The Psychological Myth of Creating Different Sides in a Democratic Polity: Why the Same Methods

There has been a historical tradition in the world, from the developing to the developed states, whether it was monarchic, dictatorial or democratic or maybe tribalistic, where the rise of populism has been a special method. There exists some traces or backup of some ideological perspective among groups or individuals, which is opaquely led by the method of populism. It seems quite interesting to me because I see that populism isn’t the treasure of the right. Even the Left used it. The best feature of populism is that its methodological ethos is useful by embracing popularity as collectivism, with an opaque or blind understanding of different incidents and demands. It does not require to be political nor social. It can work anywhere — from business to government sectors.

It is conceived that there exists a circle of politics, which creates some common kinds of statehoods — which are a democracy, monarchy, aristocracy, dictatorship and oligarchy. We generally materialize political will towards the limitation of directives and solutions in our hand, which is true. When we have a situation, where people need some space, they show resistance. Resistance indeed is not bad. It exists by the need to relinquish the obstacles. However, is it not that we follow the same trend? It is true that some level of resistance is a dire need. However, I do not support the remnant systems, which do not encourage democratically relevant dissents. It is true that there exists paradoxes towards instituting and defining how liberty in different dimensions should work out. We fight for this for years and recalibrate it in many ways. The role of majoritarianism is thereby realized as very essential and delicate because an ecosystem of majoritarianism is not about dominance in democratic systems — it is about responsibility at the peril of the majority themselves. The majoritarian scope and representation itself are not always defined by numbers in democratic systems but by the weight of action and outcome. That is why — the mindful ideas which enrich the perspective of what a democracy really is being cultivated in the minds of learners something of core institutive value. I do not wish to entail into the Darwinist and Hobbesian perspective of human life, because it might be a side of reflection, while it is very meagre and incomplete.

The simple pragmatism we can seek in a record of our own observance will have a reality sought and not an idealism imposed. We tend to be idealistic and protectionist as homo sapiens, which I appraise as the constructive nature of human society. We do not build something to destroy: we create and preserve so that our anthropological purpose exists. That is the core nature of a constitution and was estimated when the idea of mandatory multilateralism was encouraged throughout the world after 1945. Nation-states were more interested into thinking about internationalising themselves and entering into some collaborative relationships. Globalization boosted that. So, if we went wrong, that is something because we believe in a circle of polity, which populism explains properly.

Populism in Globalization: Beyond Consumerism, Fake News and Misinformation & Identity Politics

So, anyone could say that democracy is a mess because the majority may turn Orwellian or worse and this concept itself can be shaken by populism. However, populism has always been a communication strategy sometimes as a general course of political resistance or political activism. People think it has to do with ideology. To some extent, yes — it has relations with the ideology of conceptions. Examples include nationalist politics prominently. Then it may include any other identity-related issue — which is encouraged. Also — identity is not to be taken into a general sense, because in the case of populist approaches to any phenomenon or problem, you can make anything an identity. Like — the Indian National Congress was accused of creating identity politics under Nehru via bidding the Hindus while promoting secularism as if it is collaterally intact. Despite the accusation’s tiniest certainty, the INC government must be credited for providing avenues to a Modern India, even if they were not perfect. Barack Obama can be condemned for his half-hearted approach to globalized trade in Asia, his popularity among the immigrants and failure in Syria — but his reforms in other areas of foreign policy and public welfare have been memorable and important. But these are examples in which we see that leaders have tried to stabilize situations. Irrespective of this — let us take note at Emmanuel Macron, the French President. He is regarded as a liberal guardian of the European Union, who promotes free trade, encourages immigrants and is an open person near to Justin Trudeau of Canada. Nevertheless, we should never forget that Macron acts a catalyst to the left and the right in France — and becomes the subject of ridicule and frustration not like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson — but maybe even harder and more grilled. The French youth encourage the populist gilet jaunes not just due to the propaganda machinery reportedly under servile assistance by Russian non-state actors. There are basic concerns in France like those over Islamophobia, migrants and culture, but apart from these — economic anxiety is also taken harshly against Macron, like an identity factor. People show resistance by their populist methods and term Macron as anti-development with other woes. Justin Trudeau is suffering the wrath of populism, even if he did best to Canada, just because of his contradictory policies and falling into the politics of immigration and not adjusting a pragmatic (not ideal) perspective over climate change despite his impressive achievements in Canada over environmental protection. Let us take one more example and end this. Theresa May in her long career has been a great politician, an outspoken Conservative party leader and a great aide to David Cameroon. She was against Brexit and tried her best to get a proper deal with the EU. Still — little due to the webbed politics of leave and remain due to Nigel Farage, Jacob-Rees Mogg and Boris Johnson and the inconsistent support of the Tories, she failed. We should not ignore her failures with respect to the Deal she made — but populism garnered differently in the UK — a country of common sense, where Socialist and Conservative parties discussed under the apprehension from the British people that things must have common sense.

However, the inference from all these examples is — we create anything as an identity factor and use the communication ethos of populism to influence people. Still — the influence isn’t viable unless the ideological backup is strong enough.

Let us Think beyond selfishness & Be More Intelligent: Not Machinically But by Pragmatic & Strategic Approaches to Reality

Let us stop restricting ourselves to petty issues. There is still a lot to be achieved.

Host, Indus Think | Founder of Think Tanks & Journals | AI-Global Law Futurist | YouTuber | Views Personal on the Indus Think Blog