【读书】解讀民粹主義（什么是民粹主义台版） pdf下载

蠻貼合當下的議題，感謝分享。原版 “What Is Populism?” 在amazon上評分4星半，相當不錯了，從rating數量可以判斷這也是本暢銷書。發現有條review很有趣，對本書批判意味濃，信息量較大，也頗有特別的見地，複製上來供參考。

David Lindsay： Jan-Werner Müller is German and teaches politics at Princeton. Muller discusses populism and many of the leaders who have been described as populist in recent years. The list includes Trump, Erdogan, Wilders, Orban, Le Pen, Farage, and Chavez. Populism is defined in the Oxford dictionary as: “A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” Muller uses the term pejoratively. Ultimately, his book asks the question, whether the political elite should carry out the will of the people; or impose its own “superior” views on society. Muller seems to favor the latter and for some reason views this as the democratic option. Muller is a master of Orwellian doublethink. I have lived in the U.S. and Europe. I disagreed with most of his argument and his version of European history. Instead, I would recommend National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by two British academics, Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin.

Populists are already in government in some way in six EU member states: The list includes Austria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, and Poland. Across the EU there are 11 populist parties with popular support above 20%, implying that the number of populist governments could roughly double.

Muller believes that we should fear populism, but he conflates the term with totalitarianism, which is a mistake. He believes that the end game for populists is a country that looks like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Both countries elected leaders who became dictators. Lenin in 1917 and Hitler in 1933. Muller describes the playbook used by both men. They used lies and violence to take power and then crushed their opponents after they won control.

Muller ignores the reasons why populism has recently reemerged in the West. Free market policies have increased inequality and the working class is being left behind. Most people want immigration controls and they expected their governments to deliver. Instead, people have been told to get used to immigration and to focus on its benefits. The liberal elite seems to fear being accused of racism and they can see the benefits of cheap imported labor. My mother is retired and lives in Britain. She has employed Polish gardeners, plumbers, and decorators to remodel her house. She tells me they do a great job and are cheap. She wasn’t too bothered about the local people she deprived of the work.

Muller is worried about Trump and Brexit and sees totalitarians everywhere. There are fears in the mainstream media about Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic going over to the dark side. I worked in Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed. These countries were occupied by the Nazis and then the Soviets and have fought to preserve their culture. The EU does not believe in national identity. Muller has unusual views about how democracy works. He seems to believe that the people should accept the policies handed down by technocratic elites because these people are experts and they are better qualified to make decisions. If the people reject their policies he regards them as populists and therefore anti-democratic. The European media has often labeled opponents of immigration as “far-right” or “neo-Nazi.”

To summarize, Muller argues that populism threatens the very basis of democracy. It does so by undermining the idea of pluralism. He believes that populists claim to represent the people but they create their own elites once they obtain power, like the Nazis and Communists. He believes that populist parties are authoritarian and often have a supreme leader (e.g., Hitler, Lenin or Mao). Once ensconced in power, populist leaders find scapegoats to blame for problems that emerge: corrupt elites, saboteurs, the media, foreign meddlers and so on. They prepare the people for some kind of showdown with the alleged enemies of the people. Once in power, populist leaders destroy democratic norms to consolidate power and crush their critics, just as Hitler and Lenin did.

None of this seems applicable to the U.S. and UK. This is something Muller fails to grasp. Both countries rejected extremism during the Great Depression. The U.S. elected FDR while the Germans elected Adolf Hitler. Britain picked two moderates before ending up with Neville Chamberlain, a Conservative, who declared war on Hitler. Brexit is unlikely to lead to another Third Reich. Ironically, some Brexit supporters feared that the EU was turning into a Fourth Reich ruled by Germany. Müller has an obsession with Britain’s Nigel Farage and implies that he is a dictator in waiting, this is nonsense. Farage is a vocal and effective critic of the EU and a former commodities trader. Farage has made eight failed attempts to become a British member of parliament. Mature democracies should be able to handle robust debate and cope with people like Farage who use their right of free speech to question the political establishment.

Britain’s political parties often started out as populist movements. The British Labour Party was created in 1893 because many in the working class did not believe their grievances were being properly addressed. It initially grew out of the trade union movement and the church. Its first leader was a lay preacher. New parties often emerge as society evolves. The Labour Party, despite its populist roots, has not produced any demagogic leaders and has not tried to overthrow democracy.

Muller is a true believer in the EU. The EU has a population of 510 million people and there are 28 member countries. Its long-term aim is to create a United States of Europe. It lacks America’s homogenous culture and a common language. It increasingly suffers from a democratic deficit between Brussels and outlying regions. Its evangelists aim to create an ideal society ruled by technocrats. In Europe, the technocrats are increasingly seen as distant, unaccountable, and arrogant. The EU is also plagued with groupthink and ignores views it does not like. European history tells us that when elites ignore the people bad things can happen.

The EU’s current economic problems were triggered by the 2008 financial crises and the euro. How it reacted made things worse and helps explain the rise in populism. Austerity economics in the eurozone has resulted in slow growth and high unemployment since 2008. The EU replaced “populist” leaders in Greece and Italy. Greece then lost 30% of its GDP and its unemployment is still above 20%. A large section of the Italian public is increasingly hostile to the euro. The country has had virtually no economic growth since 1999. Many Italians believe they need a change of direction, and an anti-EU government has just taken power in Italy. According to Tim Geithner, a former U.S. Treasury Secretary, the EU asked the U.S. to approve the removal of Silvio Berlusconi, a previous Italian president who would not do as he was told.

Europe’s populist leaders have become a thorn in the side of the EU. Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orban, is accused of being anti-democratic, however, he was recently elected with a two-thirds majority in a national election. Many of his nationalistic policies are not acceptable to the EU, however, they are popular with a majority of Hungarians, especially those who want to limit immigration. The implication is that Orban is misleading the Hungarian people and they are too stupid or racist to notice. The question is whether Hungarians need the approval of the EU to run their country the way they want to.

Muller argues that in Europe and the United States it is less educated white males that are attracted to populism. For some reason, their views don’t seem to count. The reviews on the dust jacket agree that Muller has brilliant insights, but he does not seem to understand that populism grows when elites are out of touch. The EU’s problem is that it is not willing to listen to its people’s concerns. The EU wants a federal Europe but many of its citizens don’t. Muller fears the return of totalitarianism, but what seems more likely is the break-up of the EU.

@Musk #1 感谢分享，搜索 National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy 找到一篇书评歐美民粹主義與香港的移民政治， 也复制上来供参考。

香港公營醫院爆滿和人手不足的長期問題，成為近日輿論焦點。有醫生明言，若不叫停持單程證來港的內地移民，只會大增公營醫院負荷。一方面，醫護界強調醫者一視同仁，提出單程證問題並非鼓勵歧視內地移民；另一邊廂，有民間團體發起聯署並召開記者會，要求政府減少單程證來港人士數量，紓解香港醫療和資源壓力。

中國內地來港移民的爭議，已持續了 20 年。支持和反對內地移民來港的香港市民，分歧不僅在於移民政策配套，也在文化身分認同和意識形態分野。支持內地移民權益者，往往被譏諷為「大愛左膠」；反對移民來港者，則不時被冠上「右翼民粹」的標籤。

關於自由左翼和民粹右翼的論爭，在近年學術界相當蓬勃。幾個月前，兩位學者 Roger Eatwell 和 Matthew Goodwin 便撰寫了一本入門讀物《國族民粹主義：反抗自由民主》，以歐洲右翼政黨崛起、英國脫歐公投和美國特朗普上台為例，解說以國家利益和文化為先的國族民粹主義為何興起、如何發展。

兩位作者認為，國族民粹主義不止是因為嘩眾取寵的政治領袖得以大行其道，而是有更深的 4 個結構因素：第一是來自民眾對朝野政客和現有政治制度的不信任（distrust）；第二，來自民眾焦慮外來移民會改變國族結構穩定性，繼而摧毀國民經歷史建構的身分認同以至生活方式（destruction）；第三是經濟全球化造成的收入財富不平等，令民眾飽受剝削（deprivation） ；第四是民眾與傳統政黨愈加疏離，政黨和民眾的連結逐步消散（de-alignment）。這4個因素，造就了一批民眾 — 自認在政治上毫無話語權、感到移民潮衝擊主流族群而威脅國族文化和生活方式、不滿新自由主義經濟制度加劇剝削與不平等，更無法繼續認同長期支持的傳統政黨和政治領袖。

值得留意的是，支持國族民粹的民眾其實相當支持民主，甚至要更多的民主，希望透過直接民主如公投，令更多政客能同情地聆聽和理解民眾聲音，「讓權力歸於人民」而非建制的政治和經濟精英。國族民粹主義者認為主流精英不可信，是因為他們往往迴避國民身分認同與移民衝擊的問題，甚至反過來指斥這些民眾是法西斯主義者和種族主義者。國族民粹主義者對於自由派的中產專業人士將移民問題、少數族群權利和自由貿易，視為不證自明、理所當然的態度，也是嗤之以鼻。國族民粹主義者重視解說政治信念多於客觀經濟數據，在大選投票時也不計較成敗得失和政策成本，只欲透過選票確立一系列價值信念，例如是「國家高於國際」、「振作國民身分」、「穩定大於一切」和「民眾大於精英」的信念，重奪政治話語權。

兩位作者分析，在國族民粹風潮下，西方政黨政治已逐步「向」右轉。即使極右政黨在歐美尚未執政，但傳統的主流保守政黨，也漸進地採納國族民粹主義者的政治議程，畢竟，它們易於連結純粹關心社會秩序和移民問題的選民。作者們認為，提倡社會民主主義的中間偏左政黨，需要有新思維和手法進入國族民粹主義者關心的議題，甚至要考慮作出短期的政策讓步，避免進一步流失選民支持。以移民政策為例，酌量收緊入境限制和讓高技術及從事公共服務的移工享優先移民資格，不一定和進步左翼政治相違；但將問題簡化為支持開放邊境，讓任何人都能遷移入籍與否的立場問題，更會令政黨的支持者剩下少數的左翼信徒。

筆者因篇幅所限，難以詳細分析《國》一書其他精彩之處。但讀者也許更關心，兩位作者的觀點是否能套用在香港的處境。《國》一書對民粹主義政治發展的描述，和香港「本土主義」興起有不少相近之處，尤其是經濟不平等和朝野政治精英表現引來民眾反感等。然而，歐美國族民粹主義生於民主的土壤，民眾始終能透過選舉政治影響執政黨，民粹政黨也有機會藉選舉上台執政，受主流監察制衡。但在香港，不論民眾抱持何種政治信念，選舉政治和政黨政治對關乎中國大陸的政策幾近無話語權。在一國權力結構下，即使多番提倡削減單程證配額，香港政府一日無審批權，中國大陸一日不回應香港訴求，也無法改變移民政策，以及民眾對這議題的想像。

兩位作者結語時指，主流政黨和社會需要找到新的進路和視角去辯論移民政策改革，否則國族民粹主義只會更氾濫。回到香港，應否叫停移民以減輕公共醫療系統負荷？右翼和左翼政團有沒有鬆動倡議的空間？這既是牽涉客觀數據的事實問題，也是包括主觀身分認同和社會願景的價值問題，更是政府能否有權管控移民來往遷徙的政治問題。儘管政治現實上「權不在民」，但至少具體、貼地的辯論，能夠刺激民間的思維，鬆動政治精英的意識形態框框，為同樣無權無勢的左右兩翼陣營「興橋搭路」，推進建設性的對話。

筆者並非在此要對支持或反對叫停內地移民的觀點作道德判斷，只是想指出，這現象正在呼應蔓延全球的國族民粹主義。為政者如繼續走舊路應對民眾的不滿，只會帶來更大的社會矛盾，也令民眾愈來愈討厭政治和在朝在野的政治精英。

延伸閱讀下載：Eatwell, Roger & Matthew Goodwin (2018). National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy (A Pelican Book). Penguin Books Ltd.

@libgen #2 黎恩灝﹕歐美民粹主義與香港的移民政治，很不錯的文章，謝謝

國族民粹主義不止是因為嘩眾取寵的政治領袖得以大行其道，而是有更深的4個結構因素：第一是來自民眾對朝野政客和現有政治制度的不信任（distrust）；第二，來自民眾焦慮外來移民會改變國族結構穩定性，繼而摧毁國民經歷史建構的身分認同以至生活方式（destruction）；第三是經濟全球化造成的收入財富不平等，令民眾飽受剝削（deprivation） ；第四是民眾與傳統政黨愈加疏離，政黨和民眾的連結逐步消散（de-alignment）。

………

然而，歐美國族民粹主義生於民主的土壤，民眾始終能透過選舉政治影響執政黨，民粹政黨也有機會藉選舉上台執政，受主流監察制衡。但在香港，不論民眾抱持何種政治信念，選舉政治和政黨政治對關乎中國大陸的政策幾近無話語權。

感谢楼主分享