Completely opinionated take: all forms of populism is directly correlated to levels of inequality of wealth in the economy and level of standard of living of the bottom 50%. Everything else is just manifestations of frustration with one’s own situation.
If suddenly a big part of the population turns towards populists this is probably the reason.
And at the same time populism worsens inequality and isn't punished for it (it gets away with making the elections just a little bit "unfair", it doesn't need full totalitarian control over them and can keep the opposition alive on not-too-tight a leash). Which is the most terrifying thing: it is a self-renforcing loop.
Seems like its been a "self-reinforcing loop" for decades...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni...
Corollary to that though: is it actual wealth inequality, or the perception of wealth inequality?
> An alternative interpretation, which we advance in this analysis, is that populism enables the expression (and execution) of authoritarian impulses within a democratic system. If this interpretation holds, then merely addressing economic inequalities or enhancing political representation through mechanisms such as referendums will be insufficient to mitigate underlying authoritarian impulses. Governments will need to proactively reinforce existing democratic safeguards before populist actors assume power.
I.e. the solution to democracy is getting rid of democracy. More doublethink I guess
Can someone explain to me how populism is different to democracy?
I know what the mainstream answer to this is, but fundamentally, if you are pro democracy, how can you be against the choice of the majority of the people?
Democracy is not sacred. It is just a way to organise society. It has some advantages and it is likely the best way we know, but that does not mean we should be silent about its disadvantages, and populism is just a fail mode of democracy, or a strategy to exploit its weaknesses.
Populism is not 'doing what people want', it is a strategy of orienting a societal/political conflict on people vs. elites axis. But elites are usually right, that is why they are elites in their social hierarchies. For democracies to work properly, people have to trust elites (and elites have to be trustworthy).
What if the choice of the majority of the people is anti-democratic?
It would seem that that would make you anti-democratic while trying to be pro democracy.
There is a great article of german philosopher Leonard Nelson that discusses this (and other) weaknesses of democracy. He was thrown out of the SPD for it in s.th. like the 1920s
> What if the choice of the majority of the people is anti-democratic?
Isn't the majority choice a priori democratic?
Unless you're saying the majority is saying "let's throw away voting and go back to monarchy"... which they aren't, systemic change on that level is usually a highly niche opinion
I'm sensing some doublethink here
"which they aren't" ... OK, you seem oddly confused about what's actually being discussed.
Let me help: here's a passage from the paper itself "On one hand, some scholars argue that populism is inherently illiberal [...]. Populist movements embrace majoritarian politics and seek to suppress opposition, often through a charismatic strongman who pledges to dismantle institutional constraints in the name of executing the people’s will. Under this interpretation, populism becomes synonymous with authoritarianism."
So while you clearly don't perceive populism as anti-democratic ... because you're immune to "doublethink", or something — others, including some of the people actually cited in the paper clearly do. Also, famously: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/po...
And oh BTW, no. The majority choice is not automatically a priori democratic, unless by "democratic" you mean the literal Greek etymology of the word and not its actual meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
> unless by "democratic" you mean the literal Greek etymology of the word
So like, what it says in the dictionary? As in, I'm using the word as it's actually defined?
Is conveniently redefining words to fit your argument supposed to not confuse people?
Here's what it sounds like to an idiot off the street like me:
> "democracy good"
> "letting voters actually get what they want bad"
>"democracy = letting voters actually get what they want"
> a bunch of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics... let's wave a magic wand here, "democracy = <something completely different that you need to read a couple hundred pages of Karl Popper to understand. The public need not have an opinion here, they just need to smile and nod>"
If you mean to say that democracy (i.e. the public getting what they want via electoral process) is a flawed idea, just say it. It just sounds like you're going through a bunch of bs and vague gesturing to Karl Popper to avoid saying that
Are we now going to disregard anything that can't be properly defined in 10 words or less because otherwise it just sounds funny to "idiots off the streets"? I guess the two paragraphs on wikipedia are too elitist for the idiocracy yall seem to yearn for.
Imagine those idiot doctors going through all those years of medical school instead of just buying a dictionary. LMAO what a bunch of losers.
Nice try building ttat straw man, but if your choice is an anti-democratic one—as is often the case with populists (read the fxcking paper)—then by definition you’re dismantling democracy, not practicing it. Deal with it.
Real democracy is direct rule of the people first of all, we are in representative democracies (most if not all of the west). And that has its own problems with corruption, etc.
Some countries do it better, like switserland, where citizen can propose and vote for laws directly.
The problem with populism is that they use emotions to trick people into voting for them, only to work actively against them and blame minorities when they inevitably fail to deliver.
> populism [vs] democracy
"Democracy" is a system (relative delegation of power to masses), "populism" is a drive (attempting the seduction of masses through visceral calls). Not the same plane.
> pro democracy, how can you be against the choice of the majority of the people
"Democracy" does not reduce to "accepting any will of any majority". An economy, in classical theory, fails if a base of informed rational agents is not built. Similarly, the "choice of the people" is theoretical, potential, ideal.
It's very simple. They pretend they're using democracy to mean "rule of the people", but the meaning they're actually using is "policy outcomes that I like".
That's why parties can do the opposite of what they promised [1,2], judges can issue wildly creative rulings [3], even directly contrary to referendums [4], universities can demand ideological loyalty oaths [5], a party can get 37% of votes but only 20% of seats [6], or even 14.3% of votes and only 0.77% of seats, newspapers can get banned [8], towns can be fined for not participating in mandatory celebrations [9], and activists can even be prevented from leaving their own countries to attend a political summit, despite EU free movement [10], and there's not a peep about endangering democracy or authoritarianism.
Don't take my word for it - here's German chancellor Olaf Scholz admitting it in a slip of honesty: As a strong democracy we are very clear: The extreme right should be out of political decision making processes. - https://xcancel.com/Bundeskanzler/status/1890709875644145935
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67506641
[2] https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/05/23/irony-labour-mea...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_18...
[5] https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_French_legislative_electi...
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jul...
[8] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-bans-right-wing...
[9] https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ontario-town-fined-10000-fo...
No, you're muddying the waters by conflating the terms as if they apply to the same dimension. Democracy does mean "rule of the people". But populism means those people being taken in by overly simplistic gut-appealing messages. Of course, it is generally hard to judge this objectively. But often the people end up choosing leaders that directly oppose what those same people claim to want, in which case the failure is clear.
For example look at the current dynamic in the US. Hefty and unpredictable import taxes are harming the domestic industries we still have left. But when you try to point this out to the average populist, they go right into the refrain about how we need to compete with China, like nobody else understands this goal or something. They're basically stuck on the simplistic gut-appealing mantra, and can't get past it to entertain criticism how the current policies are doing the exact opposite as being claimed.
Populism is a democratic mandate you don't like.
And I guess it's also where a politicians lies are more simple, direct which apparently is MUCH WORSE than the more sophisticated, poll-driven lies of the establishment politician's PR hacks.
Article doesn't say whether Franklin D Roosevelt was populist, and if so, which variety.
Brain dead garbage that could have been generated by AI, one of a vast literature that attempts to make popular sovereignty seem like a mental illness rather than the only non-supernatural justification for government at all.
They selected a few strongmen, as designated by the CIA, to illustrate their points: Italy, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Brazil, and Argentina. Only while the CIA disapproves of them, though. The CIA always changes their minds about them at exactly the same time they make a break with their past and announce that their country is open for foreign investment. Al Qaeda leaders in expensive suits.
Anti-establishment populists, the "good" kind, are represented by the organizations that employ people to write garbage like this, and whose primary messaging is that power can be wielded by loving and believing hard enough, and that everyone who does anything to threaten any institution is completely dominated and motivated by hate, cynicism, or ambition. We don't hate them, we love them, so to help them they should be under mandatory therapy; and to protect us, maybe that therapy should be done in a prison.
Beware of Frontiers In... journals. They do not have a great reputation.
> Beware of Frontiers In... journals. They do not have a great reputation
Could you substantiate that? The abstract looks compelling, but I don't want to waste time if this is a trash journal.
They're the ones who published the bizarre AI-generated rat last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39391034
That was my first encounter with Frontiers Media, but they have a...history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#Controversies
In this house, our epistemic standard reflects the content of the message, not who delivered it.
Unless you're an expert in the field, you are going to partially rely on how much you trust the messenger, for any reasonably complex message.