Liberal democracy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted
Line 254:
=== The threat of populism ===
There is no one agreed upon definition of populism, with a broader definition settled upon following a conference at the London School of Economics in 1967.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Berlin |first1=Isiah |last2=Schapiro |first2=Leonard |last3=Deakin |first3=F.W |last4=Seton-Watson |first4=Hugh |last5=Worsley |first5=Peter |last6=Gellner |first6=Ernest |last7=McRae |first7=Donald |title=Conference on Populism 1967 |journal=The London School of Economics |date=1967 |url=http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/102463}}</ref> Populism academically faces criticism as an ideology with calls from Academics to be abandon Populism as a descriptor due to its vagueness.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Serhan |first1=Yasmeen |title=Does anyone know what Populism means? Populism is meaningless |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/03/what-is-populism/607600/ |website=The Atlantic |publisher=The Atlantic}}</ref> It is typically not fundamentally undemocratic, but it is often anti-liberal. Many will agree on certain features that characterize populism and populists: a conflict between 'the people' and 'the elites', with populists siding with 'the people'<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mudde|first=Cas|date=2013|title=Are Populists Friends or Foes of Constitutionalism?|url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:fc657de0-ab0c-4911-8d2b-646101599b65|journal=The Social and Political Foundations of Constitutions|via=ORA}}</ref> and strong disdain for opposition and negative media using labels such as 'fake news'.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cooke |first1=Nicole |title=Fake News and Alternative Facts : Information Literacy in a Post-Truth Era |date=2018 |publisher=Chicago: ALA Editions |url=https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.uea.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=4fc04e42-38bd-47d8-9e65-381c99e5daf6%40pdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=1867933&db=nlebk}}</ref> Populism is a form of majoritarianism, threatening some of the core principles of liberal democracy such as the rights of the individual. Examples of these can vary from Freedom of movement via control on Immigration, or perhaps opposition to Liberal Social Values such as gay marriage.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fitzgibbon |first1=John |title=Populists are not anti-democratic, they are anti-liberal democracy |journal=London School of Economics |ref=Populism has long been associated with opposition to immigration and liberal social values such as gay marriage. More recently, as they have grown in influence populists have come to focus their opposition to the ‘elite’ on the range of ancillary institutions and actors – such as the judiciary, media, academia – at the core of liberal democracy.}}</ref> Populists do this by appealing to the feelings and emotions of the people whilst offering solutions- often vastly simplified- to complex problems. Populism is a particular threat to the liberal democracy because it exploits the weaknesses of the liberal democratic system. A key weakness of liberal democracies highlighted in 'How Democracies Die',<ref>{{Cite book|title=How democracies die|last=Levitsky, Steven|others=Ziblatt, Daniel|isbn=978-0241381359|location=London|oclc=1084729957}}</ref> is the conundrum that suppressing populist movements or parties can be seen to be illiberal. The nature of Populism is to appeal to the people against the 'elites' in an 'us against them' type mentality. As a result, Populist movements often appeal to the Working Class and Middle Classes as these are the demographics who form most of the population and are in a position to 'punch up' in society against the 'elite'.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Pappas |first1=Takis |title=Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis |date=2019 |publisher=Oxford Scholarship Online |page=219 |ref=You are the famed average voter. If one party leader tells you that democracy is about institutions that serve the public good and another tells you that democracy is about the satisfaction of your own rights without regard to institutions, under what conditions will you prefer to rebuff the first leader and cast a vote for the second one? Answer: Unless of course you are a committed altruist, it is more likely that you will rate your individual rights higher than your preference for general institutional order under two conditions: You either are skeptical about the public utility of institutions or you have become convinced about the righteousness and moral superiority of your own individual claims. In both cases, and provided that a significant populist party exists in your country, it is likely that you feel attracted to it. You have a “populist mindset.”}}</ref> Moreover another reason why populism is a threat to Liberal Democracy is because it exploits the inherent differences between 'Democracy' and 'Liberalism'.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Enduring Vulnerability of Liberal Democracy|url=https://www.journalofdemocracy.com/articles/the-enduring-vulnerability-of-liberal-democracy/|access-date=2021-01-25|website=Journal of Democracy|language=en-US}}</ref> Furthermore, for liberal democracy to be effective, a degree of compromise is required<ref>{{Cite book|title=Anti-pluralism : the populist threat to liberal democracy|last=Galston, William A. (William Arthur)|others=Hunter, James Davison, Owen, John M. (John Malloy)|isbn=978-0300235319|location=New Haven|oclc=1026492265|year=2018}}</ref> as protecting the rights of the individual take precedence if they are threatened by the will of the majority, more commonly known as a tyranny of the majority. Majoritarianism is so ingrained in the populist ideology that this core value of a liberal democracy is under threat. This therefore brings into question how effectively liberal democracy can defend itself from populism.
Examples of populist movements can include the Brexit Campaign, 2016.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Norris |first1=Pippa |title=Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism |date=February 2019 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=368 |ref=The outcome of the Brexit referenda on 23 June 2016 generated international concern about the effects of populist forces, and stunned disbelief from Berlin to Paris that Britain had voted to withdraw from the European Union after more than four decades of membership.1 Brexit has been widely seen as a watershed signaling an end to the era of faith in the benefits of globalization, open labor markets, and European integration.}}</ref> The role of the 'elite' in this circumstance was played by the EU and 'London centric Liberals',<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dunin-Wasowicz |first1=Roch |title=London Calling Brexit: How the rest of the UK views the capital |journal=London School of Economics |date=November 2018 |ref=Some have blamed an out of touch ‘liberal metropolitan elite’, overwhelmingly concentrated in London or Westminster, for Brexit and the climate that led to it. These accusations have been most prominent, perhaps ironically, amongst equally ‘elite’ politicians and commentators in equally powerful positions, often based in London themselves.....Opinion polling has heavily suggested that the British public think that the UK is too centralised in Westminster and Whitehall – and that London benefits from unfair treatment as a result.}}</ref> while the Brexit campaign appealed to Working class industries, such as fighting, agriculture and industrial, who were worse off due to EU Membership. This case study also illustrates the potential threat Populism can pose a Liberal Democracy with the movement heavily relying on disdain for the media, this was done by labelling criticism of Brexit as 'Project Fear'.
 
== See also ==