5 ms·

> Democracy is essentially populist, because elites fight for votes through media. Democracy is by no means essentially populist. It is when it is in its sickl

> Democracy is essentially populist, because elites fight for votes through media. Democracy is by no means essentially populist. It is when it is in its sickly stages, maybe. It's also by no means necessarily dependent on elites; again that is an indication of the failure of democracy (and the arrival of money as speech). It is very fair to say that few of the older democracies are keeping populism at bay -- India is failing at it, Britain has failed at it, Turkey has failed at it, etc.

ThalesX 5y ago
What are some examples of democracies that are keeping populism at bay? I live in a country that became democratic around when I was born. I don't feel that as a young democracy we're doing a particularly good job at keeping populism at bay; I'd go so far as to say we're failing at it.
- iso1631 5y ago
  I don't get the feeling there's much populism in New Zealand, Finland or Denmark, all of which had Womens Suffrage at least somewhat before 1900. Sweden has been struggling with it recently, and Australia is pretty bad. Isle of Man does fine.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    I think you are confusing a lack of populism with homogeneity of thought/culture. Your examples are all pretty small countries with little cultural divides. Even NZ got pretty populist on immigration when the number of immigrants started to increase, and Denmark literally was the harshest on refugees; they literally sent them all back a few months ago now that they say Syria is safe enough. Sweden is another example where populism went through the roof seemingly out of the blue, considering its historically consensus/trust based democratic system, for reasons similar to almost every other country in Europe. If Sweden went that way, I'd think any country could. If anything, I think your examples prove why populism is inherent to truky democratic systems. To me, it's actually a sign of a well functioning, diverse society not only demographically but also ideologically. And that's imo pretty healthy - at least much more so than a permanent homogenous consensus. (And in a democracy if elected politicians don't align with voters under the pretext of not bending to populist demands, someone else will do it. The job of politicians in a democracy is to represent the electorate, not the opposite.)
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      New Zealand surely has a decidedly non-little cultural divide. It manages to avoid populism despite extraordinary pressures.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
CaptArmchair 5y ago
The problematic part about these discussions is defining what 'democracy' and 'populism' really is. Democracy is essentially shared, representative decision making based on a set of shared values and rules which every participant subscribes to. It's perfectly valid to promote your ideas and policies to your constituency with respect to the governing framework which is democracy. The mechanics may seem 'populist' e.g. campaigning, advertising, interviews,... but the fundamentals aren't challenged. Populism, however, does challenge those fundamentals. And it does so by using the governing rules and values within a democratic framework to challenge that framework itself. Examples of that is relentlessly attacking press and journalism itself, or antagonizing political adversaries, rather then challenging ideas and policies in a respectful public debate. The really insidious part are leveraging tactics that veil these as paramount to the sustainability of democracy. In that regard, democracy is innately flawed. It doesn't nor can't stop the rise of populists who push democracy out of the door. Ultimately, it's a social construct which people actually have to subscribe to. And if environmental circumstances change - e.g. economic recessions, social inequalities, existential threats,... - a critical mass within a population can grow which no longer is willing to subscribe to that construct. Or, worse, assumes that the alternative they subscribe to is democratic by nature when it is anything but democratic. History has an abundance of autocratic states who use 'democratic' or 'people' in their own naming e.g. the German Democratic Republic. Democracy is always at odds with the social-economic dynamics and the formation of cultural and economic elites which hold de facto power and have plenty incentives to leverage political power in order to retain a status quo. Democracy doesn't overcome that, and never will. However, what democracy does have going for itself is that it enshrines and protects an important set of fundamental freedoms and rights which apply to everyone regardless of their position in society.
- js8 5y ago
  I really like your analysis. I think the fundamental reason why is democracy so vulnerable is that in practice, there is a lot of socioeconomic inequality in societies, and that really erodes the core democratic concept that everyone should participate equally in decision-making. So in very unequal societies with a semblance of democracy, like in South America (and it's slowly coming to USA as well), you get these right and left populist oscillations, as different classes (upper and lower) seek to gain all political power. I don't think anybody has figured out an effective way yet how to dampen these oscillations in a society, and equalize it, so it would return to the ideal democratic mode.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> Britain has failed at it I don't see that (I live here). The UK has had a two-party system for at least 60 years. The Conservative Party is much the same as it was under Margaret Thatcher: xenophobic, opposed to public expenditure. The Labour Party is currently in the grip of people who admire Tony Blair's policies (interventionism, focus groups, and triangulation). Labour had a brief phase of mass-movement socialism under Jeremy Corbyn, who might be tagged "populist", but didn't deserve that tag. The current Conservative Party is led by a would-be populist; but the rest of the party doesn't seem to admire him very much. The only real populist much in evidence recently was Nigel Farage, who seems to spend more of his time in US TV studios than on UK TV. "India is failing, Britain has failed" makes it sound as if UK politics is dominated by pogroms, temple-burnings and riots - as if British society is in a worse state than Indian society. That's far from the truth.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  > I don't see that (I live here). I also live here. Brexit is evidence of a failure of democracy to contain populism. It is absolutely not in our national interest, is already harming us, was almost certainly bankrolled by dark money and foreign influence campaigns, used unlawful tactics and above all was driven by systematic populist xenophobia. As you live here you will also have received the leaflet that tried to show the threat of Turkey joining the EU (with a map that didn't mark out Turkey but did mark out Iraq and Syria) even though Turkey is no closer to achieving membership now than it ever was -- this was vile populist manipulation. Boris runs Number 10 as if it is unaccountable to parliament. He flings out bread-and-circuses distractions when his mendacious lying is exposed. He deliberately deployed a populist smear in parliament for which he won't apologise in parliament, and people around him rallied to support it as he doubled down. We are heading into a criminalisation of dissent and protest that even Maggie wouldn't have tried. We have a government implementing serious voter suppression based on untruths. And we have a populist leader of a government that is increasingly corrupt, who rode into power on a Brexit wave who does not believe the rules apply to him (and who has evidence to support it, given how many last-last-last-chances he's been given to "shape up") and a ruling party that appears to be swimming in Russian influence money in a manner so severe that our "special relationship" partner has openly rebuked us for it, and so damaging that our prime minister buried a report into it. Boris is engaging in Trumpian tactics and his party seem unable to do a thing about it; the frog is being boiled just the same way as it (still) is in the USA. We're in enormous trouble. (And what is really striking to me is that the bulk of the criticism I have typed above is apolitical; members of his own party have levelled essentially all of these criticisms).

ThalesX 5y ago

What are some examples of democracies that are keeping populism at bay? I live in a country that became democratic around when I was born. I don't feel that as a young democracy we're doing a particularly good job at keeping populism at bay; I'd go so far as to say we're failing at it.

iso1631 5y ago
I don't get the feeling there's much populism in New Zealand, Finland or Denmark, all of which had Womens Suffrage at least somewhat before 1900. Sweden has been struggling with it recently, and Australia is pretty bad. Isle of Man does fine.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  I think you are confusing a lack of populism with homogeneity of thought/culture. Your examples are all pretty small countries with little cultural divides. Even NZ got pretty populist on immigration when the number of immigrants started to increase, and Denmark literally was the harshest on refugees; they literally sent them all back a few months ago now that they say Syria is safe enough. Sweden is another example where populism went through the roof seemingly out of the blue, considering its historically consensus/trust based democratic system, for reasons similar to almost every other country in Europe. If Sweden went that way, I'd think any country could. If anything, I think your examples prove why populism is inherent to truky democratic systems. To me, it's actually a sign of a well functioning, diverse society not only demographically but also ideologically. And that's imo pretty healthy - at least much more so than a permanent homogenous consensus. (And in a democracy if elected politicians don't align with voters under the pretext of not bending to populist demands, someone else will do it. The job of politicians in a democracy is to represent the electorate, not the opposite.)
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    New Zealand surely has a decidedly non-little cultural divide. It manages to avoid populism despite extraordinary pressures.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

CaptArmchair 5y ago

The problematic part about these discussions is defining what 'democracy' and 'populism' really is. Democracy is essentially shared, representative decision making based on a set of shared values and rules which every participant subscribes to. It's perfectly valid to promote your ideas and policies to your constituency with respect to the governing framework which is democracy. The mechanics may seem 'populist' e.g. campaigning, advertising, interviews,... but the fundamentals aren't challenged. Populism, however, does challenge those fundamentals. And it does so by using the governing rules and values within a democratic framework to challenge that framework itself. Examples of that is relentlessly attacking press and journalism itself, or antagonizing political adversaries, rather then challenging ideas and policies in a respectful public debate. The really insidious part are leveraging tactics that veil these as paramount to the sustainability of democracy. In that regard, democracy is innately flawed. It doesn't nor can't stop the rise of populists who push democracy out of the door. Ultimately, it's a social construct which people actually have to subscribe to. And if environmental circumstances change - e.g. economic recessions, social inequalities, existential threats,... - a critical mass within a population can grow which no longer is willing to subscribe to that construct. Or, worse, assumes that the alternative they subscribe to is democratic by nature when it is anything but democratic. History has an abundance of autocratic states who use 'democratic' or 'people' in their own naming e.g. the German Democratic Republic. Democracy is always at odds with the social-economic dynamics and the formation of cultural and economic elites which hold de facto power and have plenty incentives to leverage political power in order to retain a status quo. Democracy doesn't overcome that, and never will. However, what democracy does have going for itself is that it enshrines and protects an important set of fundamental freedoms and rights which apply to everyone regardless of their position in society.

js8 5y ago
I really like your analysis. I think the fundamental reason why is democracy so vulnerable is that in practice, there is a lot of socioeconomic inequality in societies, and that really erodes the core democratic concept that everyone should participate equally in decision-making. So in very unequal societies with a semblance of democracy, like in South America (and it's slowly coming to USA as well), you get these right and left populist oscillations, as different classes (upper and lower) seek to gain all political power. I don't think anybody has figured out an effective way yet how to dampen these oscillations in a society, and equalize it, so it would return to the ideal democratic mode.

denton-scratch 5y ago

> Britain has failed at it I don't see that (I live here). The UK has had a two-party system for at least 60 years. The Conservative Party is much the same as it was under Margaret Thatcher: xenophobic, opposed to public expenditure. The Labour Party is currently in the grip of people who admire Tony Blair's policies (interventionism, focus groups, and triangulation). Labour had a brief phase of mass-movement socialism under Jeremy Corbyn, who might be tagged "populist", but didn't deserve that tag. The current Conservative Party is led by a would-be populist; but the rest of the party doesn't seem to admire him very much. The only real populist much in evidence recently was Nigel Farage, who seems to spend more of his time in US TV studios than on UK TV. "India is failing, Britain has failed" makes it sound as if UK politics is dominated by pogroms, temple-burnings and riots - as if British society is in a worse state than Indian society. That's far from the truth.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> I don't see that (I live here). I also live here. Brexit is evidence of a failure of democracy to contain populism. It is absolutely not in our national interest, is already harming us, was almost certainly bankrolled by dark money and foreign influence campaigns, used unlawful tactics and above all was driven by systematic populist xenophobia. As you live here you will also have received the leaflet that tried to show the threat of Turkey joining the EU (with a map that didn't mark out Turkey but did mark out Iraq and Syria) even though Turkey is no closer to achieving membership now than it ever was -- this was vile populist manipulation. Boris runs Number 10 as if it is unaccountable to parliament. He flings out bread-and-circuses distractions when his mendacious lying is exposed. He deliberately deployed a populist smear in parliament for which he won't apologise in parliament, and people around him rallied to support it as he doubled down. We are heading into a criminalisation of dissent and protest that even Maggie wouldn't have tried. We have a government implementing serious voter suppression based on untruths. And we have a populist leader of a government that is increasingly corrupt, who rode into power on a Brexit wave who does not believe the rules apply to him (and who has evidence to support it, given how many last-last-last-chances he's been given to "shape up") and a ruling party that appears to be swimming in Russian influence money in a manner so severe that our "special relationship" partner has openly rebuked us for it, and so damaging that our prime minister buried a report into it. Boris is engaging in Trumpian tactics and his party seem unable to do a thing about it; the frog is being boiled just the same way as it (still) is in the USA. We're in enormous trouble. (And what is really striking to me is that the bulk of the criticism I have typed above is apolitical; members of his own party have levelled essentially all of these criticisms).