7 ms·

>“With many democratic institutions under threat across the globe — often by leaders with authoritarian or populist tendencies — we need to do more to strengthe

by yasp 8y ago

>“With many democratic institutions under threat across the globe — often by leaders with authoritarian or populist tendencies — we need to do more to strengthen checks and balances and protect citizens’ rights,” said Patricia Moreira, managing director of Transparency International in a press statement. So a politician responding to what the "populace" (i.e. the demos) wants ("populism") is a threat to democracy. Hmm.

danharaj 8y ago
That's not what populism is. Populism is when an elite claims to speak and act on behalf of the people without real input from them.
- yasp 8y ago
  Surely the best measure of whether a politician speaks for the people is whether he or she is elected. In which case assuming the politician attempts to follow through on his or her campaign promises, that politician would not be a populist. (Of course, this assumes that there is such a thing as "the people".)
  - classicsnoot 8y ago
    It is a strange axiom but I have yet to see it otherwise: when the will of the people is Leftward, it is Democracy; when the will of the people is Rightward, it is Populism. The person that responded to you employed a classic "anti-rightward" trope equating populism to vicarious elite control. I fail to see the difference between Populism and Democracy on the "people" side of the equation, rather the difference is in which elites are pulling the strings.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      No, it's still called populism when it comes from the left. Bernie Sanders was described as a populist.
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
      If only there were some book or website defining terms, so one wouldn’t be tempted to make up definitions fitting one‘s politics on the spot. „Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to 'the people', often juxtaposing this group against the "elite".“ There is plenty of left-wing populism, by the way. Jeremy Corbyn, Chavez/Maduro, Yannis Varoufakis, etc.
      - vokep 8y ago
        By that definition, isn't that basically 90% of everything? And no doubt it applies to leftists, absolutely. That's the basis of a lot of right wing views: that the left is simply being populist and doesn't give a shit about actually improving life, but instead staying in power. Of course, that's about the left's view of the right as well. Hmmmm.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Sanders and Trump were both (accurately, too) described as populist, Clinton and Bush both not. If one had to align them left to right, they would look like: Sanders -> Clinton -> Bush -> Trump . > I fail to see the difference between Populism and Democracy on the "people" side of the equation Democracy is a system of government, Populism is a manner in which a hopeful leader (often a candidate for leadership position in a democracy) attempts to appeal to the public. They aren't even in the same domain.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Surely the best measure of whether a politician speaks for the people is whether he or she is elected If you have a free and fair ballot, whether they get a majority, a plurality, or just a not-first-place minority of the ballots cast does tell something about the degree of popular support, by definition. Not all balloting is free and fair, and not all electoral systems choose a winner the candidate with the most support as measured at the polls, such as systems that incorporate anti-democratic features designed to give certain voters more power per voter than others, like the US electoral college.
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    Surely the best measure of whether a politician speaks for the people is whether he or she is elected. I disagree. With electoral systems in which a candidate can win with ten percent of the vote (because nobody else scored more than ten percent), or where a party can win 12% of the vote and end up with 0.15% of the seats (as a specific example from recent western history), a politician being elected is simply not a measure of speaking for the people.
  - gumby 8y ago
    > Surely the best measure of whether a politician speaks for the people is whether he or she is elected. There’s more to it than that. For example someone could be elected though not desired by the majority (as has happened in US presidential elections a few times, and also happens in various places where more than two candidates vie for a seat). Also there Re situations where the majority will egregiously violates the rights of minorities. Or when there is a muddy signal, where Brexit is a good example: some people wanted any possible Brexit, others wanted it assuming certain conditions that are now clearly not going to happen; what is the popular will in this case? I’m not saying that being elected isn’t the most important element, but it’s not only not sufficient, but it can actually be wrong.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
In your view, is there a difference between democracy and mob rule? What most of us want when we say we want to live in a democracy is not a true (absolute) democracy, but a limited democracy. We want a democracy within limits. In particular, we don't want 51% to be able to vote to take away the rights (or the lives) of the 49%. In an absolute democracy, they could; in a limited one they cannot. Populism is, essentially, turning the democracy into mob rule. If you don't have limits, then the mob rules. If you do have limits, populism tries to erode them so that the people can do what they want. Note also how populism is often associated with authoritarianism. Someone who wants to be the authoritarian persuades the people that he will get them what they want/need, if they just remove those pesky limits to his power. He encourages them to tear down the limits to government power in the name of the people getting what they want - that is, in the name of democracy. But when the people want to reign in the authoritarian's power, they find it's not so easy, because they gave the new power to the authoritarian...
- vkou 8y ago
  Keep in mind that power is not solely limited to the government. My employer has power over me. My utilities have power over me. My landlord has power over me. My bank has power over me. They all, to various degrees, are also interested in tearing down the limits to their power over me.
- yasp 8y ago
  Where do the limits that are supposed to govern the behavior of a democratically elected politician come from? I will tell you. They must either come from law, or from ethical philosophy that has been reified, for lack of a better word, by the state into law. For this to be so, one of two things must have happened. Either the state imposed these restrictions with disregard to the will of people, or they were imposed in accordance with the will of the people. If the former, they are illegitimate. If the latter, they are arbitrary (the product of a particular people at a particular time) and therefore subject to change.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
    There is a lot of gray area between the extremes here. What has worked, historically, is a system where ultimately all power derives from the people, but the process is designed to be somewhat slow, to moderate strong emotions, and to add subject matter expertise to the process. The two most obvious features here are elections (not referenda), and the judicial system. The latter adds an element of “village elders”, while the former makes decision-makers confront hard choices and their consequences. That’s why direct democracy is considered rather harmful: just look at the clusterfuck that is Brexit for an idea of what happens when people are allowed to make fantasy decisions while disregarding their actual implementation. As an analogy, consider trial-by-jury (managed by a competent judge) with having all of the locals decide all criminal cases once a month based on what they read in the (disappearing) local paper and on nextdoor. Who would you want to decide the punishment when the neighbor boy accuses you of touching him in funny places?
Tehdasi 8y ago
from google define: "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." There's difference between appeals to certain groups vs. what is in the best interests of certain groups. No doubt Patricia is saying that those with populist tendencies also have a tendency to weakening democratic institutions.
DenisM 8y ago
Yes it is a threat. Consider Hitler - democratically elected and serving the wants of the majority. Subsequently he dismantled the democratic institutions and sent millions to their deaths. Democracy, in the modern sense of the word, isn't the unrestrained rule of the mob, it's a system of checks and balances that represent interests of various groups of people in order to make a more perfect union.
- justtopost 8y ago
  Wow, that was quick.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    When the subject matter involves autocrats and populism godwinson's rule applies a bit less since hitler is directly within the discussion.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > When the subject matter involves autocrats and populism godwinson's rule applies a bit less No, it’s just less surprising of a finding in that case. Remember Godwin's Law is: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    At what point would you consider a comparison to or analogy using Hitler to be appropriate?
IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
Democracy isn’t two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. (That’s populism)
- jdoliner 8y ago
  What if it's two sheep and a wolf voting on what's for dinner? Does it then suddenly become Democracy? How do you distinguish wolf from sheep in the real world where everyone's actually a human?
  - roenxi 8y ago
    The idea is that all citizens enjoy a level of equality in the democratic process, and so there are no wolves because everyone should be able to work together. Cynics argue, but the idea of democracy is that those who appear most capable get put in charge. If you strip the most competent people of their ability and incentive to take control the system for productive use then the results are likely to be bad for everyone.
  - ajross 8y ago
    No, it becomes democracy when the sheep and wolves agree on a framework that is designed a priori to protect the interests of all animals. Here's an example: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    - vkou 8y ago
      So, the two wolves vote to make the sheep a non-citizen (Or, two centuries ago, a non-person), and the problem is solved. This is, of course, happening right now.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- 11sdmb8m 8y ago

by yasp 8y ago

danharaj 8y ago

That's not what populism is. Populism is when an elite claims to speak and act on behalf of the people without real input from them.

yasp 8y ago
Surely the best measure of whether a politician speaks for the people is whether he or she is elected. In which case assuming the politician attempts to follow through on his or her campaign promises, that politician would not be a populist. (Of course, this assumes that there is such a thing as "the people".)
- classicsnoot 8y ago
  It is a strange axiom but I have yet to see it otherwise: when the will of the people is Leftward, it is Democracy; when the will of the people is Rightward, it is Populism. The person that responded to you employed a classic "anti-rightward" trope equating populism to vicarious elite control. I fail to see the difference between Populism and Democracy on the "people" side of the equation, rather the difference is in which elites are pulling the strings.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    No, it's still called populism when it comes from the left. Bernie Sanders was described as a populist.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
    If only there were some book or website defining terms, so one wouldn’t be tempted to make up definitions fitting one‘s politics on the spot. „Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to 'the people', often juxtaposing this group against the "elite".“ There is plenty of left-wing populism, by the way. Jeremy Corbyn, Chavez/Maduro, Yannis Varoufakis, etc.
    - vokep 8y ago
      By that definition, isn't that basically 90% of everything? And no doubt it applies to leftists, absolutely. That's the basis of a lot of right wing views: that the left is simply being populist and doesn't give a shit about actually improving life, but instead staying in power. Of course, that's about the left's view of the right as well. Hmmmm.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Sanders and Trump were both (accurately, too) described as populist, Clinton and Bush both not. If one had to align them left to right, they would look like: Sanders -> Clinton -> Bush -> Trump . > I fail to see the difference between Populism and Democracy on the "people" side of the equation Democracy is a system of government, Populism is a manner in which a hopeful leader (often a candidate for leadership position in a democracy) attempts to appeal to the public. They aren't even in the same domain.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Surely the best measure of whether a politician speaks for the people is whether he or she is elected If you have a free and fair ballot, whether they get a majority, a plurality, or just a not-first-place minority of the ballots cast does tell something about the degree of popular support, by definition. Not all balloting is free and fair, and not all electoral systems choose a winner the candidate with the most support as measured at the polls, such as systems that incorporate anti-democratic features designed to give certain voters more power per voter than others, like the US electoral college.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  Surely the best measure of whether a politician speaks for the people is whether he or she is elected. I disagree. With electoral systems in which a candidate can win with ten percent of the vote (because nobody else scored more than ten percent), or where a party can win 12% of the vote and end up with 0.15% of the seats (as a specific example from recent western history), a politician being elected is simply not a measure of speaking for the people.
- gumby 8y ago
  > Surely the best measure of whether a politician speaks for the people is whether he or she is elected. There’s more to it than that. For example someone could be elected though not desired by the majority (as has happened in US presidential elections a few times, and also happens in various places where more than two candidates vie for a seat). Also there Re situations where the majority will egregiously violates the rights of minorities. Or when there is a muddy signal, where Brexit is a good example: some people wanted any possible Brexit, others wanted it assuming certain conditions that are now clearly not going to happen; what is the popular will in this case? I’m not saying that being elected isn’t the most important element, but it’s not only not sufficient, but it can actually be wrong.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

In your view, is there a difference between democracy and mob rule? What most of us want when we say we want to live in a democracy is not a true (absolute) democracy, but a limited democracy. We want a democracy within limits. In particular, we don't want 51% to be able to vote to take away the rights (or the lives) of the 49%. In an absolute democracy, they could; in a limited one they cannot. Populism is, essentially, turning the democracy into mob rule. If you don't have limits, then the mob rules. If you do have limits, populism tries to erode them so that the people can do what they want. Note also how populism is often associated with authoritarianism. Someone who wants to be the authoritarian persuades the people that he will get them what they want/need, if they just remove those pesky limits to his power. He encourages them to tear down the limits to government power in the name of the people getting what they want - that is, in the name of democracy. But when the people want to reign in the authoritarian's power, they find it's not so easy, because they gave the new power to the authoritarian...

vkou 8y ago
Keep in mind that power is not solely limited to the government. My employer has power over me. My utilities have power over me. My landlord has power over me. My bank has power over me. They all, to various degrees, are also interested in tearing down the limits to their power over me.
yasp 8y ago
Where do the limits that are supposed to govern the behavior of a democratically elected politician come from? I will tell you. They must either come from law, or from ethical philosophy that has been reified, for lack of a better word, by the state into law. For this to be so, one of two things must have happened. Either the state imposed these restrictions with disregard to the will of people, or they were imposed in accordance with the will of the people. If the former, they are illegitimate. If the latter, they are arbitrary (the product of a particular people at a particular time) and therefore subject to change.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  There is a lot of gray area between the extremes here. What has worked, historically, is a system where ultimately all power derives from the people, but the process is designed to be somewhat slow, to moderate strong emotions, and to add subject matter expertise to the process. The two most obvious features here are elections (not referenda), and the judicial system. The latter adds an element of “village elders”, while the former makes decision-makers confront hard choices and their consequences. That’s why direct democracy is considered rather harmful: just look at the clusterfuck that is Brexit for an idea of what happens when people are allowed to make fantasy decisions while disregarding their actual implementation. As an analogy, consider trial-by-jury (managed by a competent judge) with having all of the locals decide all criminal cases once a month based on what they read in the (disappearing) local paper and on nextdoor. Who would you want to decide the punishment when the neighbor boy accuses you of touching him in funny places?

Tehdasi 8y ago

from google define: "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." There's difference between appeals to certain groups vs. what is in the best interests of certain groups. No doubt Patricia is saying that those with populist tendencies also have a tendency to weakening democratic institutions.

DenisM 8y ago

Yes it is a threat. Consider Hitler - democratically elected and serving the wants of the majority. Subsequently he dismantled the democratic institutions and sent millions to their deaths. Democracy, in the modern sense of the word, isn't the unrestrained rule of the mob, it's a system of checks and balances that represent interests of various groups of people in order to make a more perfect union.

justtopost 8y ago
Wow, that was quick.
- munk-a 8y ago
  When the subject matter involves autocrats and populism godwinson's rule applies a bit less since hitler is directly within the discussion.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > When the subject matter involves autocrats and populism godwinson's rule applies a bit less No, it’s just less surprising of a finding in that case. Remember Godwin's Law is: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  At what point would you consider a comparison to or analogy using Hitler to be appropriate?

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago

Democracy isn’t two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. (That’s populism)

jdoliner 8y ago
What if it's two sheep and a wolf voting on what's for dinner? Does it then suddenly become Democracy? How do you distinguish wolf from sheep in the real world where everyone's actually a human?
- roenxi 8y ago
  The idea is that all citizens enjoy a level of equality in the democratic process, and so there are no wolves because everyone should be able to work together. Cynics argue, but the idea of democracy is that those who appear most capable get put in charge. If you strip the most competent people of their ability and incentive to take control the system for productive use then the results are likely to be bad for everyone.
- ajross 8y ago
  No, it becomes democracy when the sheep and wolves agree on a framework that is designed a priori to protect the interests of all animals. Here's an example: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  - vkou 8y ago
    So, the two wolves vote to make the sheep a non-citizen (Or, two centuries ago, a non-person), and the problem is solved. This is, of course, happening right now.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
11sdmb8m 8y ago