Poll Results March 2023
Populism
Welcome to a short survey of four questions on democracy and populism. The questions are in a yes/no format, making them easy to answer. However, there is room for you to elaborate on your answers if you have the time, and we are grateful if you do.
Question 1
Is it important for you personally, to discuss issues with people that have opinions very different from your own?
100% Yes
0% No
Why? / Why not?
Yes. In the last year, I have assisted an augmentation of the release of speech and political gesture which engage hatred and hostility toward minorities as well as activists and political opponents. In my opinioni, It Is essential discussing publicly on the issues of populism due to the rise of semi authoritarian or authoritarian regimes.
Yes. By confronting myself with individuals with different views, I grasp a more complete picture of the issues at stake and become ready to change my mind if I understand that my opinions are not well-grounded.
Yes. The world that we live in today is a very complex one. Nothing can me categorized anymore as strictly a “X” problem. Much like people, everything is intertwined and there are so many ways to deal with things. And there is where opinions come into play. The more opinions and different perspectives we discuss, the more solutions we might get. We also need to take into account that different voices have different chances of being heard. Just as the world is reinvented everyday, so does democracy. Democracy dies without different opinions.
Yes. I believe it is extremely important to discuss contentious issues because this is how as a society we make strides and how social change comes about. However, it is also important to practice these debates with civility, even in the face of hostility. Outrage, anger and incivility only result in political polarization which only drives more division.
Yes. We are highly bias by our surroundings and social up-bringing. Talking with people and engaging with active discussion to understand other’s world view helps to break from personal bieses and have a more nuanced view of reality.
Yes. Because I like getting different perspectives.
Yes. As each person is unique due to the individual upbringing, socio-economic situation and culture of the family, we might have different experiences.
Yes. So I can have an insight of how other people think.
Yes. Trying to understand different perspectives allows us to have successful syntheses of various opinions.
Yes, to have other ideas.
Yes. Due to the ongoing augmentation of populist polital attitude in Europe.
Yes. It is good to always listen to the other side.
Yes. To see the other views.
Question 2
Do you embrace opinions that some might consider to be populist?
35,3% Yes
64,7% No
Why? / Why not?
No. Luckily, I have the privilige of having multiple occasion both at home and inside juvenile organizations for discussing on different controversial issues, every time that I’ve taken Word I have never taken Extreme position.
No. I always avoid supporting this type of positions that might associate myself with populist political figures.
Yes. The first thing that we have to take into account is that populism is not a consensual concept. Yes it might be clearly classified academically or in the dictionary but truth be told that no one uses it with a consensual meaning. This applies to regular people, politicians, the media and these are the most important players in democracy. That being said, I consider populism a branch of political speech and/or activity that simplifies answers for complex problems. Even if we act populists at some point, we won’t admit it. Just like everyone, we do not possess all the required knowledge to answer all the demands that are made in the democratic field. So yes, I might embrace opinions that might consider to be populist regarding your concept of ‘populism’ and the knowledge that I have of a certain theme.
No. I believe populism, at least in it’s right-wing form, is becoming synonymous with fascism. Populist politicians search for a ‘quick fix’ in order to gain short-term popularity and votes without regard for the longer term impacts of said policies on the economy, climate and so on. Right-wing populism also inherently adopts the same logic of fascism, whether that’s authoritarianism, the medialisation of politics or the in/out antagonism based on the conceptualisation of ‘the people’ and ‘the (foreign) Other’ (which is then associated with having some kind of nefarious alliance with ‘the elite’). Left-wing populism, on the other hand, can be sometimes utilised to mobilise the electorate into supporting Leftist policies (i.e. Bernie Sanders, Podemos) but must eventually be replaced by a system of longer-term egalitarian politics, for instance, the establishment of a strong welfare state.
Yes. I have little knowledge on many issues. Some of my opinions on those topics are based on populist views and I unconsciously reproduce them.
No. I don’t think it is helpful to further divide the people and the so called “elite”. Making these sort of “movements” only distances us more. Capitalism is more helpful to connect the two sides, even though, of course, it has flaws, especially when it comes to furthering education.
No. Sometimes the populism sounds too provocative. It reduces the complexity of problems and gives „simple“ solutions. Also, populism tries to point to the „oppressors“ who are due to some logical but not factual reasons responsible for issues.
No. Critical thinking is radically antagonist to populism
No because it’s a desappointed of some people.
No. I never jugde myself as a populist person.
Yes. To have gret idea.
Question 3
Is the personal background of politicians important to you?
88,2% Yes
11,8% No
Why? / Why not?
Yes. Multiple times, past experiences have been cited by several politicians to tell in front to the Mass how their political vision are being forged.
Yes. It helps me understand the rationale behind their opinions and the career paths pursued to get to where they stand.
Yes. Definitely. As we say in my country ‘Tell me with whom you walk and I’ll tell you who you are’. Most of the times (if not always) you can predict a person’s worth according to their past (although everyone should have a second chance). Is(/was) the politician rich, were they involved in scandals, which associations did they belong to, which values have they acquired during their ‘route through life’… It’s probably one of the first things that I search for in a politician (and their political ideology).
Yes. The electorate has the right to judge a politician on their background to a certain extent, since they are entrusting them with political power. If a politician’s personal background contradicts their promises or rhetoric, then voters will understandable see them as hypocritical and less trustworthy since they do not “practice what they preach”. Nevertheless, I do believe this has a limit given that politics is ultimately (or shoud be) about delivering on promises. For example, I do not agree with the ‘champagne socialist’ argument – the idea that left-wing politicians cannot be truly socialist if they are upper-class or traditionally bourgeoisie. Members of society can benefit from captialism and still criticise it – in fact, many political figures have to accumulate some kind of social and economic capital in order to effectively challenge the status quo. Ultimately, a politician who’s background aligns with their rhetoric will be the most trustworthy, but what’s most important is that they are delivering on their promises in practice.
Yes. As mentioned earlier, our surrounding shape our world view. Thus, how the background of politicians affect how they will perceive reality, and thus, make policy.
Yes. Because it has an impact on the decisions they make and the personality and perspective they have.
Yes. To try to understand how the personal background might have impacted his/her political interests and engagement.
No. Because we are in constant change, it’s alright to think different and change our political opinion.
Yes. Understanding the reason why some politicians act the way they do allows me to imagine how they’d act in different situations that haven’t presented themselves yet. It allows me to decide whether I’d approve their ways of acting.
Yes, because they are decide.
Yes. Family and the association which I have taken part in these following years give me some essential feedback during the development of my political and moral identity.
Question 4
Is populism a natural part of politics?
81,1% Yes
18,9% No
Why? / Why not?
No. Even It Is true that inside politics they could be conflicts on a specific topic due to the divergence of political believes, in my opinion neither right and letto should embraces populist political attitude.
Yes. It is increasingly embraced by leaders (and parties) willing to gather popular support by selling electoral promises while criticising incumbent governments’ “unpopular” programmes. If the former get elected, then they claim to govern on the basis of popular legitimacy regardless of the soundness of their views.
Yes. Although I am not sure about the answer, I do tend to favor it with a ‘yes’. It seems natural to me that oversimplified answers tend to emerge in political discourse but that doesn’t mean that it should be normalized as such. It should be addressed, but it also shouldn’t be use as a political tool to condemn different opinions. It’s a hard balance to find.
No. Populist movements require deliberate and often malicious orchestration. At face value, populist policies may recieve the most popularity, but this is due to the deliberate framing of said policies by the populist leader as the best way forward. Populists therefore equivalate a set of socio-economic grievances and demands and channel them towards an opposition of a common enemy – ‘the elite’ or ‘the Other’. This is a very manufactured process, through which the populist leader combines political spectacle, nationalism and often the targeting of minority groups. The Trump movement is a quintessential example. Trump equivilated the socio-economic demands of the those supposedly ‘left behind’ by neoliberalism – (white) middle Americans – and channeled their frustration towards a common opposition – the Washington establishment (the elite) as well as immigrants (the Other). Trump framed his policies within the nationalist rhetoric of ‘MAGA’ – a slogan which refers to a promise to return to an earlier, unspecificed ‘golden time’ in American history – presumably when white native-born males ruled society while women and minorities had little to no civil liberties. The Trump movement also medialised politics by dominating the media cycle and spreading misinformation to the extent that consumers of this media challenged objective reality and science (i.e. climate denial, COVID skepticism, Q-Anon conspiracy). This was certainly a meticulous and long-term process, not something that naturally arised from within American polity.
Yes. It is as we conceive politics nowadays. Citizens are not engaged in politics, making it easy for populist narratives to gain space in political debates. But I definitely believe there can be political systems where citizen are highly engaged, and part of the decision making process, where populism would lose importance -if not disappear.
Yes. Because there are always going to be “people” who are underserved by the government and by capitalism that try to overturn everything to improve their bad situation, a sort of “we can’t get any worse than this” perspective.
No. To be honest, I am not quite sure. However, I do believe that populism is not a fully new political development.
Yes, it’s a cyclical event.
Yes. Politicians need votes and an easy way to gathering them is populism.
No. i don’t known.
No. Taking extreme position from both right and left should never have place in a democratic country which it must guarantee the fact that every form of extremis would be rejected by the policital institutions as well as the civilians one.