What is Populism

Looking at the recent posts it might be good to explore the relationship between populism and democracy. I will give this a look today and get back later, only a bit busy this morning and tired after very late night and fussy dog ALL NIGHT!!!!

There seems to be an attitude amongst some in society that one persons' vote and opinion, is not so important and does not matter as much as another.

But it does!

One person, one vote. One opinion, one vote.

"^I doubt if anyone thinks that. Ever.^" Not consciously. But that is what is being implied by the populist press and when someone is fed up and thinks they are being overworked, underpaid and not valued, then they look for a scapegoat. Universal happiness may be stretching it a bit, but it does seem to some that "the elite" are robbing them of the chance of health wealth and happiness.

The handiest place to put the blame is on those "in charge" who are trying to be in charge and to counter all the problems caused by global financial downturn, competitive emerging economies with workers who haven't the ability of refuse tiny wages, and world-wide distress at warring religious groups leading to vast numbers of refuges.

The truth is that many of the factors causing discontent are NOT under the control of the government of any particular country, so they DON't know what is the magic answer that will fix it all.

OK - the following is largely taken from a conversation being carried out by various academics throughout the world, with some of my thoughts humbly thrown in

Populism and Democracy.

So we have established that populism is everywhere on the rise. The question then is why are these pedlars of populism proving so popular popular?
So our question is -is populism to be welcomed, harnessed and mainstreamed in support of more democracy
Or
Is populism on balance politically dangerous, a cultish recipe for damaging democracy by bringing to life what Orwell termed " smelly little orthodoxies that feed demography big business and bossy power"?

That's the question of the day that I will try to answer

The Ancient Greeks know that democracy could be n easily snuffed out by the rich and powerful ably assisted by demagogues ruling the people in their own name I.e. People are ruled by seeming to rule.
Populism is mobilised through available democratic freedoms. It is public protest by millions of people (the demos) who feel annoyed, powerless and humiliated.
These humiliated people are beginning to strike back.

Nothing wrong with that you and I might think. However in practice when these humiliated people lash out they do so by supporting demagogues promising then their dignity.
Populism attracts people because it raises their expectations of betterment.
But there is a price to pay, - in exchange for promises of popular sovereignty, populism produces figures like Bonaparte, Mussolini and as we are now fully aware Trump.

Good luck with that, ww, about as easy as knitting a jumper from a basket of wool that has been used as killing practice by a litter of kittens. Also, whatever you write will be torn apart by posters of one view or other (or both)

Although I think quite a few have by now lost interest completely...

Unorganised democracy can soon become mob rule. Mob rule is open to manipulation by charismatic and power-hungry embryo dictators who promise freedom but deliver totalitarianism, under their own control instead of that of democratically chosen representatives.

Many people have no interest in considering the implications of populism. Ana

You certainly know how to put someone down don't you ana? I'm blessed with knowing no one in RL with the ability to throw such barbed comments.

I really didn't mean that remark to be a put-down, whitewave - the subject is obviously of interest to you and others on here.

I was in fact responding to Elegran's assertion that whatever you write will be torn apart by posters of one view or other (or both).

elegran you are so good and describing what I am trying to say in approachable language (smile)

Perhaps I am just too thick to understand it all!

ana well that's ok then

Yes, I thought we'd be able to agree on that one

So back to my stall

There is a difference however between the populism of the nineteenth century and today's form of populism.

Whilst the 19thC argued for enfranchisement of the whole, we know that we have already established that today's populism has exclusive effects.

Unfortunately these demagogues will not be stopped by calls for dialogue or hopes that populism will burn itself out. We need to return to more a more radical form of democracy.

X-posts. I wouldn't dream of calling you thick.

It seems to be that those on the left are frightened of "ordinary" people. Their votes and opinions. In other words, democracy.

It now seems to be the left who like the "experts" and the "elites"!

No, ankers it is people from all shades of political opinion who distrust it, those who can look back at previous examples of where populism (that is, unorganised pseudo democracy, rule by a mob led by dissatisfied revolutionary zealots) and look ahead at where we could be going.

I think then to sum up my argument today is to say that populism subverts democracy, in as much as the people who put their trust in a demagogue, do so in the trust that their life will improve, but in fact the demagogue are backed by the rich and powerful whose interests they pursue.

What is needed is a more radical mainstream form of democracy of any colour.

No, ankers it is people from all shades of political opinion who distrust it,
Is it?
I dont think I agree with that.

those who can look back at previous examples of where populism (that is, unorganised pseudo democracy, rule by a mob led by dissatisfied revolutionary zealots) and look ahead at where we could be going.
I cant say that people can say that Trump etc is "unorganised pseudo democracy"
Or are you saying that the American election was not bone fide, in which case where is the evidence.
I think what you are talking about and thinking about is a different thing to what we now have.

Whitewave. Trump.

Who would say he is a demagogue? Not me, that is for sure!

And who is doing this for Trump? ^ backed by the rich and powerful whose interests they pursue.^

Obviously Trump's rise has been the result of an organised political machine and financing. However, I don't think the people who voted for him are organised in knowing what they really want. They are objecting to things they don't want, but I haven't seen any evidence that alternatives have been thought through. I don't think anybody really knows which directions Trump is heading and that's what makes the future so frightening. None of us really knows what forces are going to step in. In that sense, this is classic populism.

Trump IS one of those rich and powerful ones. Have you seen a map of all the countries where he has business and financial interests? Countries with which he will be doing trade deals and infl

He says that he is handing over his business to his sones - but that is not hand over very far, is it? amd the other half of his family has been appointed to various powerful positions in his administration. A bit like the queen appointing all her children, grandchildren and nieces and nephews to positions of power here.