Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)
Peter Učen: Approaching National Populism
Peter Učeň Notes 1 We will stick to ‘radical right’ or ‘populist radical right’ throughout this section. 2 According to Mudde: “[T]his is particularly important if the concept is to ‘travel’ to the eastern part of the European continent. In post-communist Europe mass immigration has so far remained a fairly marginal concern, yet xenophobia and nationalism have played an important role in various parts of the region. The term nativism, as defined above, is able to accommodate the xenophobic nationalist reactions to (so-called) indigenous minorities from parts of the majority populations (e.g. ‘Estonian Estonians’ versus ‘Russian Estonians’ or ‘Slavic Slovaks’ versus ‘Hungarian Slovaks’); as well as those from minority members to either the majority population or other minorities (e.g. ‘Hungarian Slovaks’ against ‘Slavic Slovaks’ or against ‘Gypsies’)” (Mudde 2007, 19). 3 Telling examples of this approach are Margaret Canovan (1981, 1999) or Paul Taggart (2000). 4 It needs to be said, though, that along with a sophisticated treatment rooted in the political theory, populism is often also seen as a sheer communication style employed by politicians. 5 In general, with a bit of exaggeration, and begging for an empirical check, it could be argued that ‘thin-centred ideology’ approach potentially allows researchers to travel through time and space more comfortably without compromising the scholarly rigour of the research. Thus, by what initially seemed as the resignation on global ambitions, populist studies may have re-gained the capability to treat populism in various territorial, temporal, and cultural settings. 6 In the context of Slovakia we have see non-nationalist populist parties such as the centrist populist Party of Civic Understanding (SOP) and the neo-liberal populist Alliance of a New Citizen (ANO). For more details see Učeň 2007a. 7 Even though, in line with Nikolas (1999) we tend to believe that when it comes to study of nationalism, the best position is that of ethnicist operating within the modernist framework. 8 Slovak ‘state-building’ nationalism can serve as an example of the first type, policies of Hungary of the second, and nationalism of the Magyar minority in Slovakia of the third one. 9 This is an amended version of a classification presented in Učeň 2007a. It draws on a distinction between the post-communist transition (as a relatively short period of a political change leading to the demise of the Communist order and establishment of the liberal one) and post-communist transformation (referring to the protracted process of complex changes in societies concerned following the transition). 10 The placement of individual parties in respective categories is debatable. Note that, for example, Mudde (2007) considers Croatian HZD in the 1990s to be populist radical right. Also, Miloševič’s Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) remains for us for a time being an undecided border case regarding their continuity with the Yugoslav Communist party. 11 National populism can be also seen as a way of constructing the political nation which, in defining its (non) membership, makes use of, in addition to ethno-cultural criterion, also the arguments linked to the injustice and social costs of transition, as well as the resulting uprooting and displacement on the identity level. 12 In fact, the purest anti-establishment party from among the mentioned was NDSV. While, SOP and namely DP had certain leftist tint, RP, but namely JL declared themselves centre right. The message which resonated among electorates, and thus delivered then electoral returns, though, was the criticism of establishment. 36
