Antony Todorov on Populism - Living, Loving, Thinking, Again

Antony Todorov “National populism versus democracy” http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-06-19-todorovantony-en.html

ポピュリズムの定義――”a strategy that gives priority to the need for direct contact between the elite and the people, without the mediation of institutions” また、”a strategy that seeks to eliminate intermediary institutions”でもある。直接民主制への志向と同時に権力がバリアや制限なしに直接人民に及んでしまう可能性。しかしながら、直接民主制とポピュリズムを完全に同一視することはできない（eg. 瑞西の伝統的な直接民主制）。さらに、Todorov 氏は”the link between populism and popular aspirations for justice or the sense of injustice”を挙げる。しかし、社会的な不正義を批判する政治運動が全てポピュリズムであるわけではない。Emil Assemirov という人はポピュリズムの特徴として、”anti-elitist attitudes and a rhetoric based on the understanding of the nation as organic community, in which people and state are an organic entity”を挙げる。「反エリート主義的な態度とレトリック」、そして有機体論的な社会（国家）観。左翼も右翼もポピュリズム的な戦略を使用する。
レッテルとしてのポピュリズム。ここではポピュリズムへの様々な「非難」が言及される――

Today populism is a label used to discredit political opponents. The term has negative connotations in contemporary political discourse. Populism is something to be avoided because it is shameful, vulgar, and arouses suspicions of manipulation or plain lying.

Todorov 氏が纏めるところによると、ポピュリズムへの通俗的な非難は次のようになる――

What does the strategy of discredit political opponents label as populism? First, deception, making promises that cannot be fulfilled. Second, offering refuge to the losers in the transition, those who are susceptible to emotion and irrational behaviour. Third, the rejection of unpopular, tough measures and the refusal or reluctance to undergo effective "therapy". In fact, all those qualifications clearly identify two sides in society. On the one hand there are the professionals, the politicians, the elite, who understand things; on the other, there are the people, the mass public, or ordinary people who don't.

Todorov 氏はこれらのポピュリズムへの非難を１つ１つ論駁していくのだが、これについては省略する。
次に、”a symptom of the crisis of contemporary representative democracies”としてのポピュリズムが検討される。

In democratic regimes, populism is manifested as often diverse and contradictory strategies of questioning the foundations of modern democracy. In non-democratic regimes, it becomes a substitute for democracy. In the former, populism fits into the legitimate order of political pluralism ? it is one of the many political solutions whose legitimacy is based on pluralism. If modern democracy is understood as a regime in which there is no a one and only truth, party, philosophy or religion, then all kinds of strategies are admissible on principle, including strategies that question democracy. In such a context, populism presents itself as a political platform expressing the true will of the people, unlike the elite, which despite its diversity is united on one point: that of ignoring the true interests of the people. In the second case, populism presents itself as or claims to be a manifestation of democracy.

しかし、ここでも「人民にアピールし」「紛れもない社会的不平等に反対する」政治運動が全てポピュリズムであるとはいえないという問題に直面する。ポピュリズムが重要になるのは、民主制が形骸化して、右も左もエリート同士の馴れ合い或いは〈内ゲバ〉であるという感覚が民衆の間で支配的になるときである。引用されている仏蘭西の政治学者Pascal Perrineauの言葉で言えば、”When citizens say, "Society is changing but the system of distribution of power and of the elite remains unchangeable", populists remain the only true opponents.”
また、ポピュリズムを跋扈させる代議的民主制の危機の要因について、Pascal Perrineau氏は次のようなことを挙げているという；

Selfish individualism which drives citizens away from the classical forms of collective action;

Weakening of the old division between Left and Right, which long served as a political guideline and basis for political debate;

Weakening of social polarity in contemporary Western societies and the strengthening of the position of the "middle class", which is becoming a majority even in the category of hired workers;

Disintegration of the old ties between political parties and territorial communities as a result of globalisation and urbanisation.

どうだろうか。３番目の”Weakening of social polarity in contemporary Western societies”に関しては、最近はどの国でも新自由主義による〈格差の拡大〉ということがいわれているので、そんなの嘘だといわれるかもしれない。しかし、寧ろこれは労働者とかブルジョワとか貴族といった昔ながらの（アイデンティフィケーションの対象としての、そして想像の共同体としての）階級の衰退と捉えるべきだろう。さらに、Todorov 氏はいう；

The economic and social causes of the crisis are important as well. Among them are the effects of globalisation, which greatly limit the capacity of national governments to cope with the problems of their own polities, causing mass suspicion that things are ultimately decided "in secret" and "somewhere else". The latter has given rise to a deep division between the better educated and more open to Europe and globalisation, and the less educated who are concerned above all with the national and are often suspicious of anything "foreign".

ところで、このグローバル化に伴う大切なことは自分の知らないところで密かに決定されているのではないかというのは「陰謀理論」が蔓延る沃土でもある*1。
この後、選挙と民主制はそもそも全く無関係だという議論が出てきて興味深いのだが、これはオミット。

Modern democracy is not directly descended from ancient democracy as a newer form or variant of the latter, but emerged as a result of the long process of establishment and democratisation of representative government. Along with the main modern democratic attribute – elections, which inevitably presuppose demagoguery and therefore populism as well.

という部分を引用するに止めよう。ポピュリズムは「直接民主制」を志向するが、（寡頭制や僭主制ならともかく）古代希臘の「直接民主制」においてはポピュリズムが登場する余地はなかった。何しろ、選挙がないのだから。ポピュリズムというのは近代的な代議的民主制に寄生しながら、それを否定する癌のようなものだということになる。
最後に、ポピュリズムとナショナリズム（排外主義）との関係；

The problem is that today's populist movements endanger democracy not because they raise the issue of direct democracy (this is not their main demand), but because they advocate nationalist mobilisation based on the distrust or even rejection of foreigners. Today's populism is mainly national populism. Its sources are much more nationalist and therefore radical-conservative and radical-right than folkish or "philanthropic". Contemporary populist movements do not simply question the political status quo – they are anti-system, questioning the very foundations of pluralist democracy while using its procedures and practices.

Todorov 氏によれば、ナショナリズムと結びついたポピュリズムが跋扈するのは、旧来の左翼的・右翼的イデオロギーの衰退、自由主義、保守主義、社会主義の信憑性の低下によるものということになるが、私の見るところ、ポピュリズムの跋扈はナショナリズムそれ自体の空洞化とも関係がある。これについては後日。
ところで、Todorov 氏の「政治」と「マネージメント」（新自由主義者が好きな言葉で言えば、governance）は違うという断言は、例えばhttp://d.hatena.ne.jp/sumita-m/20080605/1212640212との関係で引用しておくに値するだろう（経営学者は必読）；

Thirdly, the thesis that populism means rejection of unpopular measures represented as unavoidable therapy is based on the assumption that in economics, more than in any other sphere, management decisions must be taken for granted, and that questioning them is irrational and the result of ignorance – just as only ignorance could make someone refuse a necessary therapy. Here we see the same division between the competent elite and the incompetent people but from a different angle – that of management and politics. In the world of politics, there is no decision that can satisfy everybody. The raison d'être of politics is institutionalised decision-making, where it is known in advance that universal satisfaction is impossible. In this sense, politics cannot be equated with management because it is based on an entirely different type of rationality and above all on a different notion of effectiveness. The politically effective strives to avoid major conflicts and is always aware of the need to keep social peace. That is why what is politically effective is not necessarily economically effective. The definition of populism as the irrational rejection of the economically effective is based on an understanding of the political that equates or simply replaces government with management. This is a fashionable thesis usually supported by neo-liberal economists who prefer the term "governance" to the traditional term "politics".