Comments 26

قلب الشعبوية المناهض للديمقراطية

Oct 27, 2016 Andrés Velasco

سانتياجو ــ كان العديد من الرجال والنساء الذين حضروا الاجتماع السنوي لصندوق النقد الدولي في أوائل شهر أكتوبر/تشرين الأول يقولون شيئا من هذا القبيل: "تخيلوا لو رشح الجمهوريون شخصا يحمل نفس وجهات النظر المعادية للتجارة مثل ترامب، ولكنه لا يوزع الإهانات والشتائم ولا يتحرش بالنساء جنسيا. كنا لنرى شعبويا يؤيد تدابير الحماية في طريقه إلى البيت الأبيض".

المقصد الضمني هنا هو أن الشعبوية المتصاعدة على اليمين واليسار، في كل من الولايات المتحدة وأوروبا، تشكل نتيجة مباشرة للعولمة والآثار غير المرغوبة المترتبة عليها: الوظائف المفقودة وركود دخل أبناء الطبقة المتوسطة. ويكره الرجال والنساء في دافوس هذا الاستنتاج، ولكنهم اعتنقوه بحماس المهتدين الجدد.

ومع ذلك هناك وجهة نظر بديلة وأكثر إقناعا: ففي حين يساعد الركود الاقتصادي في دفع الناخبين المنزعجين إلى معسكر الشعبويين، فإن الاقتصاد الرديء ليس شرطا ضروريا أو كافيا لتغليب السياسة الرديئة. بل على العكس من ذلك، وكما يزعم باحث العلوم السياسية جان فيرنر مولر من جامعة برينستون في كتابه الجديد: تشكل الشعبوية "شبحا دائما" يخيم على الديمقراطية التمثيلية.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles from our archive every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The New Disappeared

Oct 12, 2018 Nina L. Khrushcheva
The New and Not Improved NAFTA

Oct 9, 2018 Jeffrey Frankel
The Big Blockchain Lie

Oct 15, 2018 Nouriel Roubini
Does Modi Have a Pakistan Policy?

Oct 10, 2018 Shashi Tharoor
America’s Ongoing Civil War

Oct 16, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs

Andrés Velasco

Writing for PS since 2001
85 Commentaries

Andrés Velasco, a former presidential candidate and finance minister of Chile, is Dean of the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is the author of numerous books and papers on international economics and development, and has served on the faculty at Harvard, Columbia, and New York Universities.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 32 in all 32 Comments on this article

Stephen Gwynne Dec 6, 2016

I think you are confusing populism with liberal authoritarianism myself.

If the new political axes are national-international and traditional-pluralism then the new centre ground is populism.
As such populism is about balance and fairness not extremism as many like to hypothesize.

Populism is about optimising diversity to ensure community cohesion. It is about finding the right scale of complexity to enable equitable democratic management. It is about optimising human development in order to safeguard the local environment. It is about optimising the balance between grey and green infrastructure in order to ensure a sustainable future. It is about optimising national-international economic decision making. It is about choosing the pluralist-traditional mix of society. It is about managing social change and continuity. It is about allowing the people to decide.

These principles all give regard to both human and ecological rights but do not make rights absolute because in reality no rights are absolute. So essentially populism is about realism not idealism.

However liberalism which these days seems to be only tolerant of a narrow set of human dispositions and value systems does not comprehend balance, it only comprehends an infinite supply of the material goods and services in order to facilitate limitless human expansion which of course can only ever be an abstract ideal.

In this context addressing inequalities of power and wealth from a populist perspective is about instituting more deliberative forms of democracy so that the people can choose and deliberate how they wish to distribute justice within any given territorial limits. This type of diversity and justice is not a liberal type whereby an overarching ideology seeks to socially engineer an imposed equality, whether social, economic, political or ecological but a type of diversity and justice that enables citizens within a given territory to assess their own needs and wants in relation to their ecological region (bioregionalism). Therefore justice is distributed to ensure the sustainability and resilience of that bioregion including both human and nonhuman inhabitants.

This means there is no overarching one size fits all strategy that is currently promoted by the EU and other (neo)liberal institutions but instead there is a strategy of regional assemblies which enables local people to make local decisions regarding their social, cultural, economic, political and ecological lives.

Therefore far from being authoritarian (the latest liberal smear), populism is about reaching towards more direct forms of democracy. In this respect, populists want greater freedom to make the decisions that affect their everyday lives. This requires pluralist democracies, not narrow liberal democracies which gives primary credence to identitarian concerns over and above the concerns of the majority or a sense of equality over and above deliberative decision-making. What populism is realising is that liberal as opposed to plural democracies are dehumanising the lived lives of a community in relation to their environment through excessive bureaucratic interference.

Overall we potentially have different types of populism whether liberal populism, tribal populism, patriotic populism, identitarian populism etc etc depending on the positioning of policies within the new axes.

Basically populism is the new progressive.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Nov 13, 2016

Andres is absolutely right. Both in the case of Brexit and Trump's election the failure of the mainstream parties to win the confidence of the people is evident. NONE of the British political parties could countenance a Leave vote and all three parties were firmly there for remain - but the majority wanted to leave. There wasn't really a small minority for leaving, many ended up voting remain for fear of the consequences, but I have lived all my life in the UK and I can tell you I rarely if ever get anyone eulogising over the EU - in fact most people hate it with a passion. This problem split the Conservatives and helped to form UKIP and only by UKIP representing our European view were we able to blackmail the Conservatives into giving us a much longed for referendum. Let's face it no one since 1975 in the UK had ever been conulted on the EU or where it was going - which as the author says IS the anti democratic heart of the whole problem. Equally, Republicans and Democrats have been singing off the same neo liberal hymn sheet for years. Only by a maverick like Trump a complete outsider rocking the comfy cage of the elites are we getting the public to engage again. Politicians have used apathy to get away with doing very little and changing nothing - I think things are just so serious and critical now the public have woken up to the fact we are all slipping down the pan fast and unless we start to change in a major way our way of life; prosperity and everything we care about will be gone.

We need people to challenge the system, but it is so impenetrable; so expensive and so damn reluctant to change only an earthquake can move it. Good article and well said.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stephen Morris Nov 10, 2016

What Andres Velasco refers to as "democracy" in this piece of elitist apologia is actually "elective" government. As Nobel laureate James Buchanan describes, elective government (in the absence of true Democracy) tends to "adversely select" the most aggressively narcissistic, machiavellian (and possibly psychopathic) individuals who crave power over others:

“[S]uppose that a monopoly right is to be auctioned; whom will we predict to be the highest bidder? Surely we can presume that the person who intends to exploit the monopoly power most fully, the one for whom the expected profit is highest, will be among the highest bidders for the franchise. In the same way, positions of political power will tend to attract those persons who place higher values on the possession of such power. These persons will tend to be the highest bidders in the allocation of political offices. . . . Is there any presumption that political rent seeking will ultimately allocate offices to the ‘best’ persons? Is there not the overwhelming presumption that offices will be secured by those who value power most highly and who seek to use such power of discretion in the furtherance of their personal projects, be these moral or otherwise? Genuine public-interest motivations may exist and may even be widespread, but are these motivations sufficiently passionate to stimulate people to fight for political office, to compete with those whose passions include the desire to wield power over others?” (James Buchanan and Geoffrey Brennan, “The Reason of Rules”, Cambridge University Press, 1985, p64)

It is ironic that Mr Velasco should have chosen to publish this piece in the final week of an election campaign which seemed to demonstrate the truth of Buchanan's insight!

Actual Democracy - involving the citizens' right of recall, veto, initiative and referendum - acts to prevent such adverse selection by removing the prospect for exercising a Monopoly on Power. Megalomaniacs otherwise attracted by the prospect of political power look to exercise their psychopathic traits elsewhere.

Contrary to Mr Velasco's fantastic imaginings, Democracy does not involve citizens seeking to make complex decisions on eavh and every issue through the process of referendum. Even in the most democratic of polities, the vast majority of legislative, executive and administrative decisions continue to be made by elected representatives.

In Switzerland, for example, only 22 popular initiatives have ever succeeded.

Moreover, far from trying to simplify complex issues, Democracy actually promotes consensus and compromise.

Again taking the case of a well-designed Democracy like Switzerland, the federal Constitution imposes an obligation on Parliament to consider every popular initiative before it is put to a vote and to publish its recommendation for acceptance or rejection. Parliament may also put forward a counter-proposal (typically more balanced) or simply legislate to remove the original cause of concern. That is why so few initiatives succeed.

Moreover, eliminating the adverse selection of megalomaniacs promotes consensus in the Executive arm as well. The Swiss Federal Cabinet is famous for its collegiate nature, including members from all the major parties across the political spectrum.

Democracy actually promotes multi-partisanship (again contrary to the fantastic imagining of Mr Velasco).

Those who oppose Democracy are the Elitists and the Narcissists: those who real desire is to ensure that the "Commoners" know their place in society and that they themselves are free to pursue their self-serving ambition.

Democracy - real Democracy - doesn't surplant elective government. It complements it.

Democracy - real Democracy - doesn't remove representation. It selects a better "class" of representative.

Democracy - real Democracy - works for the benefit of all but the Elitists.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark St. Angelo Nov 9, 2016

Aristotle may have believed that politics is about morality, but in reality politics is about power. Perhaps that is why Prof. Velasco's three prescriptions to "beat populists at their own game" sound so ridiculous.

It would be a waste of time to "acknowledge complexity" because Trump in the US and those who led the Brexit movement in the UK have shown that the majority of "populists" believe, without any factual basis for their belief, that there are simple solutions to the most complex of problems. They also have rejected the notion that diversity is, or even should be, a "profoundly moral feature of society."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Nov 2, 2016

I think Andres has some good point here, but there has been far too little analysis of why globalisation has hit the buffers in quite the way it has. I remember when in the UK back in the 70s/80s when British industry was being stripped out, in much the same way as it was in the USA, there was a very liberal attitude to allowing wealth creating manufacturing to go to "cheaper" places like China, where the pittance of wages, the ignoring of health and safety and decent working conditions became the dynamo that made China what it was today. For the west they had an endless supply of cheap manufactured goods (even if a lot of it was shoddy ) and that suited the politicians because their peoples could buy "stuff" at prices a decent middle class family would not be able to replicate, with the tax levels; public spending levels, house prices and general cost of living.

Now the doughnut effect is being felt, where western economies have had their manufacturing hollowed out, many of the high level, well paying middle income jobs no longer exist, and the retreat to the service sector, has seen the computerisation of many of the white collar jobs and what we are seeing now is a much battered middle class, right across the western nations, as they see what were low paying , low skilled jobs being gobbled up by the free flow of mass migration, from the failing eastern european countries, to the souther American States, to the war torn middle east, where work is being done for a pittance, leaving the middle class staring at the headlights of the juggernaut globalisation which will be stripping away what little is left of their high paying jobs and futures.

Politicians in the end have mad many short term decisions which have impacted greatly on their own people. It was clear from a long time ago, that the Earth (which is by the way where we all live) only has a cake that is of a finite size. For a long time 20% of the peoples of the plant have had 80% of the cake, and globalisation is just recalibrating the cake cutting. What we are seeing, is that a planet with 8 billion people on it, will require a realignment of cake, and the 20% who held the 80% in previous years, are finding that the reverse process is now happening. The 80% of the world's population are leaving probably less than 20% of the cake for the west, and the end of the American Dream, replaced with food banks and unemployment is in fact the "new normal".

Probably the situation we are now living through is requiring a rethink of how the world of work and the payment for that work is managed into a new era. The way we worked in the past will not necessarily be the way we can work into the future, and a new economic imperative needs to be developed, because (clearly) we cannot continue as we are.

We need some new thinking on how we move forward, clearly with 8 billion people the Earth cannot continue in the same capitalistic vein, there are not enough resources to sustain it - we need knew thinking.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Nov 2, 2016

"Complexity" is the elite's excuse for dismissing the views of people who don't have the time to "analyze" issues because they have to work for a living, or the access to erudite, but meaningless studies because they are not connected to an army of grad students who do the real work. As President Truman shrewdly observed, two handed economists have one explanation too many.

If democracy does not mean majority rule, then what one is advocating is rule by a small group of insiders that may or may not reflect the wishes of the people. Indeed, the rules and those who set them dictate how a society (economy, culture) operates, who benefits and who pays the costs.

Unlike Chile, vox populi is the modus operendi for democracies, not the rule of dictators like Pinochet. If the US electorate wants to restrict immigration and trade, so be it. If the results are not what they expected they can change their voting behaviour. What is not needed is the preaching of self-styled experts who, whether or not self-aware, are advocating policies for which they and those in their circles are the main beneficiaries.

The world might be complex, but the choices are simple. If people do not understand the nature of their choices, they cannot become informed participants in democracy - rule of the people - and democracy is worse than a sham; it is a mistake. If the self-appointed elites cannot indicate the necessary and sufficient conditions for voting, a process,one should remember, is very simple, i.e., one makes a choice between one thing or another. One does not write and essay that incorporates all possibilities, real and imagined, and then throws one's hand and claims that the issue is too complex for mere mortals to undertake to determine how they wish to live their lives.

Mr. Velasco that is similar to that of Hillary Clinton. he is part of a circle of people educated at the highest level in elite universities, relates to people who have similar backgrounds and interests, and fears that a simplification of the choices facing voters in a democracy would make him and those like him, shall we say, REDUNDANT. Finding a morality in the practice of politics, of deciding the rules of the game that determine how we will live, is the most simple and direct way to exercise the practice of democracy.
- Christine Constable Nov 27, 2016
  
  Bravo!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrés Galia Oct 31, 2016

Mark Rothschild is right on. The author seems to "forget" that people are sick and tired of seeing the few privileged people are making more and more and the rest less and less. The actual status quo has made that possible. "Liberal Democracy" is a joke when one sees, for instance, that the very people that created the US financial crisis are all well and alive instead of being jailed. It makes me sick when I see that more than 80% of the corporations that attend DAVOS have their companies and accounts in fiscal paradises. What the author calls "Liberal Democracy" allows that to happen because even president Obama has recognized that in the US the legal system has loop-holes that make that possible. I am a liberal but I believe in social solidarity with responsibility and it makes me feel sick when I see that we live in a system in which the needs of the economy drives our lives. I believe that the needs of mankind should drive the economy; the economy should be at our service, not the other way around. It is funny that the "complexity" of the liberal democracy plays always in favour of the richer and always against the common folks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
B Wilds Oct 31, 2016

Over the last several years the "stop globalization" movement has gained support in developed countries across the world. Currently, the forces against globalization are growing stronger, globalization seems to be a magnet pulling blame for many of the problems we see across the planet.

The subject of globalization is made up of many threads interwoven in a complex way, the discussion can include several issues such as, but not limited to, immigration and free trade. Other social concerns also feed into the mix, things like global warming, nationalism, inequality, even population growth. The article below delves into the merits of this movement.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/07/is-stop-globalization-movement-justified.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 30, 2016

Andrés Velasco gives an insight into populism, which he says is not always economically motivated. Some of its supporters are not poor, uneducated, unemployed, middle-aged, and victims of free trade, globalisation, and immigration. According to Princeton political scientist, Jan-Werner Müller, "it is about representation – who gets to speak for the people and how." The reason why populist leaders can garner support is that they simplify issues that many care about, but that political elites want to avoid discussing - immigration or budget cuts etc.
The author mentions Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg speech: “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” which seems to be at odds with "modern representative democracy." Populists are adherents of direct democracy, who reject "voting in an election every four years for candidates chosen by party machines" which is "not exactly what Lincoln’s lofty words call to mind." They justify their raison d'être, saying they "fulfill" promises "broken" by elected politicians. They claim they "speak and act" directly for the people, without "delegation and representation," allowing people to express their will in "plebiscites and referenda" and decide selected policies.
The downside of populism is that it "rests on a toxic triad: denial of complexity, anti-pluralism, and a crooked version of representation." Critics like the late Ralf Dahrendorf said: "populism is simple; democracy is complex. To populists, there is only one right view – that of the people." Anyone with a different view fears exclusion, due to the alleged lack of "morality" - as seen by Aristotle. There is a clear distinction between "us" and "them" - "those who hold the right view about the world are moral; the rest are immoral, lackeys of a corrupt elite." This "particular moralistic interpretation of politics" is an uncompromising stand, which leads to a polarised political culture.
Leaders like Ecuador's Rafael Correa, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Russia's Vladimir Putin are products of "illiberal democracy." They had been democratically elected, yet their worldviews are "anti-democratic," and pose "a threat to democracy itself."
The author urges democrats to "beat populists at their own game. The toxic triad can become salutary." To start with democrats need to "acknowledge complexity. The only thing that upsets voters as much as being lied to is being treated like babies. People who lead challenging lives know that the world is complex. They do not mind being told that. They appreciate being spoken to as the grownups they are." This will only work if voters are enlightened and rational. Besides, those less educated and less intelligent, have long been indoctrinated by media outlets, whose content is being presented at an elementary school level.
Second, "do not treat diversity of views and identities as a problem calling for a technocratic solution. Rather, make respect for such diversity a profoundly moral feature of society. The fact that we are not all the same and we can still get along is a tremendous democratic achievement....And do not fall for the tired cliché that reason is for democrats and emotion is for populists. Make the case for pluralistic democracy." In fact populists are the ones who embrace homogeneity and see the urgency to curb diversity and dissent.
Third, "defend – and update – representation. Leave delegation to complex technical matters. Take advantage of modern technologies to bring other choices.....closer to voters. Tighten campaign finance laws, regulate lobbying better, and enforce affirmative-action measures to ensure that representatives are of the people and work for the people." Indeed, it is important to keep representative democracy alive. The Brexit vote has proved America's Founding Fathers right about the consequences of an uninformed public benefiting from direct democracy and shaping policies on a particular issue.
The author makes the point - not all promises can be fulfilled in a democracy, and one can't "expect a single set of simple actions to solve a complex problem. Nor can we believe that we alone can fix it. If we believed that, we would be populists. For the sake of democracy, that is precisely what we should not be."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stephen Gwynne Oct 30, 2016

Populism is a corrective in relation to liberalism and its two fundamental problems.

There are two fundamental problems with liberalism as it is currently practiced, both of which can be discerned when we take a closer look at the oft stated sentiment of live and let live.

Liberalism evolved from humanism which as a body of thought and a way of life reinterpreted religious ideas around natural order and natural rights into the right to self-preservation and the golden rule (the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself). This humanist interpretation of natural rights respectively consists of both negative (oblige inaction) and positive (oblige action) dimensions which together confer both rights and responsibilities onto individuals.

However over time the positive dimension of responsibility was incrementally dropped in favour of the negaive dimension of rights which became formulated as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the American Constitution. Around the same time, the Enlightenment interpretation of natural rights (liberalism) led to a somewhat different conclusion in terms of liberty, equality and fraternity but still the positive dimension of responsibility was not as clear as the negative dimension of rights.

As a result we now have an economic and a social liberalism which both emphasize inaction (with state mediation) to allow people their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with no accompanying sense of responsibility that ones' pursuit of happiness may actually cause harm and damage to others.

This is the current state of play with the EU's four economic freedoms and its Convention on Human Rights. They do not require right-holders to consider the implications of their pursuits for happiness. In other words the EU and liberalism in general promotes irresponsible liberty. Therefore the first fundamental problem with current liberalism is that it does not incorporate the positive dimension of responsibilty in the form of the golden rule.

The second and more fundamental problem with liberalism and its live and let live sentiment is that it does not take into consideration the ecological reality of the life/death relationship between all lifeforms. As such liberalism is an idealistic abstraction divorced from ecological realities which is why liberalism (and human rights) can only ever be abstracted to humans (and human pets) only.

Thus liberalism is fundamentally speciest in its outlook, maybe not in theory but certainly in practice, since to extend negative rights to all life forms would result in the collapse of food chains. Therefore liberalism is strictly anthropocentric and as such, as an ideological paradigm is unable to address problems of an ecological nature, which it can be argued will become more pronounced as the liberalism of humanity destroys the environment more and more.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Antonio Vives Oct 30, 2016

One of the lessons of the campaigns of Trump and Sanders and other populists around the world, and the results of Brexit is that there is a large portion of the population that only cares about their very local issues and the fact that some policies bring economic progress "in the aggregate" is irrelevant for them. They only care the impact of those policies on their very small portion of the world, about their narrow interests. Experts and pundits can talk to themselves in very "rational and logical" terms, with their frame of mind "it makes sense". But they do not speak nor understand the language of the masses. These masses do not think in their “rational and logical” ways. And if this happens in developed countries, imagine the case of lesser developed countries and politically and economically uneducated populations. The prescriptions of Mr. Velasco are “rational and logical” for the experts and the readers of his article, but do not communicate with the masses of populists, they would either not understand or disregard his three recommendations or will not reach them. They cannot “acknowledge complexity”, will not understand that “diversity a profoundly moral feature of society”. And finally: “ensure that representatives are of the people and work for the people”, isn’t this the way we elect representatives under the current system? The problem is in the representatives themselves. We have discovered, and technical advances in information have awaken the most basic instincts of the people that felt themselves outside of the mainstream. In the US we have discovered that there is a different frame of mind outside of the elites of Boston, New York, Washington, San Francisco, LA and there is West Virginia, Tennessee, North Dakota, etc.
- Christine Constable Nov 27, 2016
  
  "That only cares about their very local issues" Come on, you are sounding like a Marxist with the Utopian view Communism will be a great success because man is totally altruistic and will put his neighbour before himself REALLY? What world did you grow up in and please remove your blinkers. Do you imagine for a nano second the Germans have any other interest other than the Germans to cultivate and extend every morning they go to work? Do you really think the French worry more about the poor in Africa than they do about their 35 hour week and their own children? Do you REALLY believe that because we have created something called the EU that magically we are all one happy clappy family where the British are content to put their own children out on the street so they can house homeless Hungarian gypsies or economic migrants from Eastern Europe? I am sorry, but if you truly believe these ridiculous views and challenge nations for wanting to look after themselves and their kind in a hostile and unforgiving world I am here to remind you you do not live in paradise. Yes, of course we have a veneer of civility, but this will soon disappear when our own sick can't get a hospital bed; our own children can't afford the fees for a university education, or when millions try and claim free healthcare to which they have never contributed. In the end it is all about proportionality. What people put in, what people take out and not the Marxist credo from those that have to those that haven't - that sort of analysis belies a terrible truth, that some nations work a damn sight harder than some others, and some societies will take the pain of austerity while most will reject it, that some nations are far less corrupt and a lot more efficient at collecting taxes while others are lax and lazy - where is the fairness in this? One size does not fit all, and if you imagine that those that work hard and do the right things should over compensate for those that don't work hard and don't do the right things then you are very much mistaken and you are wrong - and therein lies the failure of neo-liberalism the basis on which it creates these "freedoms" and "generosity of spirit" are flawed the playing field is not equal and the donors to Europe feel used and abused and it is that belief that we are being robbed by elites and freeloaders which has soured the atmosphere and the fact the EU refuses to acknowledge this abuse will destroy the EU because it is unjust to those that work hard and pay their taxes.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Oct 30, 2016

"Populism is not about taxation (or jobs or income inequality). It is about representation – who gets to speak for the people and how."
Populism is a search for representation by those who feel excluded from the existing dispensation. The predatory activities by the financial sectors which precipitated the Great Recession have provided the basis for the critique of the globalization. Those who have no/little stake in the existing order and who have yet to be persuaded by globalization's advocates will find populist appeals attractive. Why would these people display confidence in elites who have displayed the incompetence that triggered the crisis?
Populism is not about taxation (or jobs or income inequality). It is about representation – who gets to speak for the people and how.
Adolf Hitler's rise was facilitated by the fact that he persuaded a disillusioned population that the post-1919 architects of the German and international order - the Weimar Republic, the British, the French, and the Americans - were not to be trusted to protect the German people.
Populism thus became an engine of history.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Per Kurowski Oct 30, 2016

That regulatory protectionism can both keep our banks safe and allocate credit well, is pure and unabridged technocratic populism

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-does-imf-never-mention-that-credit.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
john Fahy Oct 30, 2016

The author seems to conveniently dodge the issue of corruption.
Such as political machines and administrations are owned and run by corporations.
This after all is what the voters are to say the least a little peeved at.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark Rothschild Oct 29, 2016

Populism is and always has been an epithet uttered whenever the rich suspect someone is coming after their privileges. Who hasn’t noticed that democracy such as it is has become plutocracy, or worse bureaucracy?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tomas Ramirez Oct 29, 2016

Ha ha ha The oligarchy feels fear
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Oct 28, 2016

Populism develops because the elites fail.
They do not listen to the voters. They fail in explaining the complex issues. Often voters understand issues better than the elites. Because the elites are blind for the facts, as they feel they have to think politically correct. Also elites are guided by their own private interest instead of that of the citizen.
Some European examples where elites do not listen despite massive resistance, over many years, from the people:
- Unlimited mass immigration
- Unlimited expansion of the EU responsiblities
- Expansion of the EU with Turkey and others
So I think populism is a great tool to correct a malfunctioning democracy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schneider Oct 28, 2016

The problem with this article is that it is not the populists who deprive the people from their democratical rights - but the elitists. To prove this point, let's try the same argumentation exactly the other way round - and get to the exactly same conclusion:

Those who hold the right view about the world are moral; the rest are immoral, lackeys of nasty populists - this is the elites' way of thinking. Most of us belive that the existence of a plurality of views about what to do is both natural and legitimate. The elites deny that. So elitism is a kind of identity politics. It is always us against them. The claim is to exclusive representation. Remember Merkel's boast in her adress to the German parliament: "There is no alternative." No need for parliaments endlessly debating: the unitary will of the elites can easily be expressed without any vote. Hence the elites' love affair with constitutional breaches and the rejection of referenda. Viewed in this light, elitism is not a useful corrective to a democracy as Mario Draghi, Angela Merkel, Martin Schulz, or assorted Western intellectuals want you to believe. On the contrary, it is profoundly anti-democratic, and hence a threat to democracy itself.

What is to be done? My take is that democracy must (and can) prevail in the end.

First, acknowledge complexity. The only thing that upsets voters as much as being lied to is being neglected. Respect the will of the Greek/Spanish/Italian/French people against austerity and the will of the German/Dutch/Baltic people against uncontrolled transfer union and the will of the Visegrad people against uncontrolled multiculturalism. They appreciate being spoken to as the grownups they are.

Second, do not treat diversity of views and identities as a problem calling for a technocratic solution like the "EU". Rather, make respect for such diversity in Europe a profoundly feature of our political system. The fact that Greeks and Germans, Italians and Dutch are not the same and can still get along without forced currency union is a tremendous democratic achievement. Make the case for it. Make the case for pluralism in Europe in a way that inspires and stirs emotion.

Third, defend - and update - representation. Leave delegation of complex matters to democratically legitimated parliaments in Berlin and Athens and not to bureaucrats in Brussels without any democratic legitimation (and do not try to govern with overwhelming majorities against your political ideas). Take advantage of modern technologies to bring other choices – particularly those having to do with the fabric of daily life – closer to the elites.

We cannot expect a single set of simple actions to solve a complex problem. Nor can we believe that we alone can fix it. If we believed that, we would be elites. For the sake of democracy, that is precisely what we should not be.
- M M Oct 28, 2016
  
  Is this the same Peter Schneider of PS?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee Oct 28, 2016
  
  +1
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Henk Crop Oct 28, 2016
  
  Peter,
  Very well put
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Oct 27, 2016

The problem with such articles is that those writing them seem to take it for granted that a gold standard called "democracy" exists.
But it doesn't.

According to the definitions listed in the article each and every politician, leader in the world today qualifies for the title "populist".
Each and every one of them from the far left through the centre to the far right distorts facts and "truth" in their own favour, and uses every possible "non-democratic" tool to justify themselves and win elections at all cost.

The so called "populists" are rising because the "democrats" have become completely disconnected from the population solely focusing on markets and financial institutions.
People are not protesting against the notion of "globalization" - which is not man made but an evolution state we evolved into - but they are protesting against the way it is used.

At the end of the way it is completely irrelevant what ideology or system we are trying, who the actual "democrats and populists" are, as long as our inherently self-serving, self-justifying nature keeps distorting it.

First we need to look into mirror, accept who we are and then start working on "applying make-up", learning, mutually together how - above and despite our selfish, egoistic nature - we can still build mutually responsible and mutually complementing cooperations.
Not on moral or ideological grounds, but because without them we will not survive.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ernesto Garcia Oct 27, 2016

Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others said Winston Churchill.

The Chilean Left is absolutely obsolete. Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error. (Somebody famous said that and it stuck in my mind) .

And I will quote a phrase, not from a famous man, but mine, your humble servant:

Qualitas maxima populi ignorantia

What Mr Velasco (who is unreachable by email) has stated as a primary goal of the political party he is creating is absolutely, if not absurdly, impossible.

Summarizing: "Total transparency and a break of money from politics"

To the best of my knowledge, politics has always, since the beginning of time, worked with money and favors. Just take a look at the current US electoral process. It is covered in money and, most likely, the candidate who has invested those millions of dollars and promises more wisely, from a marketing point of view, will reap the higher rewards. And the more money you invest in your campaign, the higher the possibility of getting elected if you spend it well.

Money and politics are inseparable. Mr. Velasco's proposals in this area are a chimera. And I am quite sure that Mr. Velasco is perfectly aware of this for he is a highly intelligent person.

Maybe he is beginning to sow the first necessary seeds to become popular and grab a chance to capture the necessary votes for a future presidential election in his country.

People are almost sure of whom the two mainstay candidates will be in that country's next election. But Mr. Velasco is a much better man than the other two, and also has experience in how Government works.

And, make no mistake Mr. Velasco, you will need money and you won't want to be transparent. Populism is an excellent quality to have when running for high office. Unfortunately, in my own honest opinion, Mr. Velasco, you lack the necessary charisma.

Which means that more money and promises of favors and, unfortunately, false promises to the people, will be necessary.
I believe that you are, by fa,r the best president Chile could have at this time . Mr. Velasco, please don't give up.

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated non-persons.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

Don't let your country fall again in another mess. Although it is extremely difficult for your country to fall again in Marxist-Leninist hands, current policies are pointing that way.

When the US government declassified some old State Department documents, including some transcripts of Nixon tapes, one of them from 1970 grabbed my attention. It was part of a conversation where Dr. Kissinger (former Secretary Of State) told Mr. Nixon the following: " I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issue is much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves ".

I share that opinion. I have stated in my blog that the AVERAGE voter is mediocre. It is a pity I ignore Mr. Velasco's email address in order to have sent him my blog address where I comment on some political issues.

If Mr. Velasco takes the time and patience to read the comments in this publication, including mine, I would greatly appreciate receiving his email address, or that of a close associate of his, who could transmit my ideas.

If at all possible, please email me to egalexandersson at gmail dot com, some email address which could reach you.

I have also had Government experience in two South American countries as well as college degrees and professorships.

Your country is different from European countries.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Oct 27, 2016

The title given to this piece does not do it justice.

There is more here than the usual strawman analysis of what motivates supporters of populist movements, though that's here too. I'll do the author the favor of ignoring it.

The "what is to be done" section deserves serious consideration.

The heart problem isn't that democracy is delivering populists. The problem, to risk simplifying, is that the "middle" approach, social democracy, which used to provide a reasonable alternative between deregulationists and collectivists of various kinds (leftists, nationalists, etc), has been eliminated and the deregulationists have taken the "center", during my entire adult life, at least.

The danger that is being presumed, I suppose, is that the leftists and the nationalists will join forces, and destroy all the good things the deregulationists have built.

In reality, what the deregulationists built isn't all that great, firstly. Secondly, the leftists are nearly non-existent, and the nationalists will end up dominating, and will end up bringing their own friends from among the deregulationists on board. With the result of further discrediting the deregulationist movement when they inevitably wreck things.

That's a crappy way to get where we're going, but the alternative (deliberate compromise, acknowledgment that the deregulationist school is in large part a fraud) - that alternative is slow in coming.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Oct 27, 2016

Do the Davos men and women really hold this dramatically simplistic view of populism in the West?

A significant portion the people's discontent is grounded in the feeling that their governments are no longer "of, by and for" the people -- and not just in trade and economic terms, but in general.

Not surprisingly, different people react differently to their feeling of disenfranchisement. The fact that "Davos men and women" seem limited in their ability to understand this in other than economic terms is very near the heart of the people feelings of frustration and anger. They need to stop seeing the people as economic objects and start regarding them as -- well, "people."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rick Puglisi Oct 27, 2016

Populism is simple. When a foreign country invades, the people unite as one to fight a common enemy. When it is defeated it goes back to normal. The rise in populism is because we recognize the global elite as a threat. Democracy is consensus. US Constitution uses 67%, US Senate uses 60%. Regulations that significantly affect peoples lives should require consensus not special interest paybacks to the global elite.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Oct 27, 2016

It’s a good piece, kudos to Mr. Velasco.

But like you told, populism works both ways. I'm a Euroceptic and for many years, and in most of the countries, populism is accepting the Euro without any discussion, the voice of the people.

In Europe, populism was/is austerity; populism is/was the debt and deficit obsession, populism is/was the structural reforms fobia (i.e. wage decrease).
- Jose araujo Oct 27, 2016
  
  By the way, most of the anti-protectionism champions are the ones advocating for stricter laws on copyrights and intellectual property… free trade of goods and services and protectionism for ideas…
  
  If that is populism maybe it is hypocrisy…
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Oct 27, 2016

Great article, Mr. Velasco.

It is not obvious to me, however, that electorates behave as maturely as you suggest.

From afar it is bizarre to see US and UK "forgotten" white population revealing against globalization, the same that has been imposed mercilessly on the rest of the world in the last decades. At this moment they are revealing against their own countries' strengths.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Myers Oct 27, 2016

Typical global elitist collectivist/communist/communitarian/socialist meme.

Needs to take a course in individualism and free markets
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/6RXxrlB/ar;

قلب الشعبوية المناهض للديمقراطية

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

The New Disappeared

The New and Not Improved NAFTA

The Big Blockchain Lie

Does Modi Have a Pakistan Policy?

America’s Ongoing Civil War

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

America’s Ongoing Civil War

PS. Explain This: The Animal Spirits of Women Entrepreneurs

The Brexit Endgame

Just Say No to Agricultural Gene Drives

The US-Saudi Relationship After Khashoggi

An AI Wake-Up Call From Ancient Greece

The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Self-Fulfilling Financial Crises

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register