Many commentators are concerned about a breakdown of faith in democracy. Across most of the West, voters are abandoning traditional parties and sometimes support for democracy itself. Faced with some very evident social and economic problems, party loyalists struggle to defend their ideological solutions while new populist movements offer simple and appealing answers. For those who believe in democracy, understanding what is happening is critically important.
A new report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change casts a new light on the divisions and the issues. They wanted to explore the appeal of populism on both the right and the left of politics. To test this across a range of developed democracies, they commissioned a poll of 12,000 people from six countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, UK and USA).
Insiders and outsiders
They were interested in a group they defined as ‘outsiders’. How far are the people most likely to support populism really different from the rest of the population? In one set of questions, each respondent was asked to place him/herself on a scale of 1-10 between two statements, from fully behind option A (score 1) and fully support option B (score 10).
- A: “It’s generally better for [your country] to have strong, decisive leadership, rather than for decisions to be the result of discussion, negotiation, and compromise.”
- B: “It’s generally better for big political decisions in [your country] to be the result of discussion, negotiation, and compromise, rather than to have strong, decisive leadership.”
- A: “The big challenges currently facing [your country] are basically straightforward and just need plain common sense to tackle them.”
- B: “The big challenges currently facing the [your country] are complex and cannot be tackled without taking account of the best independent evidence.”
- A: “Most big decisions in [your country] these days are taken by small groups of people that nobody has elected and who operate in secret.”
- B: “Most big decisions in [your country]] these days are taken in public by elected politicians.”
Anyone who chose 1-3 on these questions was classified as an ‘outsider’ and anyone answering 7-10 as an ‘insider’. They then looked at how the two groups differed.
Some differences
There were clear differences on four issues: support for international cooperation; whether life was better in the past; levels of trust in politicians; and faith in mainstream TV news. But immigration and climate change, two issues which are often associated with populism, proved not as divisive as expected. Many insiders were also worried by immigration, while many outsiders agreed that human activity is causing the world to get warmer.
But ‘more in common’
However, there was much common ground between the two groups. Critically, neither liked the status quo and both wanted radical change. The difference was in how they wanted it brought about. As the report says, “while outsiders want a fundamental clear-out; insiders want the mainstream actors to get their act together”.
Across all six countries, the issues prioritised by both insiders and outsiders were the cost of living and a shortage of housing. They were all broadly in favour of free trade. And despite varying political views, they preferred a government which was competent to one which matched their personal ideology.
Although other studies have suggested that age and education have taken the place of left and right in determining political attitudes, this study suggests that while they play some part, they are not defining factors.
2008: a global turning point
Recent history probably explains some of the problem. Between 1945 and 2008, the economies of the six countries polled all grew, most of the time. Overall each generation was better off than its predecessor, and this came to be seen as normal. Although some groups and regions lost out from change, they were a relatively small proportion, and rarely presented a threat to the established two-party political structures. Most people remained content to vote for one or the other.
But in 2008 they all experienced the greatest economic crash for 80 years. The process of continuous improvement stalled for most people, and with it trust in government’s ability to solve problems. The survey found that most people expect their children to be worse-off than themselves. And although the outsiders felt this more strongly (54% ‘worse’ to 31% ‘better’), many insiders agreed (44% to 28%).
Widespread loss of confidence
Democracy is in danger when people lose confidence in the future. When they stop believing that politicians can – or wish to – fix the problems, conspiracy theories grow, and social division thrives as scapegoats are sought.
This study is clear that dissatisfaction with the state of society and the economy is widespread across parties, regions and classes, and among insiders and outsiders. And increasingly the radical solutions they are prepared to consider do not match neatly with traditional party ideologies. That explains why the combined Conservative and Labour vote share in 2024’s UK election was the lowest for more than a century.
Wanted: government that is radical and competent
But despite the campaigns of some populists, this survey suggests that this is not a shift to ‘values’ or ‘culture war’ issues (even in the USA). What insiders and outsiders both want is competent government, prepared to tackle real and difficult problems. The report concludes that:
“Our survey finds that voters are more fragmented in their choice of party, but more united in their underlying demands than they appear. They know what they want, and it is not new. What many millions of them are unhappy with are the way things are now and the choice on offer for making things better.”
The report offers some hope to progressives. It proposes that the divides are less deep than many believe and the wedge issues offered by populists less important. Most people agree about the issues they want tackled.
But they want radical change from a government that is competent. But the 2024 election didn’t offer that. Few people thought the Conservatives either radical or competent. Reform UK and the Greens both claimed to be radical, but could not demonstrate competence. Labour’s attempt to focus on competence has disappointed many who hoped for radicalism.
But (as one might perhaps expect from the Tony Blair Institute) the report concludes on an optimistic note:
“The good news from our survey is that the right actions can break down today’s tribal barriers and reverse the trend towards fragmentation and instability. If the rewards for success are immense, so are the dangers of failure. The choice for each political leader is simply stated. Disruption is coming. Be its author – or its victim.”
