The rise of populism has rattled the global political establishment. Brexit came as a shock, as did the victory of Donald Trump. Much head-scratching has resulted as leaders seek to work out why large chunks of their electorates are so cross.
...
The answer seems pretty simple. Populism is the result of economic failure. The 10 years since the financial crisis have shown that the system of economic governance which has held sway for the past four decades is broken. Some call this approach neoliberalism. Perhaps a better description would be unpopulism.Unpopulism meant tilting the balance of power in the workplace in favour of management and treating people like wage slaves. Unpopulism was rigged to ensure that the fruits of growth went to the few not to the many. Unpopulism decreed that those responsible for the global financial crisis got away with it while those who were innocent bore the brunt of austerity.
2017 Davos says: The 99% should just try harder.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:03PM
"Populist party" is an oxymoron as old as Rome (the populares were the equivalent just before the collapse of the Republic). Factions ("parties") arise in oligarchies, systems of government where a few people (a senate, parliament, commission, etc.) are chosen by some criteria of worthiness ("the best candidate for the job") to make decisions and others to execute those decisions. Populism, in its purest form, belongs to democracy, the system of government in which people collectively (not through representatives, but directly) make decisions and executives are chosen by lot and in multiples that spread power broadly through the body of citizens.
A "populist party" is simply an oligarchic faction who enacts the will of the elite by pretending to champion the masses instead of pretending to superior qualifications.