Walking the line between tolerance and intolerance: citizens’ responses to populists

Other papers reveal different patterns of tolerance and intolerance against populists. The often-mixed reactions reflect uncertainty on the questions of whether populists deserve toleration or/and whether toleration is prudent. Practices of toleration imply no intention to curtail the rights of populists, no political ostracism and no coercive confrontation with them in the streets. Populists are subjected to standard legal rules, they are included political arena on the same conditions as everyone else, and treated as opponents rather than enemies, and the possibility of political collaboration is kept open. Intolerance is conceived as the opposite: curtailment of rights, state surveillance and ostracism. Based on case study examples, this article discusses the justifiability of practices in the border region between practices of tolerance and intolerance: public shaming and ridicule, and the strategic employment of civil and political rights to reduce the influence and power of populists, for example strikes and boycotts. It argues that these practices are generally justified because political toleration only emerges from serious disagreement about public institutions and policies and that rights are instruments that individuals are given to pursue their important interests within the limits of respecting other people’s rights.