Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)
Peter Učen: Approaching National Populism
Approaching National Populism It must be admitted that calling the group of new parties (HZDS, HZD) ‘national populist’ is the consequence of the lack of a better term. So far we have not come across a suitable name for these new, truly post-communist, forces. We like to say that in the populated world of post-communist ‘unorthodox’ politics there are parties which are ‘more populist than anything else’ along with parties which are ‘more anything else than populist’. The ‘national populists proper’ are, along with the ‘centrist populists’ of the transformation populism period, indeed, ‘more populist than anything else’: “National populists ‘feature nationalism as a prominent element of their electoral appeal and claim to represent the interests of an often mythical and idealized national collectivity,’ but they refrain from radical actions, and ‘in ideological terms, nationalism is often supplemented by a broader non-nationalist policy agenda aimed at specific groups ... or social groups disadvantaged by economic reforms . . . rather than being the party’s only raison d'etre’” (Učeň 2007a, 53 quoting Pop-Eleches 2002, 6). In no way the parties in question should be understood an attempt to restore Communism. On the contrary, they represent a special way of adjusting ambitions of elite to the new political order in an illiberal mode: When in power, the national populists resort to authoritarian style adjusting of the rules to their advantage, but they certainly cannot be considered foes of democracy. They accept democracy, but in a populist manner try to legitimise its extreme majoritarian versions. Typically, their dominance in the 1990s was brought to an end by opposition coalitions of largely orthodox parties leaning toward the liberal-democratic mainstream (Učeň 2007a, 53). To sum up the post-communist national populism as we see it, it was a blend of social demagoguery (in terms of the criticism of the impact of transition on living standards of the people), authoritarianism, nationalism and populism. Each party at issue blended this mix in a different way, but what they had in common was the ‘illiberal staple’. Thus we hold that national populism was the politics of illiberalism under the post-communism for elites in search of not only power but often also of the people and the state. Its quintessence was making the national a presentable container for populism- and social demagoguery-fed drive for power, and to make it, along with populism, to provide justifications for its inevitable authoritarian excesses. Thus there are the reasons for ‘national populists proper’ stealing the ‘right’ to be labelled ‘national populist’ from the populist radical right. Parties such as HZDS were truly unique novelty the post-communist party politics brought into the attention of political science. Finally, in addition to identifying the embodiments of national populism, the ‘situation’ of national populism should be addressed as well. Owing to 27
