Peasant Parties in Eastern Europe and Their Populist Moment

Wim Van Meurs

doi:10.5077/journals/connexe.2018.e157

Abstract

   This article examines the actions and discourses of the main peasant parties and movements in Romania, Poland and Bulgaria during the inter-war period. Ideologically and discursively, peasant parties were a heterogeneous amalgamate of anarchist, Marxist, socialist and liberal (and sometimes even conservative or nationalist) ideas. In defining the populism as a repertoire of actions and/or discourses, rather than the unchanging essence of a party, it shows that the three agrarian parties have known a “populist moment”, i.e. temporarily taking recourse to claims of representing “the people” and extra-parliamentary action. While the Bulgarian peasant party never resorted to populist actions, the Romanian agrarian party had its moment of populism without a significant shift in rhetoric and the Polish peasant party never resorted to populism neither in either rhetoric or actions.  

Highlights

Approaches to PopulismIn the study of populism as a political and societal phenomenon, historians tend to play second fiddle
The regional peasant parties in the eastern provinces, were dominated by ideologues who had spent their formative years in Russia; without any form of representative government or political freedoms
The early history of the Bulgarian peasant party was remarkably similar to the uniform blueprint for most of Eastern Europe

Summary

Introduction

In the study of populism as a political and societal phenomenon, historians tend to play second fiddle. Thanks to the People’s Party, colloquially known as the “populist party” at the time, even today the term “populism” has a much more positive connotation in the US than it has in Europe Their defence of the interests of the common people against the political and business establishment lacked key characteristics such a charismatic or authoritarian leadership and the assumption of the unity of the popular will (Goodwyn 1978). For the interwar period, the above open and relational definition of populism appears to include, albeit for different reasons, most mainstream parties and revolutionary outliers too Apart from representing their constituencies in parliament, mainstream socialist, Christian and liberal parties were connected with an array of extra-parliamentary organisations, ranging from trade unions to sports and leisure or social security. These were centrist parties (except for the BZNS) that preferred parliamentarism over revolution

A Belated “Populist Moment”: Iuliu Maniu in Romania

Without a “Populist Moment”: Wincenty Witos in Poland

A “Populist Moment” of Sorts

Conclusion

Findings

Bibliographic References