Oh see no you prefere spell italiano Bongiorno Bongiorno tutti Celera beemo quick annoy we inshallah Nadia or banality in colleg amento quando quando Sri Madhavi Rivka ligament o PP Norris case wanna do a do a trolley principales pierced the populace Mohammed we Auto Rita Nell Nell Satori on problema called colleague amento okay Yasuda Nadia Nadia be naughty pollito raga and sing Kenosha Tooting senatorial political Columbia University escrito Lib recommend a toaster a democracy a democracy representative a Democrat Xia in Loretto la democracia figure Otacon Libre Kasyapa specific mental del populism OPP norris script on liberal born also the pork or moto interesante su populace novice Gemma a cultural black clash la ragione cultural Caribe Prabhakar toe in a policeman so Tata Toro a policeman authoritarian a particle airspace de populism Oh a dance to diosa anger American and sin and Arbor the el Sydney University Arroyo believer in true during a twist with your camera Fortuna the americano yo G commemorated on speedy Otto in the posts on non video to topic a Sonam is all this called tempo del interest and kisame hoshigaki durano Nadia would be naughty Pippin or unity or minute e lo lo incra shotta / chaos RT global career Sara su la democracia loretta cuando shin quest a lesson and algo ver no pehla pyaar volton elinoz historia de Saudi that el ministro computer capacity Democrat City Reta la democracia loretta un argumento TP gödel populism asunder cosas molto colleague at / que la brexit astata she'll stop a referendum in a democracy Doretta D democracy loretta a no par lot o CL extrema destra TAS cassia / TT populace T comma podemos a commission questell in Italian a Nadia Nadia escaped only Braintree Santissima became a democracy in Loretta in qui to toe so Matt Inanna una pro tanto negative on see any confront e de la possibility' una parte spazzy own a a la democracia en su Dorito la democracia in Doretta naan unna democracy i retinol on Gretchen qui a para participar Alicia stay s Pimentel approp opinion Addison Queen City comecome a Elsa terrazzo de la decisión crystal our Casa de jamon quested ordinary seasonal Institute limited in una cita comical El Cid Rosa in nella dem gracias figure at envision a dominating qiraji missus Valeo dis - enter men take a la democracia representative ax c Fonda's una diarchy una de otra levanta que la parte de jamon decision al a fatalistic ushi Oni la legislation e el aplicación de la ley G L opinion a public opinion república a caramel table a low definition for Adele opinion quest Edwin theta K Fonda no ladder here von oben SSO no autonomy say introduce Kannamma con otro Mia ilpo policeman in SEMICON latekka no gratia a con el play visitor is mo sono le tre forma de pathology a-- the report request request identity' in particular in populism o el de fête OD condition ra la voluntad in la decisión del gobierno fund end Oh LaVon attack on loopy non Monsieur de la Madrid and we need repair the Litella the luminance window up a Pandora's vie de coimbra Valora Holly bro cultural blacklash a Libra okay multi tere sath Abigail approach moto poco ideological probably is no individual to t risky the populace McAra meant ma the annelids con con not kimoto d stock code youíre a sense a criminal is al populism in canto Todd is moat and honest led bogey communing tato di Shambala definition ad populism okay dub Pippen Orissa maltose Amelia Pella d Cosmo Day cake will officially be legible Adela idea loggia Ladera same ideology akane ona soooo continue on makea pukey altro attention eh eh eh eh a la al Palazzo sobre Nita el nombre de que cosa affordable children SE queda CKD say a fethiye meant a lady mo Cristiano more endo Zapotec libro de grande Sutra so our democracy study the giblet a levee schemes animals to discuss in America respect to Z but le whiskey Pippen or a sound approach from Malta more to the way so on Levesque exhibit Chetan idiotic a sono le da da de la Frieda Mouse Segundo cuicci sono molti see my patient antonova place in qui Nelda melody sassette Linda CD democracia estado en Carlo pocus in pace in Kalindi see democracy esta bien clase de vente said a antonova assisted billing hora second open or is English livid and supportin a trader ecclesia shishya koma koma provide Eva an Tintin una una serie on that democracy achieve an equivalent da Pollock where a peu de leche ain't a season started they learn that democracia in almond to industry Democrat you know Manto WG adesso pillowcase my window they say in return on the written opinion Carlo de la démocratie shiitake Razia Bhutto at the same panini any trained at the same pure neon see tanto Quinny questa cosa de san pio lumba conv absolutamente dramatic satin echo you coming traditional sense since and re all tricking us Tamia premies coming share a con una demand an ally or be naughty boy in traditional hip inori's Nadia Segundo de la democracia stammerer endow opera no no krisily today molto the Chama catastrophe stick a catastrophic a perky presume on ok CCO our democracy and our essential River are also increasing bonanno's a p.m. is a demented over suppose the M approaches village is Iona edco structural opinion a km a risky or a lintel no not on Apprendi Feliciana studio very garam masala then sorry nonsense okay body produces tasted mineral condición 'i will answer the patella political distribute see on religion regularly try to to Questacon me rinoa Rico's truly revered or a lord in a democratic or questo e el único scalpel Hunico veramente grander scope okay a tan TC moviment a burqa significant el tiempo de Lucia de cambiar ago various in the Moutere regime Aquila tanto pero cuando se Panna cottas the vision of democracy came on of his compile Chitra I mean okay known a bingo Ramon car la condición fundamentally prequel democracy for vivere your non so no so that request Jan using de morte da cunha case a you know found again with the agony of the Malatya or the dvd-r me call a well do to be amo pen sorry did over and are in relaciones when a vision a teleological presume on a vision a teleological a Democrat Xia Naaman procedurally purépecha several elements already been a or the attribute chillin PC embedded you know superiority at a lapel question over arrow due to increasing questo quindi me mimicking do be up arrow so no opinion Lucas yeah hey opinion fer case who says face like a sonic also meant opinion in molto critical parameter so no can be aa - nobody's durable Perico so much fun convenient present Pio Columbia molto bruh Keira party token de da de faire une analogy they live agony a very agony Andhra democracy upon your Coursera preparation cambio de título care KC pensaba que pasa jaunty toe to toe Capri confetti annatto check da cunha Anna Gonia Bo's delicacies a condo Morris and Paulina gooniac windy cambiar el teatro del teatro de vain anxiety democracy talents to the Lancia Troy to Nancy democrática Lancer respect to lease to a possibility malarkey Quinn the jack ways to ceviche Commodore a most are un poco for setenta user requested Chris April gross Tamara people Norris in table minuta less kravecki photometry so no day leader populace T in Venezuela in Torquay Hungaria K an no Takato e pc contra PC Delhi democracy liberally incident la casa de t fundamentally del cytidine o makki alto a publicity non son on Quora and a TI ng during sulla liberty' fundamentally Lake Echo Silesia dello stato dissolute Adela Nostra democracy freedom of the press on executive and also things like social tolerance that seems to be very evident in response to diversity so established democracy is particularly of course United Kingdom right now with her exit and the United States under Trump have both seen an erosion of some fundamental freedoms it doesn't want to say they cannot recover but it certainly means that things have deteriorated from their democracy there's a second category and that's the newer democracies which are often ones which have seen a more fundamental breakdown and it's obviously hungry those had moved towards democracy in joining the EU and has now moved backwards with freedom under the oven also the Philippines example under 30 also countries such as Venezuela there were long democracy liberal in in Latin America but have gone down on the medulla or Chavez and then we can also see some other cases so there are important cases of backsliding in many countries if you look at for example the variety of democracy indicators and then there's break down into smaller number of cases and then finally the third case the authoritarian regimes and I think what's most important here is a restorative authoritarian resurgence and that's evidence in China because for example always aid policies and its economic power it's evident in Russian think about example the way to destabilize Ukraine in the neighboring states and interpret and intervened in in Syria under Putin and then of course think about Saudi Arabia to gain become emboldened so there are some more standing authoritarian states which have increased I think their role and their power in the world of large so three different situations are going on point post attitute Oscar mikoshi do Shama VD Lanka living in Costa momento Vidya mala bellissima poverty Noel su libro menorah Shama with a relay no in fact we cannot apply also a cloud so that would be logical again laka potentially promotes - Bella pero lady she cement interesante Alaura Shara Shara nada que believe a fairly odd Amanda understand better because the audio was not clear enough so authoritarian resurgent authoritarianism as a resurgent authoritarianism and Trump as deterioration right I am it's clear so the two has two different phenomena deterioration of basic constitutional democracies and on the other hand authoritarianism which is more and more a kind of alternative model because until recently democracy had no alternative model better but this idea new is a new one there are authoritative regimes that they can function in terms of output they can function better and not necessarily or worse than our democracy is this music a kind of write a summary correct summary that's absolutely absolutely right so the international forces in particular the decline of the United States has been really dramatic and under Trump the retreat from democracy and human rights is really very evident but it's interesting that it started before the president was elected in fact under Obama America was already retreating from for example putting money into Internet aid and technical assistance to strengthen democracies around the world and I think you can see that quite definitely been accelerated under Donald Trump because of course and make America great it's an isolation nationalism withdrawal from international collaboration and a lack of cooperation on things like NATO or the United Nations or other international forum so essentially what's been happening is that the authoritarian powers around the world have been given a freer rein they're no longer being sanctioned for a number of different activities and they feel therefore empowered to reassert themselves so a shift if you like in global powers has been going on and that's very much part of of the situation and then the second point you make Nadia about the decline of liberal democracies is much more a subtle erosion and it's not a dramatic change but it's often much more things going on beneath the surface it's not that these regimes have broken down obviously by any means but one looks at things like forms of accountability and transparency in America and the way in which the presidency is really at loggerheads and and is stagnating with Congress and you can look at the way that politics have broken down in brexit so the major forces the major powers particularly Labor Social Democrat Christian Democrat are under tremendous strain and we can see that therefore there are important shifts in stability in the liberal democracies as well but two different trends and I think they're complement to each other and both of those are leading to the reverse wave as we mentioned which as we've had before we had it in the 1920s under the Great Recession we had it in the 1960s after decolonization and we now as another tipping point in which again the number of strong democracies and liberal democracies in particular are either stable or in clear decline kinemacolor equally coming to twister the Democratic o/l populism Oh uncle argumento faccia a simple populism hola causa di questo di questa reduce Wendy Linda say oh she's on Uncle three cows so let's say that it's complicated interaction effects and we need to make distinctions between two different types of populism on the one hand we have what we term authoritarian populism and this is a populism which really has the features populism is all about as we said earlier and you've heard throughout throughout the two event a challenge to the establishment it's saying that we no longer feel that the parties are legitimate or elected politicians or the institutions which are there for example the civil services scene is corrupt the media is seen as fake the judges are seen as partisan and so there are challenges to established forces and then of course the idea is that the power should go to the people to the ordinary people now is that negative for democracy not necessarily if you live in a corrupt estate if you live in a society where the establishment is not being representative and is not being accountable then of course that's a natural reaction and it can be seen as a positive force for reform the problem we see and I this isn't the work in my book with run Englehart is when you link that populist insurgents with authoritarian values and in that sense in particular its what we mean is a social intolerance it's a sense that you have to defend your group against other groups that you're not going to allow minorities to be protected that you want to be resurgent in nationalism and in making sure that your own country is strong at the expense of others for example putting up trade tariffs is a very clear example or withdrawing from the European Union so there's no longer cooperation and above all with authoritarianism in its classic form the idea is if your group is under threat if you're all feeling insecure then you need a strong leader because the forms of populism that can allow referendum are very rarely used occasionally there are referendum but there aren't that strong and so you need a strong leader who's goes defend your group and that's the aspect its authoritarian populism not populism per se which is the major challenge we think to liberal democracy so in the 30s however particularly in Europe but also well let's talk about Europe now yeah there was not yet democracy so when the reaction well we should start after World War one actually well before the 30s and it was first of all a form of populistic reaction against liberal representative regimes which opened little bit they suffrage to the many but not all and the political parties were not yet organized - not yet ready to organize the masses because they were in parliamentary kind of parties and the scope mystic movements in Italy Mussolini was clear was along with a few others they organized of the new emerging masses inside of the state so in that case populist was the moment in which one form of representative regime was becoming another one from liberal to more democratic and then we knew how the story evolved and there was a kind of going outside of the regime itself and generating an authoritarian system today we have already strong democracies 70-years democracy like in Europe 70 years old democracy we have stronger system of division of power the rule of law so we have mature democracies not yet in the making like in the past so what is that makes these populistic resurgence a ineffective condition or an effective expression of criticism of the form in which democracies is now that is part of democracy with the constitutions and with an autonomous system of public organization of the media and so forth what is that makes it so different it's so peculiar so it's a really important point you make what I'd like to do is just briefly go to the I won't go through all these slides obviously but I'll go to the cool model that we have to explain what's going on today and here's the two different arguments about why right now populism has really been taking off the first one goes back to the 1950s it's classic political sociology those such as Daniel Bell Seymour Martin Lipset and it's the economic explanation and this is very familiar and I'm sure that many of the other speakers in your event have been talking about this and this explained it's argued fascism in vimar Germany Puja ISM in France McCarthyism in in the United States and potentially of course Mussolini and fascism in Italy and the argument used to be that there was a squeeze amongst those social classes in particular authoritarianism was seen as a reaction against modernity because on the one hand in the 1920s we had the rise of big business large corporations and and large factories and we also had organized labor as trade unions became mobilized as social democratic parties and labor parties became mobilized but there was a group in between the petty bourgeoisie who were really being squeezed the small shopkeepers the self-employed the entrepreneurs and it was argue that that was the group that was the potential for support for Hitler's support from a Cellini and support for other forms of populism and fascism in the 1920s now today how is that argument updated today the most common argument is of course globalization and a reaction against globalization and in this view it's the underclass it's those who've been left out from the knowledge Society it's those who no longer have the skills it's those who can't find work or at least well-paid work and those who are dependent on welfare and those who are in poor job security they might have to go from job to job and they're vulnerable to social risks now if so then we should find authoritarian populism is evident amongst the economically marginalized among some skilled workers amongst the less educated and indeed there is some evidence that that is found but it's mostly at the level of community and I know that you have a number of distinguished economists in the audience and in the group who have discussed that now that's one argument and what we do is we rather reject that when we look at the evidence and instead the way that we explain it an idea is to think about long-term changes in social values and our story is basically as follows this is the whole nutshell of the book the the 1960s and the 1970s saw fundamental changes in social values in a more liberal direction and in particular it was evident in affluent countries and it was evident amongst the younger generation and the best-educated the college students and it basically said the progressive values were taking off it used to be called post materialists and it can also be seen as socially liberal there are many different labels but it's basically an idea that there should be tolerance of for example diverse forms of sexuality and gender identities for example equality between women and men new forms of family respect for LGBT rights and also secular versus religious and cosmopolitan versus nationalistic and support therefore for new forms of lifestyle now it used to be a minority but what's happened we argue and this is again the call is that this group has really expanded it's a size in the population through the demographic change the baby boomers who hold these values and other groups have expanded as a result those who are socially conservative who do not agree with these values who think that we should have a nice no protection versus being part of the European Union we think we should have marriage versus new forms of sexuality such as transgendered ended individuals in the Army who believes in religion rather than secularization all of those groups are under threat and they've tipped from a majority to a large group in society and still a large group in the electorate the group that feels under threat and they're often in rural areas and they're often older and they're often less educated and that group that was always the majority that thought its values were safe that thought this was mainstream in Italy in America in Britain that group now is feeling insecure at its fundamental values that the things it believes him and it's not just they believe that they think that they perceive this or that they told that their values and lifestyles are no longer common but that they actually are under threat now if so populous values and votes for these parties should be predicted by generation above all we're generation becomes the new class younger people who vote college education a big big division between those who've gone to college in those who haven't urbanization those who live in urban areas who lived very much and increasingly diverse societies versus those who live in rural communities those who are religious and secular race and ethnicity and sex all of those things should be the new cleavages which is dividing parties and politics and society as a whole and we think this tipping point has occurred and is very evident and again I'll just give you a very brief summary to show you and again there's lots of lots of divisions here which I won't go into in debt in depth but I'll show you the tipping point in values and it comes here so on if you look across the bottom what you have is cohort of birth which is the older generation our grandparents our parents and then our younger generations and we have two sets of values and these values don't mention anything towards parties they say who's witchly did you support they don't say how did you vote they're your basic values on things like do you believe in authority do you want to have security do you want to have order versus those who say I want to have freedom I want to have a nobility to do a basic attack to pursue my own lifestyle and those who are libertarian versus authoritarian and you can see that across all of these countries which are European and this pulls 30 different countries those who are thorat Aryan has dramatically declined in terms of their size of the population especially in the baby boomers and we can see amongst young people it's those who believe in libertarianism and those who therefore support especially green parties who have been really very much on the rise and the tipping point has occurred at different stages in different types of society and I'll just give you one more and then come back you can see here a variety of different European countries and you can see exactly the same pattern in people's values and so in some countries we can see the tipping point occurred amongst earlier generations in others like Ukraine where they've gone through a much more insecure Society the tipping point is only just starting to occur but again you can see that in every European country the tipping point has been occurring here for example is Italy and we can see that the older generation were in black remains strongly authoritarian traditional in their values younger generation remains libertarian and that tipping point is where that's what's been catalyzing the rise of new parties that's what's been catalyzing the rise of new issues and that's what's been really destabilizing the old system the left-right division the division between Christian Democrats and and Social Democrats labour and conservative is no longer relevant or as relevant it's not so much about the economy it's all about the cultural wars which are there between these basic visions of society should Italy should Britain should should other countries like France be part of a Cosmo politan and liberal set of values or should they reflect the older traditional national values that used to be there and are now increasingly fading so a tipping point which is really really configurating politics as we see it that's the heart of our book camellia Benny the potato Queen roba it is indeed a tease we lose the studious with Lucilla trolley cases under 13 mr. Jernigan obligatory case Umbra no dollar Joanie Allah Allah fundamentally bro questo della della de volta cultura de la reacción equal to the original del mismo in particularly para most wanted phenomena Germany's at CERN occasional lorry genetic history Volta the questa revolution excellent shows there will prevail gonna poi Eva Laurie Ravi Valerie post materially amid to knowledge at the st. Benilde ashita in italia see a boat Autopia party traditional Nell de Grandy Metropole Italian a pintle PD people traditionally publicist italiano inquest alien channel later ato de la liga - really - trapper NT sympathy talk in fact is the most appropriate initial populism entre control of the limited shown a secret sir it can lead a fault a commandment you shall be no such as Natalia particular equally disabled La Liga actual Atrato prevalent a castle young gay over I elector econ teacher studio made your bath to the media very simple one of you so for sales activity for traditional yogi the repository youth community later quello case which is centrally and was a most astronomers to particularly never machine crystal a second Oh history parameter is a momento kalista's mints traditionally birthday you know do public a Piazza nope you by Jove and you know second ami the communities given a syllable in a league accommodation partido popular study destra second oldest embrace a discrete I became fat it's the La Liga Carol segunda parte grande una super are you still a 20% increase daily and on fortissimo corolla who local evil okeyday yarmulke propósito di questo phenomena Ventura Natalia addict okay if a policeman is abuddin on funciona el faro purchase elevated a TD podemos podemos and a tamale series animality plaza de taco street that's right at under le listen Polly motivo / cool functionally pure ill populace modesties bet oculus in epic a la liga basically dishes populism oh the killer League of America still them so both of these the libertarian populist and the authoritarian populist they're both originating from a same kind of philosophy of populism which is to say a disgust with the establishment because the establishment is no longer seen as responsive to the public they're no longer reflecting their values or or listening to their interests or their corrupt or their otherwise a lot in touch and and the difference of course is in terms of what broader policies people and parties are trying to advocate what they're actually pushing forward and authoritarian populist are the ones who are appealing to this sense of insecurity and this sense of nationalism and and particularly the legger the idea that we need to reduce the number of immigrants throughout Europe and particularly in in Italy but also in a broader sense that we need to have a national identity versus a European identity and a very traditional values which have always been there and which they themselves in particular and many other parties which are very similar can appeal to in a very strong way the I think the the the left wing or the libertarian populist have more difficulties in making their case and expressing their values and as you say podemos in particular in Spain it had achieved some popularity and some success in earlier years but in the European elections their particular base was also being challenged of course by green parties who made considerable advances in this particular election and then by other independents who are also able to basically cannibalize the same policy space the same part of political competition so the libertarians are not alone essentially there are many different groups who are vying for their attention and the way in which climate change and concern about biodiversity and other concerns about the environment has really shut up it means that the Greens have a very clear appeal in that policy space whereas those which are libertarian populist have less clear policies and they're also of course being rivaled by traditional Social Democrats on some of their economic policies for example on redistribution welfare and things like that so in every in every part of policy competition when it's changing you need a clear message and if I can refer to the United Kingdom in particular what we saw in the European elections was that those parties which had a very clear very simple message were the ones that managed to really push up their share of the vote and this was partly the brexit party which came first and their whole message under nigel farage is quite simply a no deal brexit just withdraw but the other party the fascinating thing the Liberal Democrats who had a message which was bollocks to brexit they just said we are remain with the strongest remain party and they also pushed up the poll that was just being done by large Ashcroft published today says that the Liberal Democrats are currently number one the top party in terms of public approval brett tisha slits down a bit and clearly labor and the tips are slit largely because they have no clear policy nobody knows what Labour stands for on brexit and the Conservatives are so divided and without a clear leader nobody knows what they really sound for right now as well so every party if the party is shifting and if the cleavages the basic drivers of party support are in the process of shifting as well you absolutely need to know where you stand and vacillation being in the middle of the road trying to have a compromise when parties are polarizing and where the public is polarizing is a recipe for disaster you have to have a very clear message then you can convey to the public about where you stand on the key issues of of the day and and I think that that those populist sin in Europe who stood on a clear message they did relatively well not as well as sometimes some people had expected but still the national rally in France did quite well and one could see similarly the Lord and justice party did quite well and there were others in Europe as well those parties which tried to stand in the middle ground with the ones that lost out including in Germany and including in Sweden and many other countries such as Saudi Verdi momento de gato Greta to Humber - oh no no SNC beaten mentally siamo different Iran Ishita device so the populace to chase so de Velde is gonna be respected so she tied there are political today's career beyond for America at the river que de la rúa forcing man Miss America event is here not on movimento the green in there a strange movement because they are not necessarily liberal movement men sometimes they can be communitarian connected to a an austerity vision of life self containing a consumerism so this form of pre or ante modern or anti consumeristic ethers that in the greens sometimes we tried how can you make them connected to libertarianism sometimes they seem to be insane she's on the list minute with interest resistance they were equally Bertolini populist this mister check for Casa de populist and innovative and now I add this actually another question connect yes is this directed to me oh yes yes I mean if one looks at the philosophy the values the things that Greens stand for of course the environment is critical and all of those issues which people are now experiencing in the United States for example we have at the same time wildfires in California and communities being destroyed and floods in the Midwest and record levels of tornadoes which are going on in the Midwest as well so everybody is understanding the environment is critical although the politicians have been somewhat resistant to put it forward particularly in the Democratic Party there's a debate about how important those those can be but green parties in Europe in particular are also very much those at the forefront of libertarian values in terms of things like for example social tolerance of minority groups cosmopolitanism greens are very very much part of the European Union and and connected throughout the sister parties and then also issues of sexuality gender equality and a variety of other issues like that so those values go together quite cohesively and the greens as we say have made progress in the European elections depending on the country that we look at of course and clearly in Germany are producing a dramatic effects in terms of the party system whereas the major parties are again as we say divided internally and I think what one can also see is a contagion so when the greens go up so you can see the Social Democrats often take on much more of a concern about environment just as when the authoritarian populist make progress and make gains so you can see that the mainstream parties also start to talk about for example more restrictions on migration and more restrictions on the European Union and a more nationalistic perspective as well so you can't just look at the parties you also have to look at how party competition plays out across Europe but clearly the destabilization that's going on the fragmentation the polarization is something which is affecting all of the major parties right now and the greens are benefiting as the populace benefitted in the European elections to the league and Italian case fiestar's Liga but it's not only fun starting a small channel you don't pay much attention so it seems to me for this reason I'm pushing you to these toward these issues the issue of party and party forms political party yes the liga is a structure traditional political party with an organisation on the territory in a very scrupulous way almost traditional party with a politically there Plymouth area that we using all the new media into in order to create his own popularity is implicitly leadership but the party remains there as an organization the other parties we mentioned and which are into a crisis podemos fascist movements even mention they are kind of digital party or party three that the digital aspect was so crucial in creating them and they are all in a crisis now as if they want to be against party against party democracy in order to create a different democracy and now with their own decline with their own defeat they show perhaps that without an organized party democracy is difficult to manage so what do you guess that's right say about party and new digital media or new ways of communication which seems to give us a different democracy without parties but at the end when they are in government or they are very close to be in government they really need to become organized parties so I think it's a little early to say that podemos or fiestar or any others has had a big decline clearly what happens with many new parties is that they're very volatile that they can be protest parties and what matters above all is how far you can mobilize your base how far you can mobilize voters how far you could really catch the energy and so that dynamism is something which is there if you have a party organization a traditional party organization what that tends to do is take you over good times and bad in other words you have grassroot members you have party loyalists you have an organized structure you have funding which is also based on on that sort of format and so it's easier to wait to write out a particular election defeat if however you're much more of what we used to term a flash party a party which can go up but can easily go down and we can think of a number of cases like that in for example the Netherlands we can say think about parties which are populous and which suddenly shot up in the polls pin for Tana was a classic example but then when you lose a leader or you have a legend defeat or there's some form of corruption you go back down again so what party organization the traditional form does is it stabilizes it creates a party which is going to outlast a particular leader or outlast a particular election result so we can see that a trash party can be very successful and again think about the brexit party in Britain Nigel Faraj founded it 30 days before the actual election and he came first as a party which was a remarkable as everybody flowed from the people who had been voting for you Kip and they they flowed over to the brexit party whether or not that could be repeated I think is the enormous question which is facing Britain right now and he's facing the Conservative Party as well as facing the brexit Party and the Labour Party nobody knows exactly how to respond because there isn't a party in the sense of party members who join BRICS it isn't a representatives at different levels there's no brexit party in local government there's no base if you like and there's no internal democracy in fact there aren't actually that many policies other than the fact that they are against being part of the European Union so they're vulnerable should the agenda change or should for example the Conservatives pick up those issues and run with it very successfully under a new leader whoever that will be so smaller parties and parties who have less track record are essentially parties that can succeed but they can also fail though dramatically as well and we'll have to see how all of these parties develop in the next few years before we can say whether or not they've really got stability in how they can compete the digital a second Oh solos team it will demand a police a quarter commander al público Conchata prepare our vera proposal digital secundus among digitally unroll importante Neela she's a policeman at a simple DeFelice MPO ccc foster study in media traditionally in most overö la posada radium Oliver and generally media traditionally known a very borough that was partial Adela Francisco c40 Co simulant antiques enough obey the per kg a simple subtle included about the media traditionally respected our spatula causing political mental more to score rate in fact okay system social network a photo seek eternally foster orchestrated as Patchett rapper jay-z transnational arrests Rafa toe trampled I become queer junto shit'll in America at resonate in la disintermediation attenborough fundamental second delay social network level change it Alina to unknown colleague I mean token lucious as a populist model so here I argue that essentially social media isn't brand new it's after all we have had the internet since 1994 and emails and a variety of other mechanisms to expand technological communication have been around a game for the last 20 years so there's a disconnect between the rise of the internet and then the new forms of populism that we're observing but what we can't see is that essentially it facilitates it facilitates a fragmentation of the media landscape so that no longer to people get their news from the legacy media the New York Times The Washington Post etc and they're getting the news from a variety of other sources and what that tends to do is create the echo chamber and the echo chamber is really important because it really says that if you're in a group and you feel that you're threatened you can listen to other views conspiratorial thinking in particular which is really common on the Internet and through social media where people come to believe things which are really totally against for example science or other forms of knowledge the best example of that right now is what's going on with the anti-vaxxers those who don't believe in vaccinations all of those messages are being spread through Facebook and through Twitter and through all of those other social media that we can see so any insurgent movement can take advantage of the social media landscape and in my earlier work I've said for example the greens were the Masters as of all parties they were the most digital they had to do that because they were small parties they had their message and they were closely connected through digital media at the time and we can see that insurgents who are populist can also take advantage and when they do so and they they hit certain chords them as you say the legacy media amplify their message and sometimes the legacy media think that they can overcome it by having fact checkers by having records to show that many of the things which are being many of the claims which are being made by politicians are not true and recently the Washington Post managed to count I think it was 10,000 cases where Trump had come out with this a statement on Twitter or on other formats often on on television and radio and so on which was untrue the problem is that the legacy media has been shrinking as a proportion of those who get their news on a regular basis from the legacy media and when they amplify when when they cover things like fake news and they say that these messages are ones which have no basis in fact what they tend to do is they amplify it rather than doubling it down because people hear their message not from Facebook per se but from the way that the legacy media have have covered these sources these sorts of things so social media are really good for small parties for populist who are trying to expand their support and for any other populist movement which is also trying to get people to follow its messages and because people are now very much in bubbles they will take that as as basically as important as the legacy media message as well so yes it's part of their success it predated them but it's very much part of how they managed to achieve a take off if you like get credibility in what they say chef Marc and Amanda preview Savini tell microphone or Casa Vicente reveal another way clubs they know pense que la oficina de police me a koala see Lindsey density media sia forte mentally gotta a la paz event o deliver local trolley dilemmas case a registrar and a new team Ian Quinn this / compadre poeple is mo a per defender la democracia penso che sia necesaria Defoe necessary de fondo le conscience a apprehend Jose Santa glad a reconnaissance además Queen diva ladies are immortal escola public a lunesta publica ka ramanga rumba marginally respeto church università a school a private a colossus Bacchus a promise o promoción a para nós Cola promotional epoch affirmative Eva eco c-anca Parana università di Sharma de mas que a syllabic a además mmm mr. de babe s Tresca den de Vecchi persona que si a tutti contrary ok propolis ecology maths at universidad massa Sienna peu de place pew Khalifa cart a no promotion Ali Abbas glad seriously thank you so obviously one solution to populism is about the long-term trends and education the education gap is absolutely enormous and it's there in nearly all the indicators we have a voting behaviour so those have gone to college tend to be much more liberal in all sorts of values they always have and those who have less education tend to be more traditional or authoritarian the similarly is about age and generational gaps similarly it's about changes in the family and changes between women and men the problem is the long-term solution is that is a long-term pattern and in the short-term politics is being disruptive social tolerance is declining and there are real tensions in the stability of liberal democracies so it's not a short-term solution and there I think we might want to look at other ways to counter the effects of populism whether there are changes in policy for example changes in migration policy or changes in economic policy or whether there changes in how the mainstream parties respond to populist or how we can try and as a society strengthened democracy through participation and through greater turnout and through a variety of other mechanisms like that so the long term solution education is important as a short term well it's not going to change things overnight by any by any stretch of the imagination matches who Boyd University Berlin hi papa my question and not Ian should be not stopped from an analytical point of view to talk about populism without an adjective should we not distinguish clearly between right-wing populism and left wing populism the background of this question is what is problematic for democracy are the right contents like natives and chauvinist nationalism discrimination of minority which is problematic for democracy or is it the style the political style and if it comes to the political style why not to criticize the elites whom should we criticize certainly not a prokaryote Oh therefore it is according to my point of view if we look to democracy quite important to distinguish between right-wing populism and left wing populism and populist may as a thin centered ideology doesn't tell us so much I agree absolutely 100% the only thing I'd disagree is I have abandoned the use of the term right wing and left wing in terms of populism because I'm not sure that it really actually captures a lot of what we're trying to understand about the nature of this phenomena right wing left wing for me I regard is much more about economics and we can see that populist are divided about economics even within though as an individual I think again about Donald Trump he favors on the one hand tax cuts for corporate business which is a classic right wing position he favors tariffs in terms of economic trade which is very much a left-wing economic position so I think we've always been using the term radical right and extreme right and walked right and a variety of things like that and I think we need to abandon that and so the concepts which I think are much more powerful and much more capturing what we're talking about a populace who are libertarian like podemos like five star and those who are authoritative going right back to the the classic arguments of the 1950s which really understood authoritarianism and which we've forgotten about I think in the social sciences in more recent years so an authoritarian personality was what we always used to talk about nowadays if we can talk about both authoritarian values and they're the values of things like security and order and authoritarian practices and they're things like really having issues about rule of law and and prioritizing security over independence of judiciary and then authoritarian States I think that's a more powerful way to understand what's going on now is populism dangerous by itself not necessarily I totally agree with you sometimes it's just a form of rhetoric it's a form of speech the danger however for me is this wolfgang that populism in its strongest claims by D legitimizing the established sources of representative democracy opens the door to authoritarian leaders so when those two things get together essentially I'm critical of elites as well as are those who are corrupt should be kicked out of power politicians who aren't representative who aren't inclusive are a failure of liberal democracy but if you throw the baby out with the bathwater if you throw parliament and the media and checks on the executive and the independent judiciary and the civil service if you throw all of those institutions out and you did you surprise them which is essentially what some populist rhetoric does then you say well what else do we have if none of those institutions are working if I can't trust Congress if the president is somebody who I who I have no faith in then you turn to the authoritarian leader and you justify authoritarian values so it's that conjunction which i think is the most powerful not populism plus say and I agree with you it's a thin ideology as cast mood says or a rhetoric it's a form of speech but by the way that also says it's not just about a populist party because every politician can i top populist rhetoric and they do think about all of those those representatives who ran for the European Parliament by saying we're critical of the European Parliament and the same is true in many other cases and again if I was defer to the British case I'd argue that Theresa May was populist just as Boris Johnson is just as are many of those who are Euroskeptic in the Conservative Party it's not simply parasha or you get by any mechanisms and I'd also argue that Corbin is populist in many regard in the way that he speaks in some of the claims which he makes so popular is everywhere what matters is the values which are tied to populism and we always need that adjective therefore to know what they actually stand for what their core beliefs are and what policies they're going to follow a little cap en masse hopineo only exist only Gami trolley Goleta a populist mo en caso sequest Oh phenomenal diverse tonal populist bode destra OD sinister individual meant a selma quick incident analyst hua the charm of degradation authoritarian I think again where we will talk about fake judges where we talk about partisan judges where we challenge the way of law as being the primary principle which every single politician and every elected represent has certain powers which are really very very corrupt practices that's where the rule of law starts to weaken and in America I think it's really under threat and it's really quite surprising in a way we always thought that America was a country that was governed by laws where the law was really critical and where people had great respect for the courts even though they had less faith in Congress but what we find now of course is that through the appointments which the Republicans have been making which are purely on the basis of ideology and partisanship and the way in which the number of appointments have been made particularly in the Supreme Court is that the critical issues in the United States politics are now being decided by the supreme court not by the legislature and not by even the president for that matter so issues like abortion which are dividing politics so deeply in America are going to be decided all of these states which have been passing new restrictions on reproductive rights that's going to have to come to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court is not elected is appointed and in particular the Republicans in the Senate have said the next appointment in the Supreme Court is again going to be one which they'll pass through if it's Republican but their block attempts by the Democrats to also have similar appointments and I think that's extremely dangerous it's going to mean that respect for rule of law and the independence and impartiality of the courts is really fundamentally undermined and you can't trust Congress and you can't trust the president you can't trust the courts then that really allows authoritarian practices to take off and undermines the basic liberal democratic principles that we should be running back and it undermines the Constitution as well which is really very important see Adam and I polish our lollies conclusion we convene a concept to the auditory Theriot Connie fat okay coupe way that Leah Modi leader Commodus MP okay so study led democratic amend EK known animal difficult system what rigorous frankly really the democratic amin grads so here what we need to think about is the quality of the elections and what's going on and of course in the case of President Trump he was not succeeding through the popular vote where Hillary Clinton as we know won three million more votes he was elected through the Electoral College and the Electoral College was always designed traditionally from the Constitution onwards to over represent rural states those states who had a smaller population but who needed representation but underestimate the more popular states the California is the New York's of the world as a result there are real disparities and imbalances in what's going on so as soon as the difference between rural and urban areas becomes critical which it really did in the last election that means that these these old forms of rules the electoral college have a different type of partisan effect in addition in in many countries what we see as problems of gerrymandering particularly where you have a system of majoritarian elections and that's got worse gerrymandering is where there's partisan boundaries being drawn such that there go to benefit one party versus another and again the benefits have been primarily to the Republicans in America not to the Democrats although both sides have been responsible for gerrymandering in the past and then there are other issues particularly voter suppression and laws which have been passed for example on voter ID which are making sure there should be security at the polls people who vote should clearly have citizens rights and there should be some form of verification but where those laws have been discriminating again against for example african-americans or older voters or poor voters who might not have a state ID or those who are transients then that's a problem and then you add in in America in particular the many of those who have a prison record and who have then lost their citizenship rights and you can see that the election itself is something which is contested and increasingly it suffers from problems of electoral malpractice and this is shown also by the American public ten years ago when people asked our American elections honest about 50 percent said yes that's gone down to 30 percent today as people have seen what happened in Florida and they've seen the allegations of fraud in 2016 and then they've seen all of these other debates where the rules of the game how you get elected become partisan and the two parties can't agree on how that should system should work and you can see it spread from the United States to many other countries as well a game in Britain for example European citizens thousands of them were not allowed to vote in the European elections now that was partly incompetence and a short short period of planning for the election but nevertheless you can also see how that is again a problem that dealer jism eyes is the public's faith in the election itself and then if the politicians don't agree either it's rather like the empty umpire in any sport there's there should always be contestation about policies about economic policies social policies foreign policies that's what you might term the normal give and take of any democratic system if you can't agree on the rules which get you into that elected position if you can't agree on the role of the courts if you can't agree on the powers of the executive against the legislature if you can't agree on how to overcome deadlock that's what is how democracy erodes that's how democracy backslides that's how we see these fundamental problems and it's rather like a acid that corrodes the public's faith they don't longer vote or if they do vote they vote for job candidates we've seen in Ukraine or they vote for protests they don't vote necessarily based on public policy debates on the key issues of our time and again that leads to instability now that paints rather a dark picture does it mean that you can't reform the elections of course you can Italy itself has gone through a number of different reforms over the years so have many other countries as they've tried to really improve the system but there's two problems about elections which are still very resistant to any sort of reform one is money money in politics campaign funding and where elections have become more expensive and where there's been real problems of integrity in how money is being filtered into politics that's been a fundamental issue which has allowed again populist to make considerable gains think about Brazil and both scenario and the corruption in Brazil think about problems of money and politics in India think about problems of money and politics in many parts of the world where there's been a scandal and of course the other problem in campaigning has been campaign media we've been very reluctant to make sure that there's a level playing field that everybody has access to campaigns and to elections and again the role of money reinforces that through private advertising so those who have money through whatever means can really amplify their message and those who don't have money are really excluded from the campaign itself so is it the case that elections are functioning in the same way as they were say 20 years ago or those years ago unfortunately not as people have learnt to manipulate the rules and that's particularly the case of course in in countries which have gone through elections but have still got very fragile institutions countries like Russia countries like Malaysia so I think elections have changed in the way that they work and they facilitate instability in general and authoritarian populist have taken advantage of that process to gain support letting that certainty see more ingress of upon or receiving that so your be not in that so to divide by a static winner reo officially postprandial one another you