunes movement to the rise of charismatic national leaders and to the election of coalitions that command majority support in their country.

The populist phenomenon does evoke modest parallels to the pre-Second World War period. But like all grand narratives, it discards facts or invents new ones to further its plot.

The West appears to be exiting the outwardly calm, elite consensus-dominated post-Cold War era. Often described as the triumph of liberal democracy or, even more grandiosely, as the “End of History,” this period now appears less durable and more transient than its proponents predicted and hoped. We seem to be entering a phase that might be described as one of national peculiarities. The movements called “populist”, “nationalist”, “far-right” or “extreme” – often all four at once – are at bottom national political movements addressing national problems for those deemed their own nationals. Like nations themselves, each of these movements is a unique political expression, arising from the particularities of a nation’s history and addressing particular causes.

The grand narrative appears to have been triggered more by populist rhetoric than actions. Populists from Brazil to Hungary have said unconscionable things about human rights, democratic norms, particular minorities and individual lifestyle modes. Bombastic speech has tainted any leader who took ship in the choppy waters of nationalism, riding its currents to defy the rising tide of progressive consensus over environmental and immigration policies. Thousands – perhaps millions – of column inches and terabytes of video have been taken up in framing the rise of populists as a lamentable mix of questionable tactics, cynical abuses and sinister causes exploiting the worst elements of the human psyche.

Populists hold office in roughly one-dozen countries on five continents, and in several more are the nation’s main opposition (either as parties or movements). But the globe-girdling hand-wringing has cast the actual policies of these movements into the shadows. The grand narrative and its accompanying din of denunciation are obscuring rather than illuminating the truth. Because mainstream coverage is largely one-dimensional, cartoonish, selective and biased – when not downright misrepresentative – C2C Journal felt that Canadians deserved a clear-eyed look at populism in a representative cross-section of countries.

In this special two-part report, C2C’s Mathew Preston examines populist movements around the world, providing  snapshots on what is driving them, who leads them, how they won and what they are doing with political power.

One element of “the narrative” is that these movements, as dramatic and threatening as they may seem, will blow over, blow out or blow up. Whatever you may think of them, however, it seems more likely that this is one party that’s just getting started.

Denmark – A little mermaid with steel fins

The small Scandinavian country of 5.7 million illustrates that, stripped of the bombastic rhetoric and other aesthetic blemishes, the policies populists advocate can be a winning formula. On June 5, Denmark’s populist Danish People’s Party lost national elections – but its ideas won big. The party’s restrictionist immigration policies had become too popular merely to denounce and dismiss, let alone ignore. Instead, even Denmark’s left-wing Social Democrats took a harder line on immigration during the campaign. And, largely as a result, the Social Democrat-led bloc of parties won a plurality in Denmark’s parliament, the Folketing, and will form a coalition government.

Denmark, Social Democratic parties, politics
Demonstrators gather in Denmark to protest the country’s burqua ban; the law, however, was supported by both left and right wing political parties.

The previously governing centre-right coalition had enacted laws banning the burqa in public, empowered immigration officials to confiscate jewelry and other valuables from migrants to pay for their care, and launched a “paradigm shift” on asylum policy, dumping integration in favour of repatriation as the end goal. The Social Democrats voted for these policies in parliament – a stunning move that’s difficult to picture happening in Canada.

Denmark’s newfound national consensus on immigration-related matters moved the subsequent election campaign’s focus to other policy areas. International voices still denounce Denmark’s political parties, but despite pushing harder in substance than some other populists who gain power, they have escaped being mentioned in the same breathe as the standard bugbears of the anti-populists: Trump, Brexit and Brazil.

Italy – “La pacchia è finite”

“The party’s over” and variations on this phrase became among the favourite sayings of Matteo Salvini, a career politician from northern Italy who grew synonymous with Italy’s great shift away from uncontrolled borders. Salvini’s memorable lines are rhetorical shots across the bows of the hundreds of boatloads of illegal migrants streaming across the Mediterranean Sea mainly from Libya for Italy’s heretofore hospitable shores.

Yet Italy isn’t reviled like some other countries with populist governments, except perhaps by the technocratic, immovably pro-European Union leadership of its neighbour to the northwest, France. Perhaps this is because Italy has been run by populists before. Or maybe because oddball politics run through the veins of Italy’s body politic. The current populist government reflects this; it is a coalition between the left-wing Five Star Movement (M5S) and the right-wing Lega (formerly the Northern League).

Matteo Salvini, ring wing politics
"The carnival is over:" Italy's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, Matteo Salvini, is proving popular among Italians for his uncompromising approach to immigration and the European Union.

Italy’s status as a major entry point for migrants from North Africa and the Middle East and voter discontent over EU-imposed austerity drove the two parties and their partners to victory last year. M5S promised a guaranteed basic income, Lega a flat tax, and both strong curtailment of illegal migrants. The tax and benefit promises would have run roughshod over EU-imposed budget constraints. Italy’s discontent was about taking back control from Brussels.

Italy’s government provoked intense external condemnation when, in June 2018, the country denied docking to a ship with 600 migrants. Spain eventually accepted the ship. French President Emmanuel Macron declared the act “cynical and irresponsible” and sneered that populism was spreading across Europe “like leprosy.” Italy’s Foreign Minister shot back that Macron takes a hard line himself on migrants crossing from Italy into France. France’s “Europe Minister” said his country would not be dragged into a “stupidity contest” with Italy. One Italian critic lamented, “Italians are going backwards, socially, amid an upsurge of nationalism that displays racist animus against anything perceived to be an alien body.”

Most Italians clearly didn’t see it that way. In the previous five years they had witnessed 640,000 migrants entering their country. Many were brazenly and at times illegally enabled by international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that encourage the often gang- or Mafia-connected traffickers by rescuing the smaller boatloads at sea and dumping them in Italian ports. Voters were fed up.

Sea-Watch, Lybian refugees, anti-immigration
Sea-Watch, a German NGO, supports the rescue of Libyan refugees, while drawing the ire of Italy’s ruling populist party.

Those hard facts are virtually never included in the mainstream narrative and may explain why Salvini, as the new Interior Minister, was able not merely to resist international criticism but double down. In a speech last year, he declared: “The warning has arrived for the human traffickers, as for the mafiosi and camorristi [crime syndicate]: the carnival is over.” By this year, Italy had brought about a stunning drop of 97 percent in migrant landings, arguably wresting back control of its own borders. It’s probably no coincidence the polls indicate Salvini remains Italy’s most popular politician.

Fiscal policy was the populists’ other big driver. Eurozone budget rules that restrict deficits (in order to forestall national shocks to the Euro) meant that Italians struggling in a perpetually weak economy could not be helped in a way voters felt was sufficient. Worse yet, under European Central Bank rules, Italy is being threatened with legal action if it won’t limit its deficits to levels acceptable to that unelected body. Running massive deficits for welfare giveaways might not make sense to Canadian conservatives. But in a nation of rampant tax evasion and dismal employment numbers, a universal basic income and a flat tax don’t seem crazy to most Italians. What they regard as madness is the EU’s faceless bureaucracy prohibiting policy innovations by the government they elected.

Australia – A “Bogan’s” fair dinkum practicality trumps costly green utopianism

The “populist” win in Australia offers the closest analogies to Canada’s political situation. This is largely due to the two countries’ shared culture, politics and governing system, and their similar economies. Additional factors may be the crushing political correctness permeating each country’s establishment and the accompanying obsession with climate policy. All of this crystallized in the stunning May 18 victory of Australia’s Liberals – which Down Under means conservative – in cooperation with the National Party (dubbed the “Coalition”). Even Liberal leader Scott Morrison seemed surprised on election night, declaring in his victory speech, “I have always believed in miracles”.

Scott Morrison, Liberal Party, anti-immigration, low taxes, politics
Australian Liberal Party leader Scott Morrison won the 2019 federal election on a platform of commonsense policies, including tax cuts and a tough stance on immigration.

The Coalition won by dominating in the conservative, agricultural and resource-producing state of Queensland, thanks largely to its promises to open a huge new coal mine and to keep Australia’s coal-fired power plants online. These are practical matters on their face, but in today’s political environment they are both tied into and serve as symbolic shorthand for a voter’s attitude towards climate and energy policies.

The opposition Labour Party waffled on the mine decision while running on a far-left environmental policy that included promising that by 2030, 50 percent of Australia’s electrical power would be generated from renewable energy and 50 percent of vehicles sold would be electric. Labour also called for reducing overall carbon emissions by 45 percent, which would require getting rid of Australia’s electrical power backbone, its coal-fired generating stations. One economist’s model concluded Labour’s plan would cost the Australian economy AUD$264 billion and kill 167,000 jobs.

The charges of Labour’s climate extremism, however, mainly stuck due to the party’s willingness to work closely with the Green Party. Perhaps some Aussies had also noticed the climate extremism that resulted in B.C. after a social-democratic party jumped into bed with a green one. In any case, many Australians were shying away from green utopianism. The country had already suffered brown-outs from an earlier too-rapid transition to renewable energy sources. Cutting or limiting coal exports would stab at the heart of Australia’s economy, which is based on resource extraction and exports.

As Immigration Minister in the previous Coalition government, Morrison was castigated for turning back migrant boats, but the move proved popular. This time, he branded himself as an everyman – what Aussies call a Bogan – and decided to face down the climate crusaders, creating the axis around which the election turned. That certainly proved provocative; during the campaign, Morrison was egged at a campaign stop. Post-election, a progressive columnist wrote that, “It’s the country that’s rotten,” and that people felt “that their fellow citizens had chosen their investment properties over climate action.”

Deep-water coal port Australia
Aerial view of a ‘dirty’ industry: Queensland’s Abbot Point is the most northerly deep-water coal port in Australia.

The Liberal Party is notorious for its factionalism, and Australian parliamentary rules make leaders especially susceptible to defenestration, making it hard to predict whether and how the new government’s policies will be implemented. But the fact remains the Coalition won an election all pundits, all polls, and all elites said it would lose. And it won precisely because of the factors the naysayers said guaranteed its defeat. In Oz, a strong economy, common-sense environmental policy and defence of national culture trumped the pan-global progressive consensus around energy, greenhouse gases, migration and the supposed terminal economic and social irrelevance of blue-collar workers.

End of Part I

Coming in Part II: profiles of several more fascinating countries – with leaders who say even crazier things than Donald Trump – and a preliminary take on what the future might hold.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

A Political Giant Passes the Torch

The expression “he’s earned his retirement” could have been written for Preston Manning. The party-founding Canadian political original, onetime Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, prolific author and tireless public affairs commentator has accomplished enough for any five regular folks. He’s nearly 78, has grandchildren, a ranch and loves to ride horses. But with distant echoes of the early Roman republican Cincinnatus or the late Roman emperor Diocletian, crises of the state and confusion among the citizenry press upon him. So Manning finds himself doing double-duty as the most politically experienced member of Alberta’s Fair Deal Panel and, today in Toronto, launching a nationwide tour to promote his new book aimed at the current problems of democracy and conservatism in Canada. Paul Stanway reviews.

The Ford Government’s Formula for Relief of Public-Sector Labour Pain

With fiscally-conservatives parties in power in most provinces and deficits plaguing nearly all of them, contentious labour negotiations with entrenched public-sector unions seem inevitable, and strikes are very likely to follow. Ontario’s current teachers’ strike is thus a sign of things to come, with Alberta probably close behind. So how should politicians prepare themselves for the pain of long, drawn-out public sector strikes – perhaps even avoiding the typical ignominious climb-down? Peter Shawn Taylor reveals how one provincial government came up with a simple, parent-friendly strategy to buy itself time for credible negotiations.

Future of Conservatism Series, Part II: The Harper Victory Formula

There are two components to any political movement: theory and reality. A coherent political ideology is crucial to any functioning party, but so too is recognizing a viable path to success. Few Canadians have as much direct experience fusing political theory with political reality as Tom Flanagan − scholar, author and senior decision-maker in three major conservative political organizations. In the second installment of C2C Journal’s Future of Conservatism Special Series, Flanagan reveals four important lessons from the recent past as the Conservative Party of Canada reassembles the shards of its devastating October electoral defeat.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections vs. Ezra Levant: A Faux Pas de Deux

Secret video recordings. Former counter-terrorism policemen interrogating a lone journalist over his recent book and promotional lawn signs. Insults and accusations of bullying. Potentially draconian fines and even jail time over spending $501 or more on a perfectly legal service that thousands of businesses use daily. Grant A. Brown chronicles Act I of the tragicomic battle between free speech warrior Ezra Levant of Rebel News and the Commissioner of Canada Elections – and warns that free speech rights for all of us are again under threat.

Where’s the Veto for Common Sense?

It’s difficult to imagine that even Canada’s activist appellate courts truly intended what they eventually wrought with the doctrine of “aboriginal consultation”. But here we are, with tiny minorities-within-minorities seeking vetoes over critical projects, oblivious to the impact on tens of thousands of others. The federal government, meanwhile, is busily deepening the hole as it kowtows to UN directives as ignorant as they are arrogant. Gwyn Morgan evaluates the farcical melodrama and issues a stout “Stop!” Will the politicians listen?

An Endless Cycle of Despair

No one will disagree that there’s something terribly broken with Indigenous child welfare in Canada. But is the solution for the rest of the country to give up caring about native children altogether? That’s the plan behind new federal legislation that aims to ‘fully Indigenize’ child welfare services. Drawing on his own deep experience with the tragic consequences of the current system, former Manitoba provincial court judge Brian Giesbrecht reveals why Ottawa’s new approach will simply perpetuate Canada’s long history of failure to protect native children from the real causes of family dysfunction.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required