April 2020 – Populism in Action

Coronavirus Aftermath Is Likely to Unite Finland’s Right-Wing Parties

Josh Allen on 27th April 2020

By Niko Hatakka (PiAP Finland focused Research Fellow)

Coronavirus and a quest for a role in government have forced the Finns Party (PS) to ease off the gas pedal of its ideology and confrontational style.

However, there is plenty of road ahead to accelerate until the 2023 Parliamentary elections. And the ride is likely to get bumpy.

As in Italy and Switzerland, the public health crisis initially appeared to render traditional political divides irrelevant, at least temporarily.

The Finnish Government has carried out strict measures to control transmission of the virus. Due to the country’s developed health care system, comparably advanced crisis preparedness, and the Finnish people’s compliance with the restrictions, there have been less than 200 deaths. Opposition parties, the private sector, and even brusquely right-wing columnists have mostly expressed approval of the left-wing government’s actions.

Some of the loftier analyses have even rekindled the “spirit of the winter war”, the setting aside of political disputes to face a formidable common enemy in World War II.

Until the start of the pandemic, the environmentally-aware and generally “woke” government, led by five women, provided the Finns Party with the perfect symbol of what the party’s supporters consider wrong with “the elites”. But with the government’s authoritative tackling of the shared biological enemy, the Finns Party’s appeals to rally against the threat of green-leftist “climate hysteria” and “pandering to immigrants” appeared tangential.

Yet any decrease in support during the time of Coronavirus will not be a crisis for the Finns Party.

Remaining Fit For Government

Finnish citizens have rapidly rallied around their charismatic leader, the Social Democrat Prime Minister Sanna Marin. With the Finns Party’s support decreasing about 3% to a level of 20% since the first recorded case of Covid-19 in the country, the Social Democrats have overtaken PS to become the most popular party.

For the Parliamentary elections in 2023, the Finns Party must hang on to their largest-ever support while still being viewed as fit for government. Thus far, the party leadership have incrementally toned down their online communications, and even discouraged unnecessary confrontation that could be interpreted as inability to govern responsibly during a crisis.

There has been plenty of scornful public discussion about the government’s failing to source hospital-grade protective equipment, but Finns Party leader Jussi Halla-aho has been reserved in responding to the handling of the crisis. In the latest issue of the party’s newspaper , Halla-aho showed restraint to the point of reproaching his own ranks: “Responsible opposition should not scoff at mistakes that could have happened to any government or score political points with unfounded promises.”

At the national level, the party is trying to patiently sit out the pandemic while holding to its key issues. Throughout the crisis, the central organization’s communications have mostly refrained from overt populist style in performing the crisis, while remaining consistent in demanding cuts of public spending on immigration, environmental protection, and high culture.

However, the leadership has not been able to contain all online communications that could be viewed as “irresponsible” during a health crisis. For example, one MP founded a Facebook page for disseminating information on Coronavirus, and the online community has been riddled with misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Bridging a Temporary Alliance

After the Finns Party’s new leadership was elected in 2017, the other government parties deemed the PS unfit as a coalition partner. Nothing significant has since changed ideologically or organizationally in the Finns Party, but the centre-right Coalition Party has started to change its line about governmental cooperation.

During the first year of the current government, the Coalition Party and the Finns Party increasingly appear to stand on common ground. The Finnish populist radical right and the Finnish centre-right are in the process of constructing a chain of equivalence, a shared front against the danger from the left.

The ideological glue for this alliance will be provided by the two parties’ shared demand for austerity.
After the imminent threat of the virus wanes and the bill of the crisis has to be paid, it is likely that the “spirit of the winter war” will be but a memory as the two main opposition parties join forces to attack the government for overspending.

As forming a right-wing government is no longer possible without the Finns Party, the inevitable tightening of the two parties’ ranks will make the Finnish center-right more open to nativist and authoritarian ideas. This cooperation will also cement the Finns Party’s ongoing shift to the economic right.

Populism and the Collapse of Italy’s Coronavirus Truce

Josh Allen on 21st April 2020

Giuseppe Conti (5 Star Movement affiliated Prime Minister of Italy since 2018) stands at a lectern midst giving a speech. He is a white male of around fifty years of age, has greying dark hair and a slightly tanned face. He is clean shaven and isn't wearing glasses. He wears a dark blue suit with a white handkerchief in to top pocket. His tie is a similar dark blue colour and his shirt is white. Behind him a figure of a male aide or another politican is visible, he is also wearing a suit, aged between 50 and 60, but is balding with a beard. the wall behind both men is marble and an Italian tricolor is partly visible on a flagpole

By Daniele Albertazzzi (PiAP Principal Investigator) and Mattia Zulianello (PiAP Italy focused Research Fellow) – originally for the UK in a Changing Europe blog

As an indiscriminate, sudden, and exogenous crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic has compelled media and political actors either to quickly adapt their narratives to a new scenario, or to find fresh reasons to reiterate the old tropes they already owned. In Italy, all major political parties have chosen the second option.

Following a brief political truce not dissimilar to that seen in other countries, harsh political competition has made a comeback and parties have embraced their assigned parts in the script written before this crisis struck. These vary according to whether parties support the government or not, and how they need to position themselves vis à vis their political friends and foes.

The truce ended as the first details were made public of the agreement EU governments are reaching on how to respond to the crisis caused by the pandemic. Most striking has been the competition between the populist radical right League, now in opposition after being ejected from the government in the summer, and the populist Five Star Movement, a party that is very difficult to place on the left-right scale due to its eclectic ideology. Five Star is now the dominant party within the executive and governs alongside the center-left, and fervently pro-EU, Democratic Party.

What the League and Five Star have always had in common is that they are both EU-critical in theory, albeit EU-compliant in practice. Given the difficulty of finding a solution to the present crisis acceptable to both northern and southern European governments, and with surveys suggesting roughly the same number of Italians now leaning towards Leave and Remain, the present crisis clearly provides a golden opportunity to attack the EU. However, the two parties are now in a very different place when it comes to exploiting the situation.

Until recently, Matteo Salvini’s League has found it difficult to put forward a coherent narrative about how to deal with the pandemic. For some weeks, the seriousness of the crisis and the high levels of public approval enjoyed by Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte meant that, very unusually, Salvini was struggling to get attention in the national media. The overwhelming of Lombardy, a region run by the League, by the virus also militated against him raising his voice.

As the virus struck, Salvini switched from calls to tighten the borders to a premature request that normality should be restored and economic activities reopened while the virus was still spreading at speed. This was followed by a switchback for the country’s lockdown to be made stricter, less than two weeks later.

But the League was rescued by the bickering between EU finance ministers and governments on how to deal with the crisis. As soon as the idea was mooted that the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – an institution long opposed by the party – could be used by countries badly hit by the virus to borrow funds with which to cover medical spending, Salvini ended the truce. Reviving memories of Greece’s subjugation to its creditors from 2010 onwards, the League’s leader argued that “the ESM without conditionality does not exist”, and that accepting money via this route would inevitably lead to establishing “a dictatorship in the name of the virus”. Hence the party called for the Italian Treasury to issue bonds to finance the recovery, arguing these should be fully backed by the European Central Bank.

Five Star’s Dilemma

Salvini’s reaction was predictable. Although the League voted in favor of the Lisbon Treaty when its own government brought it to Parliament in 2008, and was ultimately eager to reach an agreement with the European Commission on Italy’s budget when it returned to government in 2018, it has nevertheless embraced EU-criticism and harsh anti-EU tones in every recent electoral campaign.

This situation presents the Five Star Movement, however, with an insoluble dilemma. The script dictates that it should act as an anti-establishment party. But it lacks the skills and political personnel to do this well, especially when dominating the government.

Having criticized the ESM just as often as the League before gaining power for the first time in 2018, Five Star has voted in the EU Parliament against activating this fund. Yet it is the largest partner in a coalition government that may well draw resources from the mechanism in a few weeks’ time. If a credible argument can be made that the money is really being made available “without conditions”, as EU finance ministers have said, the Democratic Party will push for its employment. Doing so is likely to receive backing from Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, a party keen to be seen as “responsible” right now to differentiate itself from its more radical allies on the right. This would force Five Star to attack Conte, the man it picked as PM back in 2018, while some from the opposition cheer him on.

“Performing crisis” may well be one of the core features of populism. When populists are in government, increasingly common in recent years, they can benefit from pitting “the people” against various enemies and by advocating strong leadership to bring crises “under control”. The dilemma for Five Star is that this cannot be done at the same time as distancing itself from the decisions of the Prime Minister.

So, as the League keeps hammering Five Star with accusations of “betrayal” of the national interest, expect the latter to try — but ultimately fail — to keep one foot in and one foot out of government in weeks to come.

Coronavirus Brings Rare Unity Among Switzerland’s Parties

Josh Allen on 6th April 2020

Passengers have disembarked plane and are moving through an airport termina building. A youn white man aged about 30 in a fluorescent orange suit wearing boots, gloves, a visor and facemask is stood taking people's temperatures as a Covid-19 screening and safety precaution

by Adrian Favero (PiAP Switzerland focused Research Fellow) This post originally appeared on EA Worldview as part of a series of analyses from the Populism in Action Project on the effect of Coronavirus on populism and politics in Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, and Finland.

Switzerland is one of the countries most affected by Coronavirus. While the situation is not as severe as in neighboring Italy, as of April 3 the Swiss had almost 600 fatalities and almost 20,000 confirmed cases.

In mid-March, because of the “rapidly worsening” outbreak, both chambers of Parliament interrupted their session and the Federal Council declared an “extraordinary situation” under the Epidemics Act.

Federal Government in Charge

The Epidemics Act has been in force since January 1, 2016. It distinguishes between three situations, affecting the division of responsibility between the confederation and the cantons.

In a “normal” situation, the cantons are generally in charge to enact measures that can prevent and control transmissible diseases. In a “particular” and especially in an “extraordinary” situation, the Federal Council allocates more responsibilities to itself. It may take measures which it considers indispensable without consultation of Parliament or the cantons.

Using this authority, the Federal Council declared an official state of emergency until April 19.

In a decentralized country such as Switzerland, the federal government’s invocation of extensive and exclusive power may create much controversy. So to what extent has Swiss democracy been infected by Coronavirus?

The answer is: not much so far. The Federal Council has more power but it strictly acts within the limits of the Constitution. Under Article 185, the government may issue ordinances and rulings to counter existing or imminent threats of serious disruption to public order or internal and external security.

Unlike countries such as Hungary and Poland, the situation is not leading to extraordinary changes to the country’s political system and an unprecedented centralization of power. The Federal Council’s authority is temporary. If the so-called emergency decrees last longer than six months, Parliament will have to approve an extension.

What About the Parties?

Political parties in Switzerland may react to Coronavirus by promoting their agendas or by positioning themselves as responsible players. My colleague Judith Sijstermans, in her work on Belgium, has highlighted how the right-wing populist Vlaams Belang has used the crisis as a window of opportunity to advance policy goals and justify key ideological viewpoints.

In Switzerland, the political dynamic is a bit different. On the same day as the declaration of an “extraordinary situation” and state of emergency, all parties issued a joint statement in which they declared that they would “stand united and unreservedly behind the Federal Council”. Quoting the unofficial traditional Swiss motto, “One For All – All For One”, most parties pulled together in resolute unity, unequivocally supporting the government’s measures. The populist Swiss People’s Party SVP is the only party so far which, while supporting the joint statement, denounced “shortcomings in the government’s crisis management” that have to be corrected immediately.

Trust in the Government appears to be widespread at the moment, with the members of the legislative organs deferring to the executive in convening an extraordinary session of Parliament. Some parties avoided issuing public statements, with the Social Democrats welcoming the opportunity to meet to create legal certainty and preserve democracy.

Despite their criticism of the government’s crisis management, the SVP did not seize the opportunity to hold the Federal Council accountable and suggested a later meeting, on condition that the government ends the state of emergency. The party called the extraordinary session “unnecessary and irresponsible”, while accepting the government’s assumption of more power during the “extraordinary situation”.

Most parties are still issuing statements for political life after the crisis. They still have to craft long-term strategies on topics which concern their core ideological stances over the economy, society, and security. Nevertheless, the tone of these messages is relatively moderate and largely free of personal attacks.

One For All – All For One?

So why are the parties more measured in bringing in their own demands, while at the same time supporting the Federal Council’s ordinances and rulings?

First, in the current crisis the population yearns for unity and is rallying behind the political leadership. The Federal Council has delivered so far in its response, and many party representatives, Swiss citizens, business leaders, and analysts attest to its effectiveness.

This has made it easier for parties to agree that now is not the time for fierce political competition but for fostering solidarity and trust in the government. Moreover, politicizing the crisis could be detrimental for parties and would not be appreciated by the public.

Second, four of the five largest parties are represented in government. This grand coalition is working well together, and the parties have no reason to attack individual Councillors. The rather harmonic situation is enhanced by lack of an opposition party which would use the crisis for political gains.

Switzerland has little tradition of parliamentary opposition, and some representatives say it is unbecoming to criticize the government right now. Most parties agree that confidence in authority is the imperative of the hour, and any critique can wait until after the crisis.

Pragmatic solutions have replaced ideological disputes. At least for the time being, populist rhetoric and political attacks have given way to a rare effort to achieve unity and solidarity.