The Dangers of Populist Simplification in Politics

Britain transfers £350 million to the EU every week, Boris Johnson claimed in 2016. After Brexit, the government will use the money saved to overhaul the British healthcare system. With this double lie, Johnson was suggesting what appeared to be a very simple truth. However, a majority of British voters did not want to know the complex truth about Europe and the British health system and voted to leave the European Union.

It’s the same with the populists everywhere: whether it’s immigration statistics, the dangers of climate change or the effectiveness of the corona vaccination – they replace the empirically tangible truth with their own easy-to-understand “claims”, with conspiracy theories or preferably with “alternative facts”.

So away with the complexity of the real world and in with the simple answers. Incidentally, Adolf Hitler also advocated such an approach when in 1927 he opposed the artificially created “complication” of public life to the “natural laws of life” and the “instinct” of the people.

As the AfD shows, populist simplification has its best chance of success in times of crisis; namely when dynamic changes and growing pressure to adapt trigger fears. It is then all the more the task of democratic politicians to communicate transparently with their voters, especially when it comes to imposing uncomfortable truths. There must be a minimum level of trust between voters and those elected. Only then can constructive solutions be achieved and fears overcome.

However, talking nice is dangerous. Those who sugarcoat not only misrepresent the truth, but also despise their audience. This is fuel for the right-wing extremists, who are just waiting to retaliate in the same coin and to scorn the politicians. Mere opinion then replaces knowledge, and judgment rises above truth. In the end, truth becomes a lie and lies become truth.

Political capital, on the other hand, grows where someone says what they mean and does what they say. This includes the acknowledgment that there can be neither an unequivocal truth nor a single answer, but a political one Decision is required. Politicians’ widespread fears of risking their careers if they are too “honest” with the voters and consequently fall behind in the popularity list must take a back seat.

Ultimately, only those who personally stand up for a cause that is controversial and uncomfortable, but in the end is supported by a – perhaps narrow – majority can be convincing and politically successful anyway. The populist strategy of stirring up fears in order to give answers that distort the truth is the opposite of such a discourse-prepared and democratically legitimized decision.

It is therefore all the more important to correctly understand the nature of parliamentary representation. It relieves voters of the tedious, full-time political job of having to look everywhere for solutions or even for the truth in the hyper-complex present; and it gives those elected full mandate to find just such solutions.

If they are truthful about this, they can make voters feel that they and their behavior matter politically. This creates new trust in democratic politics and defies populism and right-wing extremism.