What is Populism

x post whitewave. I think we're saying the same thing.

No, I don't think they're a bit dim, although 50% of the population is, by defintion, of below average intelligence.

Since the end of WW2, we have supposedly had a consensus. Much has been written about the myth of consensus, but so long as people felt they were doing OK and better than previous generations, they haven't complained too much.

Since WW2, society has become more tolerant and liberal. I think most people thought that this was the consensus. They dismissed people who didn't go along with that view as curmudgeonly old gits. The demise of trade unions and 'traditional' communities has meant that people 'left behind' by globalisation have not had a stage for their voices to be heard.

There is some evidence that the median viewpoint has become more xenophobic over the last decade or so, therefore a populist on any issue might very well reflect that.

IMHO

My reply was to cherry

But no ana this is not about making perjoritive remarks about certain groups but trying to understand why the change has taken place in our life time from the centre politics which includes all three main parties to the populist parties we see today.

Well- both I think. There are undoubtedly voters who have always considered themselves supporters, but there has been a recent cultural change and change in attitude in certain groups, those famous left behinds. This doesn't mean that they are stupid or thick as undoubtedly the zeitgeist is very different from the post war progressive liberalism we all grew up in. Their world has changed and understandably they resent what they see as the knowledge society reaping all the benefit to their detriment.

Just to clarify my second paragraph, which I explained badly. The UK does not currently have a populist system.

And if so, is it because they're a bit dim, d'you think?

A bit xenophobic?

A bit traditionalist rather than 'progressive liberals'?

Here we go again...

The antithesis of populism can be found in Singapore. It is a democracy, because there are elections and society is supposedly based on meritocracy rather than a class system based on nobility. However, once people have cast their vote, they get little say and the government is autocratic. People have effectively made a decision about who governs them, but not how they are governed.

Populism seeks to do the opposite. The voting system in the UK means we choose our representatives from a limited list and then are supposed to trust them to do their best to represent their constituents. We know their stance on various issues (hopefully) and accept them as a complete package, so we might prefer somebody who supports gay marriage, although we don't like his/her stance on nationalisation.

Populism seeks to make MPs delegates, so they would have to go back to their constituents and seek their views on single issues and vote accordingly in debates, even if they thought that their constituents' views wouldn't be good for the country as a whole and didn't match their own beliefs.

When people lose confidence that experts and leaders have a better overview than they do, they will seek to make their voices heard, as happened with the referendum. We are now seeing a government reduced to the role of servants, as they attempt to negotiate something which many of them don't believe is good. Effectively, populists override the role of Parliament. Populism can result either from anarchy or be exploited by autocrats wishing to seize power without going through political processes. It's a breakdown in current processes and can descend into mob rule, a situation which has historically been exploited by dictators.

I have read and understood what you have put forward.

Does that therefore mean a person who votes for a populace representative also displays those characteristics?
Or has the voter just been for want of a better word hoodwinked?