Vázlat három populizmusról Egyesült Államok, Argentína és Magyarország
In this paper an attempt is made to give the outlines of the historical description of the socio-political movements of three countries. However different these countries may be, their common characteristic is that they are commonly described with the help of the collective concept of ‘populism’, I would also dwell upon the theoretical approaches which are normally used at the comprehensive definition of the different kinds of populism and when these heterogeneous movements and political initiatives are attempted to be understood on the basis of their common features.
1. Populism in the United States
The cultural background of the 19th century American populism was the ‘yeoman tradition’ which went back to the virtues of life and work of the pioneer settlers of the West. This tradition glorified rural life and proclaimed that the farmers were the basic producers of national wealth. Populist movement, appearing in the last two decades of the century, was a desperate answer to the sudden breakdown of the post-Civil War economic boom. The study examines to appearances of populist methods from Weaver still Ross Perot.
2. Populism in Argentina
Populism in Latin America, and especially in Argentina was stronger, more widespread and longer lasting than it was in Russia or in the United States. The ’social question’, and its solution — integration —were to become major components of Argentine populism. Social integration of the masses may be regarded as the ideology of the populist politics, although its significancy is less as a philosophy than as an indicator of how movements were formed. As Conniff points out „the call for social integration was crucial to twentieth century populism because it simultaneously satisfied the desire for organic society, addressed the social question, promised citizen participation in government, and provided a winning strategy for reform-minded groups to come to power peaceably. Integration was, in short, the ideal program for virtually anyone, except an elitist ruling group or a revolutionary opposition. It rejected both oligarchic government and socialist revolution, preferring a reformist middle ground. The populists promised to reconcile colonial and modem traditions through purposive, interventionist government.”
In Argentina, there were two populist epochs in the 20th century. Radicalism was the representative of ’reformist era’ populism, and Peronism was of the ’national developmentalist’ era. These periods are compared and analysed in the study.
3. Populism in Hungary
The development of Hungarian society was characterized by a belated modernization coming from outside and from above. The defeated Hungarian revolution of the mid- 19th century was unable to achieve national independence, and the country existed at first as part of the Habsburg Monarchy, and as the constituent of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy after the 1867 Compromise with the Austrians, where it had a status equal to that of Austria. The period between 1867 and 1914 brought about a significant industrial boom, this was the time when the railway network of the country was developed and when Budapest, the capital became a metropolis. The German and Czech skilled workers settling down in the country and the trading Jews emigrating from Galicia played a great role in the boom. An urban- bourgeois Hungary was in the making; its glittering was in growing contrast to the backward rural countryside. However, in the relations hip of the gentry and the unfolding bourgeois society the former remained the decisive one: it was not the gentry and the nobility that embourgeoised, but the thinner bourgeois stratum was adjusting itself to the gentry. Assimilation to the Hungarians was synonymous to assimilation to the values and attitudes of the gentry middle class as an Estate. Thus embourgeoisement, capitalist development and modernity were worded in contrast to the ’organically’ developed character of Hungarians: those who expressed the values of Hungarians, often confronted them against the bourgeois-European values. The two elements of the programme of „homeland and progress” could be fatally turned against each other. The story of Hungarian populism from the 1920s onwards correlates to the problems of peasantry and later with nationalism.
4. Understanding Populism: Theoretical Frameworks
Looking at the literature of populism we can distinguish at least five basic approaches for explanation.
These are the following: 1. class theory; 2. empiricism; 3. ideology analysis; 4. functionalist approach; and 5. discourse analysis. Nevertheless, the nation of populism, and its applicability to different cultures and societies are still open to question.