The Chasm between Academics and Populists

In these troubled times of migration, Covid-19 and Climate change issues, academics and populists have crossed swords many times. Populists have accused academics of giving biased advice about migration issues, covid risks and climate evolution. Academics have published articles to make clear to the public opinion that they don’t support any populist viewpoint, e.g. the need for migrated people to return to their home country. In the social sciences, populism has become a study object in itself. The odd thing is that there are many academics who are populists and there are many populists who are academics or at least academically trained. If so, these people then usually raise a dissident voice within their own group of peers.

Politically, academics may have a broad spectrum of opinions but the mainstream academic viewpoint coincides with the so-called ‘liberal-left’ opinion. Academics usually ‘believe’ in climate change, they support renewable energy sources, they are in favour of an open society and they trust the government’s advice in matters of Covid-19 – they have even created the measures themselves. Academics support Angela Merkel and detest Donald Trump. The mainstream populist viewpoint, on the other hand, is rather a ‘nationalistic–right’ opinion. Populists don’t believe in climate change, they support the available energy sources, they would like to close the society to foreigners and they surely don’t trust the government’s advice. They believe people should be free in blowing out gas and sneezing around, yet unfree in moving to another country. Populists hate Angela Merkel and sympathise with Donald Trump.

The sad thing about the polarisation, is that the truth is somewhere in the no-man’s-land in between. Academics claim to have science at their side, which is indeed reassuring, but they often ignore the difference between their ideal models and reality. Academics think it is possible to be good for everybody. In an ideal model, there may indeed be enough food, houses, safety, energy for everybody, but in the real world, there is not enough for everybody. Academics tend to ignore questions like: can we offer every migrant a decent way of living here and if not, is there a risk of destabilising our own society? Can we transition to renewable energy without switching off the lights? If people don’t like our measures, shouldn’t we force them? Academics need to answer these questions as objectively as possible and focus on the diverse needs in society. The problem is not that academics are too reluctant to raise these questions, but rather that the polarised climate in society will push them to erase any doubt of belonging to the other camp. Likewise, populist leaders should dare to raise questions in their own communities. Questions like: how can we still fulfil our moral duty in helping refugees in danger? Again, the brave ones at each side will make a difference in the long term.

I refer to my blog: “Political Paralysis by Polarisation”.

Picture: Petra in Jordan 1988 ©Wim Lahaye