My parents belonged to the “Greatest Generation”. Both served their country in World War II. Both sacrificed much for me to obtain the best education possible. So it was that I grew up hearing two phrases over and over: “We must never forget” (to signify that the world would never again suffer through a global conflagration of the type of WW II) and “History repeats itself” (signifying that, as a species, we do forget and tend to repeat the same mistakes over and over).
Right now, the second phrase appears to be winning.
Déjȧ vu all over again
Extreme, radical populist movements (mainly from the Right but some from the Left) are springing up all over the world – in Hungary, Italy, France, Germany, Brazil, India and even in the UK and USA. The historians among us will testify to such movements being at the root of the rise of fascism in Spain, Germany and Italy, as well as many other countries, in the 1930’s. How can we be making the same mistake all over again?
Outstanding and continuing research from the Pew Research Center has identified three key factors that feed the rise of populism around the world: perceptions of the economy, perceived erosion of individual rights and anti-elitism[1].
Where perception of the economy is concerned, the key word is perception. Even in an economy that is doing well, if your own economic prospects – and those of the people around you – do not seem good, then there arises resentment and feelings of hopelessness that search for a solution. In the United States of 2015 and 2016, these were the fallen white middle and working classes of the rust belt, living in cities and towns gutted by factory closures and the collapse of their societies.
Very often, such feelings of hopelessness and resentment go hand in hand with a contemptuous rejection of “elites” that seem both powerful and out of touch with the realities of the masses. Politicians are usually in the cross-hairs in this case, as are the highly educated. Often, these two merge – after all, are not many politicians who preach the “liberal order” the product of elite educational establishments – Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Eton? It is no coincidence that populist-birthed dictators often seek to destroy so-called ‘elites’ at the earliest opportunity – nobility, established politicians, educators, clergy, bankers…
Out of the combination of these two factors comes the final one identified by Pew – a perception of erosion of individual rights. After all, if it is my right to be heard and the politicians, industrialists, bankers and other elites are not listening to me, what is the point of that right? If it is my right to have a job, healthcare, a good education for my kids and all of this has been taken away from me, how is that right?
The path to dictatorship
Into this cauldron of resentment comes the aspiring dictator. There are two paths to dictatorship – the military one and the populist one.
The populist path is well-trodden and clearly sign-posted. The aspiring dictator must achieve three primary goals:
- Get elected, preferably on an authoritarian populist platform. Doing so requires a very alluring – and yet all too familiar – narrative: “Everything is a mess. It’s all the fault of (brown/Jewish/Chinese/Communist – choose your flavor) others; once we eliminate this threat, all will be wonderful; only I can do it”
- Once in power, weaken, neutralize or destroy all other forms of power that can get in your way – the media, judiciary, legislature and any other opponents
- Reward your “winning coalition” (the people who really put you in power and on whom you depend to stay there), preferably with money; and feed your “selectorate” (the people who actually elected you), preferably with smoke, mirrors and a diet of hate against those pernicious “others”.
And, hey presto, you are a dictator! This is the path that has been taken by totalitarians down the ages – Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Jomo Kenyatta, Hugo Chavez.
And this is the same path being trodden by populist politicians and movements today.
Lessons for research
But what has all this got to do with research? I believe there are three lessons to be learned here:
- Back to basics – established research theory applies
- How to use ‘new and improved’ research methodologies to get at the underlying truth
- The role of research in raising red flags for society as a whole.
Back to basics
The first lesson to learn is that age old one of proper sampling. Take, for example, the lesson learned by Hillary Clinton. Already seen herself by many as an “elitist”, she did not sample or listen to the very people who would decide the election – the disaffected of the rust belt. This failure – compounded by her calling them “deplorables” – resulted in her losing three states that should have been solidly in her camp: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Sometimes it is better to have a more inclusive sample so that you hear things on the margins that can come back to bite you.
Secondly, what question do you really need to ask? Is it what people are going to do or should it be how they feel? Should it be directly to the point or perhaps more contextual? For example, Pew has a well-honed battery of attitudinal questions about how people feel in their society rather than direct questions on political beliefs.
Harnessing the new
In contextual environments in which feelings and belief structures are under the microscope, sometimes it is the indirect approach that works better. For example, why did the majority of polls get the US election and the UK referendum so wrong? Because some people shied away from giving a “societally incorrect” answer to the direct questions being posed to them.
In these sorts of circumstances, perhaps we could learn a thing or two from behavioral economics, for example. Ask people how they think their friends or neighbors feel or will act. Or perhaps we can benefit more from technologies such as facial coding or neuroscience. It would have been interesting to observe a Pennsylvania focus group’s facial expressions of disgust when confronted with an image of Hillary Clinton, for example. Or those of older participants outside of London during the Brexit referendum when the subject was immigration.
The role of research in society
Finally, we have to recognize that research, properly done, can be an early warning system for when the conditions for populism become ripe. Even more importantly, research can listen to, interpret and translate the frustrations of those who feel marginalized and ignored by the “elites”, so starting a conversation in society about how to recognize and meet their needs.
This, after all, is our role in life – decoding people’s needs and interpreting them to those who can do something to meet them. Bringing the voice of the customer – in this case the citizen voter – to those that count.
This article is adapted in part from
Simon Chadwick’s book For the People: A Citizen’s Manifesto to Shaping Our
Nation’s Future. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.
[1] Pew Research Center – Global Attitudes and Trends, April 2019 and October 2019
