An effigy of the leader of the Law & Justice Party (PiS), Jaroslaw Kaczynski holding Premier Beato Szydlo and Polish President Andrzej Duda as puppets

Politics

Populismus mit sozialistischen Merkmalen

Jun 13, 2018 Mitchell A. Orenstein

PHILADELPHIA – Wissenschaftler und Journalisten berichten unablässig über den Aufstieg des populistischen Nationalismus in Europa und vor allem über die Hardliner-Regierungen in Ungarn und Polen. Mit ein paar Stunden Zeit und intensiver Google-Recherche kann man viel darüber erfahren, wie sich die Regierungen der beiden Länder der staatlichen Medien bemächtigten, hart gegen private Fernsehstationen und Zeitungen durchgriffen, die Verfassungsgerichte schwächten, Einwanderer attackierten, Hassparolen gegen Juden, Muslime und andere Minderheiten unterstützten und Online-Trolle entfesselten. Eine grundlegende Frage bleibt jedoch unbeantwortet: Warum sind diese Regierungen so beliebt?

Die Antwort darauf wurde von den meisten Analysten übersehen: diese Regierungen sind nicht nur nationalistisch, sondern auch sozialistisch.

Man denke an Polen, wo die regierende Partei Recht und Gerechtigkeit (PiS) bei den Parlamentswahlen im Oktober 2015 38 Prozent der Stimmen gewann. Trotz ihres zunehmenden Autoritarismus und offizieller Beschwerden vonseiten der Europäischen Union verfügte die weit rechts stehende PiS laut Meinungsumfragen vom April 2018 über einen Zustimmungswert von 40 Prozent.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen Jun 17, 2018

Mitchell A. Orenstein explains why the illiberal, conservative Poland under the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party is so popular among its voters. Mixing populism with a socialist agenda, its formula of success is the new child benefit programme called 500+ launched in 2016, which gives Polish families with a second or subsequent child a monthly allowance of 500 złoty (about $144) up to the age of 18. Even those already born benefit from this programme.
In recent years, the Catholic, nationalist PiS has been making headlines for the very wrong reasons. Known for its anti-EU stance, xenophobic policies, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim views, it cracks down on free press and curbs civil rights and liberties. Due to its utter disregard for the rule of law, Warsaw has been at loggerheads with Brussesl, and the EU contemplates cutting funds to Poland, following its controversial court reforms that undermine judicial independence.
Yet the author says Western democracies must not “out-xenophobe” right-wing nationalists in Poland, but “should slip their own ideological blinders and learn a thing or two from their adversaries about policies that work for the people.” He points out that other countries, like Lithuania, are introducing similar welfare programmes, and urges “liberal democrats” to realise that “many voters are buying into the nationalist right’s vision of a social state that advances national priorities, cares for the poor, and supports families.
Poland, which used to have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe after the fall of the Iron curtain, is seeing a surge from 1.29 to 1.42 births per female since 2016. However Polish women living abroad have higher fertility rates. According to the 2011 UK Census, birth rates among Polish migrants were above the British average - 2.13 births per female. Thanks to higher incomes, parental leave, allowing both parents to share leave after the birth or adoption of their child, as well as other inclusive welfare policies, Polish women feel more confident having children in the UK. This must have inspired Poland to emulate the UK or some EU countries – France, Sweden and others – that have family friendly policies, despite lower incomes.
The author lauds Poland’s Family 500+ programme, which should be emulated. “No wonder liberals have trouble gaining traction with the electorate. Many Poles see a government that finally does something for ordinary people, and all liberals can do is complain, ironically, that it is anti-democratic.” But most EU countries had adopted policies long ago that are family-friendly and provide for child benefits, integrating mothers back into the workforce.
Economic grievances may have driven many into the arms of PiS. Nevertheless each year hundreds of thousands emigrate since Poland joined the EU in 2004, despite good economic performance in recent years. They seek employment or better paid jobs abroad, because at home their incomes would not allow them to save money or provide for their families. While Western economies see the declining economic fortunes of the middle-class, the former communist Poland is seeking to build one.
The ruling party, the PiS has reason to worry about its dwindling demographics as a result of low birth rates, and its Family 500+ helps boost population growth. It relies on a nationalist, anti-immigrant agenda and a social welfare programme to reach out to a broad electorate – ultraconservative and working-class Poles. It does not seem to “weaken work incentives and blow up the government budget.” On the contrary, the programme “has actually increased economic activity.” Most of all, “thanks to rapid economic growth, the government deficit has steadily fallen, not grown.”
But social-political discontent is another reason why populists gain power in Germany and other wealthy EU countries. Right-wing populism can be driven by a sense that the disparity between different social classes is increasing. Providing white voters with higher levels of economic security does not tamp down their anxieties about race, immigration, history and cultural identity, when they feel a – real or perceived – threat posed by minority members of the society.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jun 16, 2018

"A poor cannot get poorer but a rich can get richer"......for a proof one only needs to look at the events of the last decade or so!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Daniel Esmond Jun 15, 2018

So let see, nationalist politics (racist, xenophobic, antisemitic etc.) and (selective) socialist measures to help traditional families have more children... where did we see the before, I wonder?
I bet the next thing we will be told is that these countries build really good motorways.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
mgdj rs Jun 14, 2018

Thank you for this article, as so few take the time to understand what's happening in Poland and lazely regurgitate what the Economist et al say, which is palpably biased. Although it's hard to find anything else these days. Is true journalism completely dead?

I do take issue, however, with the tired notion of polish anti-semitism. While i'm against compelled speech, this government is the first to stop apologizing for the atrocities committed by Germans on polish land. Just because we refuse the rhetoric of the last couple of decades of somehow being complacent to the atrocities, doesn't make us anti-semites. It makes us anti-lies.

It is lost on the world that 60% of Poland was completely destroyed, 3 million Poles died at the hand of Hitler, and a staggering 22 million Russians died at the hand of Stalin. The Jewish tragedy of WW2 is not the only tragedy of the times, yet the only story that is "known". And in the eyes of the Jewish state, acknowledging other people's tragedies is somehow diminishing the Jewish tragedy, and is ardently contested. Why?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Jun 14, 2018

So, people want children. Who knew?

Even basic human rights run a poor second when it comes to basic human needs.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Greg Tyson Jun 14, 2018

While in no way wanting to support politicians with xenophobic or nationalist leanings, it is undeniable that the centre-left in so many countries has for far too long pursued marginal, but essentially symbolic, niche issues while major challenges like the rise of precarious work, scant support for families, and strained living standards are allowed to deteriorate.

A modern social state would serve the needs of large swaths of society. Why have progressives abandoned the interests of so many?
- Peter Schaeffer Jun 14, 2018
  
  "Why have progressives abandoned the interests of so many?"
  
  You have already answered your own question. Because today's "progressives" care more (far, far, more) about symbolic niche issues than literally anything else. The following is from the Washington Post.
  
  "The Daily 202: Rust Belt Dems broke for Trump because they thought Clinton cared more about bathrooms than jobs"
  
  Of course, it was true. Hillary cared far more about bathrooms than jobs.
  - Greg Tyson Jun 16, 2018
    
    Is it possible that the reason behind the enthusiasm for symbolic/marginal issues is that that the resulting policies, where enacted, are unthreatening to the interests of the wealthy (and especially to the very wealthy)? Genuine question.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steven Lin Jun 13, 2018

Very good article.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/6plL3qXde

Populismus mit sozialistischen Merkmalen

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Populismus mit sozialistischen Merkmalen

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification