Populism is the slur term used by those who don't like what is being said. Often used by those people who believe they know better then others.

The reality is in a democracy all parties aim to be populist, because without popular support you don't get elected.

There is a simple distinction between populism and elitism. Populism is democratic; elitism is totalitarian. Any discussion as to which is 'best' is absurd – elitist. This over-long article is elitist. All you need to know is that:

Populism is: “A political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people”

That was probably written by an elitist, who deems most people to be 'ordinary' and to have 'prejudices', “...opinions(s) formed beforehand, esp an unfavouble one based on INADEQUATE FACTS...”.

The elitists, on the other hand, don't have prejudices; they have 'opinions' based on their 'gifts' and and 'high education'.

The elities currently wrecking this country don't seem to be conspicuous for their 'gifts' or 'high education'.

The writer denigrates democracy (rule of the people by the people for the people) by noting the small size of the ancient Greek republic and a couple of Swiss cantons using it. It fails to scale up, the elitist writer claims.

Well it scales up OK in California, with a much higher population than Australia and which operates Binding Citizen-Initiated Referenda (BCIR).

If we had it in Australia we wouldn't be saddled with the highly regressive GST brought in by representative government which is rule of the people by the political parties for those who purchase them.

Swiss style Direct Democracy is not only true democracy, allowing you a say in what happens in your street, to what happens in the nation, but also is less expensive, more efficient and effective than our broken 200 Westminster system, which was designed to accommodate The Lords on the UK during transition to democracy. Our so-called 'representative government' system does not really represent what the populace wants, but is closer to representing what the PM wants.
The origins of Australian democracy started as Direct Democracy in the townhalls and miner's meeting places in Ballarat. Pity we never stuck to this form of democracy

The last election was a perfect example of a two faced extremist person wanting to be elected for his own unannounced agenda.
We had an election run on lies to suite the populous, for a specific reason, we largely only heard from one person. We were completely overtaken by the wording and heartfelt policies of this man.

Whe vote was an abnormal proportion in favor of policies that were all a fraud. A set up to defraud the people of Australia.
The person sprucing all of the fraudulent lies was in fact a totalitarian. He had no compassion for the people for Australia and proved his agenda was to drag the people that voted for this man into poverty stricken hell.

This man still roams the corridors of our parliament without any assault from his own party members.

This is where our parliament has denigrated to. Where it is possible to lie your way to power, be removed, and still be a parliamentarian with full entitlement.

It is going to take a change of govt to bring this fraud to justice.

The elites will not allow us CIRs; they deem us to be too ordinary and prejudiced to handle full democracy.

Hey Doog who do you mean "Two faced person", Billie Shorten? The man who famously negotiated a lower rate for some of his Union members from one employer so the employer could go under any opposition quote. Is that the one you are talking about?

Yes Doog, who are you talking about? There are too many 'two faced' politicians (probably 99.9% of them) for us to guess who you mean.

There seems to be some confusion here about terms. 'Populism' doesn't necessary mean 'for the people', but more likely 'popular' but unachievable, and the politician involved knows it.

Hence, for example, Trump is a populist: he promises what people may want to hear, bringing jobs back, building a wall, stopping immigration, sticking it to China, etc., but when it comes down to it, any half-intelligent politician would know that these 'popular' ideas won't fly.

I'm not suggesting that Trump is half-intelligent, that's too much of a compliment, but simply that he blows in the winds of popular aspirations, whichever way they blow. Most populist presidents would have the sense to slowly turn popular demands around towards reality, what can be really achieved, and sweet-talk his constituency over.

Of course, Trump's mind seems to work differently, even uniquely: if he thinks something is a good idea, it's already half- or even fully-achieved. He can move on. It probably comes as a surprise to him that the Wall hasn't already been completed, since, after all, he thought about it so hard. Perhaps his next book could be titled, "From Thought Bubble to Reality in One Easy Step".

So maybe he's a pseudo-populist - he actually believes his own bullsh!t ?

Grotesque, but constantly intriguing. Like the most ghastly reality TV show.

Which it is, of course .......

Joe

Hi Joe. I see some of your thinking is still controlled by a hang over of youthful socialist dreams.

As for the article, could anything be more obvious than Max is an elite legal academic who most definitely believes he knows best what is good for us peasants. Here he is trying desperately to avoid admitting it to his readers & thus alienate them.

I am almost, but not quite yet ashamed to admit to my BSc. I would be highly unlikely to admit to a law or economics degree, if I had one.

Trump, Brexit, & even the French election are combining to give even the great waffler, Turnbull the guts to start to cut a few percent of the fat from academia. Looks like the brethren are getting worried.

Hi Hasbeen,

Possibly - thanks for the compliment of still being 'youthful'. Curse these striking good looks.

But all of this is not just a matter of either/or: i.e. that everybody is either one or the other, a populist or an elitist. Neither improves conditions for genuine democracy. Neither Trump nor Clinton would have led the US to a shining future.

I've railed against elitism in Indigenous affairs often enough. My obsession with MASS higher education is predicated on an assumption that mass education cripples elitism: it's one thing to control a handful of aspiring students, often relations, to groom them for elite positions (Ralph Turner wrote a brilliant article about this back in 1960:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089982?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

but it's quite another to try to co-opt and 'induct' thousands at a time.

Currently, close to three thousand Indigenous people are graduating each year, but what does the elite keep doing, so it seems ? Focus on those students enrolled in higher degrees, often relations, a group which is much smaller (not for much longer) and therefore easier to suck into elite control systems. But with around 42,000 graduates already, the elites really are like the little boy with his finger stuck in the dyke wall, and, I suspect, still blissfully unaware that it could burst at any moment.

As it happens, even the elites in Indigenous education downcry Indigenous success in higher education: a Review in 2012 used only data up to 2005. Total graduate numbers have more than doubled since 2005, from 19,000 to 42,000, with a much higher proportion in straight, mainstream degree-level courses.

Of course, populism and elitism are not necessarily opposites: the Indigenous elites reach over the working population to pander to the more 'cultural' 'communities' - in other words, they try to be populist AND elitist simultaneously. I don't recall many in the Indigenous elites supporting Bill Leak in his wonderful, courageous cartoon criticising 'community' life and its devastating effects on young people.

So a pox on both populism AND elitism, Hasbeen :)

Joe

Good point Emperor Julian. Citizens’ Initiated referenda could play a useful role in Australia, and I have supported this idea in past articles.

They are needed to achieve reforms which are in the public interest but opposed by both major parties. An example of a much-needed reform is the refusal of major parties to put limits on political donations.

Another is the need to take the power to declare war from the Prime Minister and give it to the representatives of the people in Parliament. It would have been a big help on many important issues of principle in recent years, including same-sex marriage, the Apology and the Iraq War.

But these are all exceptional cases. If a government had to hold plebiscites for every major policy it proposes nobody would have time for anything else.

Max Atkinson

BCIR doesn't mean referenda on all issues. CIR means citizen-initiated and that means a substantial petition for a referendum is necessary, as in California. BCIR would probably lead to the demise of the Theft Tax on goods and services, for starters. It's the Democrat senators selling out their electors that led to the demise of their party.

Populism as it is typically used as a pejorative for promising the world and ignoring the consequences. Typically promising more services, lower taxes, and lower debt such as left whinge parties are wont to do.