An echo from the past: 20th century - The Age of Populism? (2016)


Work in progress...

Work in progress...
INTRODUCTION -- The Echo of the Past
The systems of social, cultural and political currents of the interwar period (1919-38) - and its economic depression; played out as the world newly had started to recover from its vast human losses and enormous material devastations after World War I (1914-18). This unstable upheaval revealed and nurtured the growth of a violent populism and nationalism in the world; which ultimately triggered World War II (1939-45). This war constituted an great tragedy and disaster for humanity. Though; different historical epochs and contexts might have different systemic outcomes: As a result contemporary populism might take another path, than the violent national populism that swept across the world in the interwar period. To analyze these systems closer the core of this essay's empirical analysis will be a social, cultural, and particularly political and economic comparisan of our contemporary populism with the national populism that took root during the interwar period. I will also argue for this statement: For a violent populism to emerge and become dominant in the world, it has to be embedded in ongoing historical conflicts; which has relevance to the contemporary conflict situation in the world, such as for example a counteraction to a society based on pluralism, economic globalization and a homogenization of diverse national values and distinctive cultural features. Formulated more outspoken; for a populistic wave; which draws on nationalism, to become challenging or even dangerous, it needs to be deeply historically rooted in an unsolved etnic conflict. The growth of populism is typically nutrued by periods of great upheavals or unstable societal systems; such as vast flows of immigrants, strong cultural differences, hot conflicts in the world, economic crisis, social inequality and political unrest. The interwar or interbellum is an example of such a period of societal upheaval or unstability, which nutured a violent populistic reaction. This wave of national populism was solidely historically anchored in vast currents of economic, cultural, political and social unrest. These unstable systems of the interwar period forecasted World War II: What will our contemporary populism forecast? What can we learn from the echo of the past? And ultimately; how challenging or even dangerous might todays populism be for the conflict situation in our world? The answers to these questions; might be partly revealed as the results from upcoming political elections (Rovella 2016), and further contemporary social, cultural, political and economic events, unfolds. As we have stepped into the 21th century -- we need to be aware of the potential dangers of the reoccuring populism; which according to Rovella (2016), is about to take over the world. This populism may lead to either negative or positive societal system changes, based on the range and depht of societal problems or conflicts it is rooted in, what kind of nationalism it is embedded in; hence the type of populism it becomes, and is played out in our society: As a form of horizontal political power, populism has been instrumental to legal, agrarian, and social reforms through the years. But it’s also played a starring role in the rise of demagogues and therefore some of the ugliest episodes in human history. (Rovella 2016: 1). We have stepped into a new historical epoch. Will the 21th century be start of the age of populism? Or, will this period, most likely; be a temporary reaction to system unstability, before our societal system again regains its balance? To prevent nostalgia to win over renewal; agression to win over conciliation; and elites to win over people; this should be of our concern: The combination of hot conflicts situations, unstable political systems, economic crisis, social inequality and cultural divisions in the world, which typically strenghtens the growth of national populism, has in some cases proved to have catastrophic outcomes for humanity. To prevent further human catastrophes from happening, we need to start scrutionizing populism in a more comprehensive way as a not so surprisingly reaction to complex and unstable societal systems or upheavals (it has happened before). This emerging right-wing national populism also needs to be discussed in a neutral and objective manner without bias to prevent further creation of political uncertainty, cultural divisions, economic unpredictability and societal unrest. The assertions, questions and hypothesis stated in this introduction also needs to be analyzed more deeply, such as by empirically mapping out the differences and common features of these two ereas of populism: Interbellum populism and contemporary populism. This will be followed by a clearifying conclusion, and a rather uplifting epilogue and encouragement to humanity. To accheive this the concept of populism; its theoretical foundations; its challanges to democracy and its evident links to nationalism, must first be clarified.

THEORY -- Populism and nationalism
I. The concept of populism and its theoretical foundations
Populism is a concept applied to a wide range of political movements and actors across the globe. There is, at the same time, conciderable confusion about the attributes and manifestation of populism, as well as its impact on democracy. (Abts and Kessel 2015: 609). This sitation by Abst and van Kessel (2015) states that the most fundamental problems to our notion of populism; is its thoroughly blurry or fuzzy appliance in contemporary scientific litterature on populism. This theoretical part will therefore aim at discussing the boundaries for its scientific appliance, by analyzing its different functions. This process will hopefully result in the creation of an functional understanding of the concept of populism. Abst and van Kessel (2015) narrows down populism to be regarded as a political concept, and discuss this concept in context of its impact on democracy, by introducing its historical origins: They traces populism's origin back to Russian modern populism (1860-70s), were its core idea was that authentic wisdom was found in the common people (Abst and van Kessel 2015; Taggert 2000). In the American populist movement, however; a democratic promise to its people was given. This populist movement was founded in the 1880s and was described by its contrasting division of the 'common people' or the 'silent majority'; opposed to a corrupt 'elite': This elite was characterized by low moral values and by not being concerned by or ignoring the common peoples interest, values and needs (Abst and van Kessel 2015: 609; Abst and Rummens 2007: 409; Goodwyn 1976). In the mid-twentieth century Latin American populism, however, a new function was added to the repertoaire; nation-building, under a charismatic and centralized leadership (Abst and van Kessel 2015: 609). All these histrical features of populism have contributed to our contemporary understanding of the notion of populism. During the 1980s the concept of populism, however, went through a phase were the concept became more blurry and fuzzy and the name "populist" was given to a wide range of politicians with fundamentally different leader styles, traits, intentions and relations to the 'common people', such as the Latin American Collor, Mendem, Chavez and Obrador; and Le Pen, Haider, Hofer, Wilders and Dewinter in Western Europe; Hanson in Australia; Buchanan, Perot, Manning and Trump in the United States and Canada; and Meciar, Milosevic, Lukashenko and Orban in the post-communist states (Abst and van Kessel 2015: 609). The populist movement or currents builds on its historical origins and cuts through a wide range of societal areas such as politics, culture, religion, economy and in many ways also penetrate most social phenomenons in our society, as well as it is effected by these areas. The wide range of areas which populism has impact on and is effected by, is what makes it fundamentally challenging to define a narrow and functional definition of populism. The different conceptualizations of populism is, however, constituted by three different functions, according to Abst and van Kessel (2015: 609): Political mobilization, a way of communication and by its typical organization. Populism defined by the process of mobilizating voters rely on a particularly simplistic and fixed rethorical ways of mobilizing voters, such as suggesting simplistic societal solutions to complex societal challanges to win votes. This basic ways of communicating appeals to the common sense of the ordinary people. The people's voices is regarded as transparent or to the leader mediating it (Abst and van Kessel 2015: 610). This phenomenon of communicating is possible, because the people is regarded as one homogeneous body or unit, which permits a direct way of listening to and presenting or proclaiming the common people's will, as opposed to the centralized power and parental reason of the intellectual and established elites. This societal dichtonomy of two homogeneous bodies suggests a highly simplified or fictional view on society. The common people; 'us', is caracterized as a unit of horizontal localized power. According to this ideology, the people whom belongs to this collective mass have similar national characteristics, such as preferably citizens with a common language, religion, culture and heritage, rather than immigrants, outsiders and other minorities. They are set up against 'them' who consists of corporate elites, intellectuals, bankers, EU technocrats and politicians, as well as immigrants and outsiders, many whom express the centralized power (Wills 2015: 188): [I]t is argued that populism revolves around a central antagonistic relationship between 'the people' and 'the elite'. Populism is an "appeal to 'the people' against both the established structure of power and the dominant ideas and values of society" (Abst and van Kessel 2015: 609; Canovan 1999: 3). The establishment is attaced for its privileges, its corruption, for its lack of accountability to the people. Elites are accused of representing only their own interests and of being alienated from the real interests, values and opinions of the common man. (Abst and van Kessel 2015: 610). In this way, populism argues that the established elites or mainstream politicians fails to connect with its peoples real lives, emotions, interested and values. However, this understanding of the people as one homogeneous body, is not concerned by different social groups diverse needs and it dismisses that citizens of a country on the contrary is rather heterogeneous and compound. Neither does it explain what kind of identity this homogeneous body consists of. It stands steady on its arguments that the citizens of its nation or nation state is homogenous, and that populism must be understood as an attemt to restore popular sovereignity to its homogeneous body of people (Abst and van Kessel 2015: 610). Populism as an organization, relies on this unified block of common people, lead by a carismatic leader, who have the gifts of mediating the wisdom of their people by presenting them, as opposed to representing them, through a so-called a leader-mass linkage. These different functions of populism discussed in this theoretical section makes it possible to narrow down populism to one functional and parent definition: Populism relies on the existence of two contrasting and separate homogeneous bodies, whom are in conflict: the ordinary authentic people; "us"; who express a localized and horizontal power in protest, as opposed to a corrupt elite;"them"; who represents the established centralized power. Populisme favours the expression of the politics of its people's real emotions, interests and wisdom, mediated through a carismatic leader, as opposed to the parental reason and interests of the elites, whom fails to connect to and disregards ordinary peoples needs. The fact that populism favours emotions over reason will be discussed more closely in the next theoretical section. Populism as a political framework; consisting of these two bodies, is regarded as a so-called thin-centered ideology, because of its simplistic dichotomy and views on society (Abst and van Kessel 2015: 609). This ideology does not give an comprehensive vision of our society, such as bringing up suggestions on complex societal economic restructuring. The populists political content is also very oftenly unclear, not elaborated or simply missing. It also may fail to protect the democratic rights of its minorities and outsiders in its nation states or nations, whom not belong to its homogenous body of citizens, and therefore is not mediated through its carismatic leader. To summarize this theoretical section on populism, Stanley (2011: 257) states that all forms of populism evolves around four fundamental concepts: - The existence of two homogeneous units of analysis: 'the people' and 'the elite'. - The anatgonistic relationship between the people and the elite. - The idea of popular sovereignity. - The positive valorisation of 'the people' and denigration of 'the elite'. In this way, and very simplified, populism consists of a Schmittean 'friend-enemy' division between the common people versus the elite (Stanley (2011: 257). According to Mudde (2007, in Abst and van Kessel 2015: 610) populism can be found on the radical right-wing, as well as as neoliberal populists and as social populists. This essay will, however, concentrate on the populists on the radical right-wing; national populism, as a challenge to democratic values and rights; and societal system stability.

II. Nationalism and populism: National populism Most contemporary scientists will argue that populism brings only negative contributions to our society and political systems; particularly national populism, -- but the fact is that populism draws on two very contrasting notions of nationalism, which constitutes our world's diverse societal systems: Civic nationalism and etnic nationalism. Populism as a parent notion is discussed in contemporary litterature on populism, as being a treat to democracy; by showing disdain for its 'checks and balances', or disregarding democratic values and rights, as well as having the ability to be a corrective and connecting or presenting people's emotions (Mudde and Kaltwasser 2012, in Abst and van Kessel 2015: 611). The two concepts of nationalism, which national populism draws on, results in two very different types of national populistic movements; argrarian or civic populism and etnic populism. In praxis these two types of populism are highly mixed. This mixture is labeled 'national populism'. The fundamental differences in the world between countries based on civic nationalism and etnic nationalism, is its parent attitudes towards inclusiveness or exclusiveness: Countries based on civic or nationalism, tends to be far more democratic, inclusive and peaceful, than those based on etnic nationalism. Etnic nationalism is present in immigration policies and laws in; Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Romania, Russia, Serbia, and Turkey, and laws on citizenship in; Germany, Philliphine and Greece (Internett 1: 2016). The reality is therefore a bit more blurry. "On the other hand, civic nationalism defines membership as an individual's duty to observe given laws and in turn receive legal privileges" (Internett 1: 2016: 1). This might imply that the concept of etnic nationalism is constitued in laws and policies, even in western democratic countries, although they are more perceived as being based on civic nationalism. These different policies and laws may result in different growth environment for emerging mileus of radical right-wing national populism based on country of origin and these countries attitudes towards parent inclusiveness and the character of democratic governance or its lack of existing democratic values and rights. Exclusiveness creates a 'negativ' etnic populism; based on rascism, aggressive behavior, zero-sum games and plays on historic "ideals" and nostalgia. 'Negative' populisme or etnic populism may be a symptom of and simultaneous extend phases of systemic societal unstability. This unstability may result in agression, turmoil and tension, inequality, conflicts and polarization, segregation, disunity, war and racism (The Economist 2016). Imperialism, colonialization, armed conflicts such as civil wars and military interventions are examples of what etnic nationalism may result in. This may enhance the possibilities of a negative societal system change. 'Positive' civic populism or agrarian populism, on the other hand, is characterized by conciliation, freedom, equality and citizens uniting on universal values. Citizens inspired by civic nationalism may in this way gather around common values and accheive greater things together than alone (The Economist 2016). These kind of civic society citizens may even build, rebuild or strenghten their nation states, in form of expressing their inclusiveness, freedom, patrioism, renewal and by being forward-looking. This civic nationalism can create a "positive" foundation for populism, which potentially may unite the world around universal values and enhance positive system changes (Rovella 2016: 1), -- such as peace in the world. Though, populism which draws on nationalism, is a concept easy to manipulate by politicians: Nationalism is a slippery concept, which is why politicians find it so easy to manipulate. At its best, it unites the country around common values to accomplish things that people could never manage alone. This “civic nationalism” is conciliatory and forward-looking—the nationalism of the Peace Corps, say, or Canada’s inclusive patriotism or German support for the home team as hosts of the 2006 World Cup. Civic nationalism appeals to universal values, such as freedom and equality. It contrasts with “ethnic nationalism”, which is zero-sum, aggressive and nostalgic and which draws on race or history to set the nation apart. In its darkest hour in the first half of the 20th century ethnic nationalism led to war. (The Economist 2016: 1). The World War II and many of todays armed conflicts shows what populism based on etnic nationalism have caused. Historical ephocs dominated by etnic nationalism is typically more unstable and agressive and may result in human tragedies in the world, even though it's not war in your backyard. In periods of less societal unstability or in solidely embedded democracies, national populism will rather take the shape of civic populism, and renew or rebuild our societies. This fundamentally negative and positive contrast between these yet closely related concepts of nationalism; which national populism draws on, is what makes this populism nutured by nationalism such a "slippery concept". Both strategies towards engaging voters rely on inciting and connecting to peoples emotions. This makes it easy for leading politicians, whom understand the power of these two concepts, to gain power by manouvering in the landscape of their voters positive and negative feelings, such as Trump did in the US presidential election; a landscape also familiar to Le Pen representing National Front; the far right-wing national populistic candidate, for the French presidential election, in spring 2017. Manovering in this emotional landscape is also typical for the far right-wing and extreme candidate Norbert Hofer in the presidential election in Austria 4th of December 2016, with his campaign "Für Östrreich mit Hertz und Seele" (For Austria with Heart and Soul). The other Austrian candidate; whom belongs to green center left; van der Bellen campaign, wanted his citizens to rather vote for "Vernunft statt Extreme" (Reason rather than extreme). In this election reason won. However, there are more upcoming elections. The battle for reason and the national populists play on emotions continues. The national populistic politicians power lies in igniting peoples emotions rather than inspire their reason; ultimately and in some cases, by not adressing to complex political issues; such as forward-looking economic restructuring, or by not adressing their factual political content, such as Trump in the US presidential election. They don't combat people's emotions, they run with these feelings, they enhance these emotions and avoid reason: They utilize their worries about increased immigration flows and cultural differences, their voter's economic despair, anxieties and fears of terrorism, and hopes for the future, to gain power. National populists might simultaneously play on their voters feelings towards patriotism or nostalgia, -- just as well as they play on people's fears or darker sides; such as polarization, segregation or racism; etnic nationalism. But some populists also belive in populism based on civic nationalism; a forward-looking society based on agrarian social and legal reforms; in form of conciliation and inclusiveness - a horizontal power (Rovella 2016: 1). They are concerned about highly relevant and complex political issues, other politicians do not discuss too deeply, such as challenges regarding cultural differences, immigration and terrorism. And, they are able to connect to their voters emotionally. Is there hope for the future? In praxis the landscape of national populism is highly confusing. It is indeed manipulative. We have reasons to be concerned. To express these highly contrasting intentions, we need to make a systemic turn by comparing the interwar or interbellum's populism and the contemporary populism as expressions of complex societal systems, with rather different contexts: We need to compare the old model of populism versus the new model of populism, as well as analyzing the counterarguments.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS: A comparisan -- Interbellum populism versus contemporary populism
I. Interbellum populism -- A signal of war
 II. Contemporary populism -- A treath to democracy?
Since the Arab Spring, nationalism and authoritarianism have been on the rise in both the largest and the freest countries, some of which have voted for more-autocratic leaders, and also in less democratic countries, where strongmen have strengthened their grips: in Egypt, the United Kingdom, Russia, India, Turkey, the Philippines, and China. (Wallace-Wells 2016: 1). According to Panizza (2005: 30 in Abst and van Kessel 2015: 611), populism is a "mirror in which democracy can contemplate itself". In this mirror Arditi (2005, in Abst and van Kessel 2015: 611) contemplates on three possible states of treats to democracy: Populism as a a mode of representiveness, populism as a symptom, and populism as a negative impact on the democratic system itself. Populism as a mode of representation, implies that populism may positively effect representativeness and have the ability to present segments of citizens, not represented by main-stream politicians. In this way populism may enhance representativeness within the frameworks of the democracy and serve as a corrective. On the other hand, they may fail to present the needs, interests and values of immigrants, minorities and outsiders, by disregarding diversity, tolerance and equality for all citizens, not just the common people. Populism as a symptom implies that populism is a sign that there is something wrong with our political system or societal model, because violent growth of national populsim may be regarded as " a warning signal about defects, limits and weaknesses of representative systems" (Canovan 1999: 11, in Abst and van Kessel 2015: 611). Populism as a negative impact on society and the political system implies that national populism may destabilize our societal model by posing a treath to our democracy. Cameron and Clegg (2010: 7, in Wills 2015: 188), six years before Brexit, declared that "centralization and top down control [in Great Brittain had] proved a failure". This sort of anti-politics is created when citizens are in disdain for their mainstream politicians and feel they are not being rightfully represented and need to protest (Wills 2015: 188). This phenomenon may result in increased trends towards exclusiveness in our society. Betz (2007: 4, in Abst and van Kessel 2015: 611) argues that the populist notion of the society as divided into two separate homogeneous bodies is fictional and is incompatible with core democratic values, such as tolerance, equality, protection of minorities rights in form of not representing diversity and tolerance. The question is how tolerant should one be for the enemies of democratic rights and values itself? Aaccording to Abst and van Kessel (2015: 612); "freedom of expression is almost unlimited". Nevertheless, Abst and van Kessel further argues; all political parties [in democratic countries] are required to underwrite the fundamental values of freedom, equality, respect and tolerance". If these democratic rights and values are treatened, "the tolerance for the intolerant may be limited". Wills (2015: 188), nevertheless, argues that the growing void between Great Brittains politicians voters is exspressed by disdain for the politicians centralized power. This phenomenon is particularly evident in political geography. Brexit examplifies how politicians had failed to connect to its people emotionally; such as the national populist indeed had accomplished. Power should have been be dispersed to people locally by giving them freedom and opportunitis to test their capacity and potential political influence. Such an inclusiveness or horizontal power; in form people's influence on creating social and legal reforms, is evident and taken into account in populism based on civic nationalism. Radical right-wing national populism, on the other hand is a counteraction to, economic globalization, homogenization of distinctive national and cultural features, an expression of anti-immigration attitudes and pluralism. "Western societies were experiencing a populist, racist reaction to the fact that they had become both more pluralistic and more segmented by education". (Wallace- Wells 2016: 1). According to Media we are experiencing a protest or counteraction to pluralism, and the fact that increased globalization makes citizens of our world more aware of and informed about cultural differences, economic and social iequality and political unrest in their country and in the world, may have increased the violent growth of national populism. Nevertheless, many contemporary scientists may argue that national populism is incompatible with democracy, because it denies or does not respect the diversity of its citizens (Abst and Rummens 2007: 4, in Abst and van Kessel 2015: 611). Populists suggests vote-winning policies, which are simplistic solutions to complex pending societal challenges, and express anti-immigration attitudes. The populist view of regarding societal proplems to simplified, may also suggest that populists in praxis give away promises to its core voters they can not keep, because they, in most cases, do not have the solutions to the complexity of societal challenges they set out or promised to solve. The fact that national populisms fails on protecting citizens outside its unified and homogeneous block of people, may also harm these minorities or outsiders and fail in protecting otherness and express tolerance and show equal respect to its diverse citizens -- a core set of values and rights in liberal democracies. This may ultimately treath democratic values and rights, particularly in countries with vulnerable or newly established democracies: In these democracies national populism may have a great impact on societal stability and do great harm, if there is already a fundamental and unsolved etnic conflict deviding its democratic society. The most threatening form of populism to its liberal democratic values and rights, and therefore to its societal stability, is national populism, particularly etnic nationalism. But what kind of treath or harm national populism may cause to societal stability relies on its character or type. Abst and van Kessel (2015: 611) argues that in unconsolidated democracies or particularly vulnerable liberal democraties, national populism might pose a treat to its system stability. In solidly embedded democracies national populists are either repressed (France and Belgium) or in collaboration with other political parties (Italy, Norway, Austria, Danmark and the Netherlands). In democracies with repressed right-wing national populism, the risk of populism taking unreasonable extreme forms is more evident, than in democracies where populism exists within the democratic frameworks in collaboration with other political parties. In this way solidely embedded democracies may moderate radical forms of national populism, particularly etnic populism, by including it into its democratic frameworks and procedures. Can we trust Media --they did not forcast this vast populist reaction...

CONCLUSION -- National populism nutured by unstable systems of societal upheavals Unstability is a phase a system enters before it reorients itself and takes a new shape. The political, social, cultural and economical situation in the world prior to its societal systemic reorientation may forecast its new form. These kind of unstable societal systems or upheavaels have functioned as milestones for the development of societies thorughout the centuries. An retrospective analysis, such as an analysis of the national populism of the interwar period, can in many ways be useful to prevent falling into the same catastrophical pitfalls as the interwar national populistic society did. This retrospective clearly tells us that populism based on etnic nationalism, nutured by historically embedded societal conflicts, such as etnic conflicts, is a dangerous combination for humanity. But different historical epochs and contexts may have, as mentioned in the introduction; different systemic outcomes. It may result either in negative or positive system changes, based on the characteristics of its different "sums" of societal problems it is rooted in, and what kind of nationalism it draws on, but according to history, such as the interbellum populism; we should be aware of the potential dangers when unwanted and negative systemic trends explicitly is shown in contemporary economic, social, political and cultural currents, in form of etnic populism. -- Nevertheless, this is what the contemporary societal uphevals forcasts: Weather or not national populism will function within the frameworks of a liberal democracy, depends on how solid the pillars of the existing democracy in each countries are, prior to the impact of national populism. It also depends on weather the populists views are included or not into the democratic debates in a collaborative manner. If the democratic 'checks and balances' works, national populism may exist within these democratic frameworks and learn from main-stream politicians' reason and moderation. In this democratic process and by democratic procedures, the national populists might even learn main-stream politicians how to connect with and present the emotion of those citizens not represented by main-stream politicians, just as well as the populists might learn to include reason and form realizable goals for our complex and diverse society and reduce anti-immigration attitudes. If this does'nt succeed we might experience an extended period of anti-politics and system unstability. If this does succeed national populists might contribute with a way to connect with the segments of voters not represented by mainstream politician, and may in this way be a corrective and reduce anti-politics in our liberal democracies. If the pillars of the democracy is not that solid, or newly established, and national populists fails to respect the values and rights, which democracy is based on; if they fails to respect its 'checks and balances' -- national populism might form a treath to democracy's protection of diversity minorities and otherness, by destabilizing the political system and therefore also pose a treath to societal stability. In the whole world, we are experiencing a systemic reaction to contemporary societal upheavals; in form of a violent growth of national populism. But in countries with solidely embedded western democracies, these currents will; most likely, not pose a treath to societal stability. They will rather exists within the democratic frameworks; by the rules of democracy's rather generous and unlimited expression of freedom, and confirm to its 'checks and balances', rather than streach towards unreasonable extremes. In contemporary western democracratic societies we are, most likely, experiencing a temporary reaction to unstable systems of societal upheavals; before our societal system reorients itselves and regains its balance. What kind of form our society will take after this violent reorientation is still unsure. In these rough times of societal uphevals and unstability, we must stand steady on our democratic values and rights.

EPILOGUE -- We are all human beings The sitation from Rovella's article in the introduction; about the positive and negative sides to populism, should inspire and encourage all citizens; and particularly politicians of the world, to be cautious and act wisely: As a form of horizontal political power, populism has been instrumental to legal, agrarian, and social reforms through the years. But it’s also played a starring role in the rise of demagogues and therefore some of the ugliest episodes in human history. (Rovella 2016: 1). If a forward-looking renewal, conciliation and peace is our ultimate urge; we should rather open up our mindsetts and hearts to integrative conflict solving diplomatic discussions; rather than hostility. We should not be carried away by complex conflicts which separates; the people; "us" against; "them"; the elites or a counterparty in a conflict. We should go easy on how we define people as either "us" or "them", and strive to be more socially including and become more tolerant. Most of us belong to nation states or nations. Nevertheless; all humans should act, think and feel as one concilidating and diverse unit: If we can learn to act, think and feel as one humankind and rise above rasicm, agression and nostalgia -- world concilidation, freedom and peace is within reach; and not ultimately; World War III. Take a good look when approaching the source of the crisis and conflict; focus on universal values such as mutual respect, equality and what we have in common, rather than the differences that distinguish us: We are all human beings. *

Copyright. All rights reserved IART Ingrid Katrine Amundsen 2007-2016. (Do not reprint without premission). *

References Abts, K., and van Kessel, S., (2015): "Populism". R.B Collier volume 17. Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam. Page 609-612. Internett 1, Wikipedia (2016): "Etnic Nationalism". (02.12.2016). Morgenbladet (2016): ??? Müller, J-W., (2016): "What is populism?". University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Rovella, D., (2016): "Populism takes over the world". (15.11.2016). Stanley, B., (2011): "Populism, nationalism, or national populism? An analysis of Slovak voting behaviour at the 2010 parliamentary election". Communist and Post-Communist Studies 44. Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam. Page 257-270. Strasser, T., (1981): "The Wave". Dell: New York. The Economist (2016): "Trump’s world -- The new nationalism". (20.11.2016). Wallace-Wells, B., (2016): "Trump’s Populism Is Not Just a Western Phenomenon". (17.11.2016). Wills, J., (2015): "Populism, localism and the geography of democracy". Geoforum 62. Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam. Page 188-189.
  /  Permalink  /