Populisms and post truth: knowledge and political judgement in democracies under pressure

The rise of populisms of a different guise is explained as a response to the perceived crisis of legitimacy of our democratic regimes. Their common core (Rosanvallon 2021) involves closing the definition of a people, making explicit its sovereignty, as well as a sketch of an understanding of the basic norms of equal justice. The populist political culture assumes the tension between elites / citizens and a conception of representation incorporating forms of direct representation through the leader (embodiment) and appeals to the direct participation of ordinary citizens. In Urbinati's (2019) opinion, the danger is when populist leaders come to power, as they transform institutions, and most importantly, they question the separation that defines a democracy between ‘will’ (institutional) and ‘opinion’ (public debate), which must be independent but in interaction. The paper focuses on how the strategy and the politics of (real) populist actors, through an attack on intermediate bodies, incorporate many of the assumptions attributed to the "post truth" attitude. Rosanvallon (2021) considers it in the identifications of its anti-elitism, involving a suspicion of elite knowledge; a vindication of common sense; a polarized attitude towards the so-considered enemies justifying lies and manipulation; and an appeal to passions and emotions directed to heal the feelings of rejection and abandonment. This strategy goes against the complex procedures of democratic regimes that involve many sites of institutional and social representation through a rearticulation of the idea of public sphere (Mansbridge et al., 2012). Instead of inclusive systemic deliberation, the ideal stresses the symbolic dimension of representation through an appeal to emotional identifications conducted with a rhetorical intimidatory style of politics. But, it also involves the presence of some (institutional/non-institutional) specific procedures, sites and actors injecting expert knowledge in the system. What constitutes it and its role on political decision is what is/will be subject to political debate. In that sense, populisms feel comfortable in what has been defined as post truth regimes, where citizens’ opinions and public debate are mainly influenced by emotions and personal beliefs, rather than "qualified" information and expertise. Populisms have not created it, but they can have an important impact on them. The objective of this analysis is to reflect on the structural changes that reinforce the perception of inhabiting a post truth regime -of the media, new technologies, political behavior. And, to see if the common traits of populism can be directly linked to a strategy to reconsider the sites and content of public debate in our democracies.