Populism – more than just fun to say
My most political revelation ever: I’m a populist
OK, I’m not sure I’m a traditional populist, but I’m expropriating the word and it’s basic definition to describe what I believe.
In truth, I don’t want to have the discussion about the systems that govern my province or country. I think they’re broken. Addressing them is for another blog, one I’m not sure I’ll ever write.
When I say “populist,” I don’t mean in a political arena. I mean in relationships. I mean in how we trust and respect the people around us.
Populist means to trust the wisdom and judgement of the people. It implies also that we’re going to be wary and distrustful of the elite, the ones who profess to have the answers and directions already laid out for us. In a political setting, a populist is saying “remove the government and let the people directly have a stronger voice.” It’s a little more organized than anarchy, but it’s in that direction.
The problem with populism, though, is that it doesn’t account for tyranny of the majority. Without some leadership (and possibly by elites) we’d never have made a lot of advances like respect for minority rights (abolishment of slavery in the US for example) or something many Canadians value – healtcare. Another, less philosophical, problem with populism, I think, is that human beings are generally change-resistant and there are a lot of good things we wouldn’t have without someone leading change.
Great comment Cammy, I love “tyranny of the majority.” I can absolutely see that a wide-open populist approach might create its own version of stasis and a hesitancy to go in new directions. However, there must be some way to to better access the intellect and wisdom of the group. Perhaps it’s idealist, but I think if we took a more populist approach, leadership would emerge that could take us in directions the “crowd” doesn’t envision. I want those leaders to be enlightened, forward-thinking individuals that naturally grow into positions of influence instead of the grey-haired, game-playing statesmen that get placed there artificially. I want leadership, not the illusion of leadership. Is there a name for that? Meritocracy?
Agreed (there must be a better approach)! I hated myself for writing that comment because I think what you’re getting at is fantastic. It’s interesting because democracies that have British-style systems (hierarchical, value on expertise) are less likely to be tyrannical but clearly a Republic-style democracy like that in the US does wonders for idea generation. I don’t think there is anyone who would argue with that. The trick is to find the right balance, I guess. Maybe it’s time for a generational leadership shift. Desperately seeking enlighteneed, forward-thinking individuals. We want to be inspired, we want to act, we want to feel empowered.