According to Jan-Werner Müller, the idea of Populism can be identified as an impossible
concept as there are a multitude of differentiating viewpoints of what populism constitutes. In
recent times, Britain’s governmental structure has increasingly leaned toward populism, which
reached its peak when the country made the executive decision to exit the European Union after
the 2016 electorate. Despite the variety of different understandings of populist ideals, the major
factor of Britain’s rivalry amongst the ruling class and the common citizen has been a key
determinant in the nation’s rising case of populism.
Political experts believe that the rising case of populism in Britain emerged from
anti-European policies advocated by populist executives whose agenda is to counteract the
growth of globalization. In addition, opposition to the norm of simple market-based policies has
risen. Instead, Populism has indeed been seen as a reaction to electorate desires for more
government involvement in the economy. These “facts”, in regards to Britain’s exit of the
European Union, are an insufficient representation of how populism is defined.
To commence, the vote in favor of Brexit was due to issues pertaining to sovereignty,
immigration standards, economic inequalities and ownership rights. However, Brexit cannot be
viewed as a persistent demand made by populist leaders to win over votes. In reality, the
campaign could be seen as the turning point when British voters began to care deeply about
vacating the European Union. Furthermore, “prominent populist political figures in the
Conservative Party supported initiatives that were compatible with neoliberalism, despite the
democratic populist actors, like the Labor Party, who advocated for greater state government
involvement in the economy to oppose it” (Craig Calhoun). Thus, the one factor that populist
members share with one another is that they want to dispute Britain’s neoliberal agenda that
advocates for initiatives centered around stimulating price increases within Britain’s housing
market. It can be contended that political players seeking to win electoral votes for their
respective programs have utilized the connection between elites against the citizens at the center
of populism as a rhetorical guideline. Through this, figures in government might criticize an
official program by playing it off as harmful to the public or they can adopt the opposite
depiction to stress the advantages of voter policy being in favor of the ruling class over the
citizens.
This claim can be examined through contrasting the economic ideologies and motivations
of the Economic Nationalists and the Socialist Democrats. Each respective group has opposing
economic ideologies that seek to undermine Britain’s debt-fueled neoliberal development
structure. Members of the Conservative Party, including Boris Johnson, “support Britain’s current
Liberal Financial Nationalist legislation framework, which seeks to shift Britain’s neoliberal
market structure from being heavily-indebted to instead concentrate on expanding the country’s
exports” (Smith Patrick, NBC). The Conservative party embraced the populist narrative to
promote their own export-focused foreign policies while criticizing the European Union for
intruding on the sovereignty of Britain. Consequently, Brexit presents a chance for British
capitalism to be refocused on an export based model of development backed by members outside
of the European Union commerce, according to the right as per Craig Calhoun.
The Socialist Democrats in the Labor Party publicly criticized economic neoliberal
initiatives for favoring the elite over the people rather than concentrating on the European Union.
Judgements concerning the economy are frequently determined by a small group of elite due to
the ownership concentration of the nation. In order to combat the notion that political executives
place higher emphasis on the elite over the wellbeing of its citizens, “the government presented a
proposition to engage socialist objectives, by restraining major actions in the economy and
shifting ownership rights in commerce” (Smith Patrick, NBC). Leaders of the Labor Party
advocated for this type of blueprint as they believed that it would eliminate the threat of
ownership concentration. Thus, Britain’s economy would benefit from more democratic
management systems, which would also result in a more equitable allocation of assets.
Ultimately, Populism is defined differently by many different entities regarding Britain
and their decision to leave the European Union. However, these instances display that these rival
political forces have created an opposition to Britain’s neoliberal development structure and
public approval for their personal economic ideas by using the populist rhetorical approach.
Accordingly, it is suggested that a more thorough understanding of what defines populism in the
instance of Brexit comes from the universal use of the ruling class against the British citizens
movement instead of highlighting populist entities employing contradictory strategies to appear
more favorable to the general populace. In order to comprehend the concept of international
populism and the way it emerges in certain situations, this analysis provides a more credible
hypothesis.