5 ms·
Since you mentioned a popular YouTube channel, Historia Civilis has an excellent series on the late Roman Republic, where populism plays a major role in the rep
by Orou 6y ago
Since you mentioned a popular YouTube channel, Historia Civilis has an excellent series on the late Roman Republic, where populism plays a major role in the republic's downfall.
I'm not sure I agree that populism is, by nature, opposed to democracy. I think it is better defined as an opposition to the status quo - which very well may be a democratic government - when that system fails to address the concerns of its people. The voting process in Rome was hilariously tilted against poorer Roman citizens. The only real recourse for anyone fed-up with the senate would be to support a strongman populist who promised radical reform, because the existing voting system (public assemblies) was not effective at representing the will of the people (by design).
I think CGP Grey's video on the keys to power is another great example of this dynamic at play - you only matter when you hold a key to power. Without that, no leader will waste their time listening to you.
- vinceguidry 6y agoI'd say that populism is opposed to democracy in the same way that gluttony is opposed to health. Eating a ton is better than eating nothing at all, but the goal isn't mere survival. Populism subverts democracy, it doesn't further it. To your point about the Roman republic, I mean sure. But democracy itself isn't and never was a mechanism to give the less affluent an equal voice to the wealthy, who always set up their own, more prestigious power structure that could overrule the lesser if needed. US Senate, House of Lords, Athenian Areopagus, the Indian Rajya Sabha, all were mechanisms to allow affluent minorities exercise disproportionate influence. Putting the poor first, that's the aim of communism. In a republic, you have a voice. The rest of society, including the movers and shakers, still has to agree with it.