Wednesday 3 July 2019

I Am a Democrat ... and an Elitist

There is much talk about populism these days. The term has a variety of definitions, but the general idea is that society is separated into two groups at odds with one another—the mass of the people and a corrupt elite. The populist leader claims to represent the will of the people and stands opposed to their enemies who consist of the current political class, possibly other "elites" such as the traditional media, and usually a convenient scapegoat. Populism tends to be right-wing but not exclusively.

It is currently having good innings with the world's most important country firmly in the grip of the classic populist Donald Trump. In Europe, populist parties are making a lot of noise and of course there's Brexit, an example of populism in action. The main cheerleader of Brexit, Nigel Farage, recently created a new political party and did better in the EU elections than either of Britain's two major parties.

People do have justification for being unhappy with the current political regimes. We have been subject to rapid and sometimes what seems like overwhelming change: immigration, globalism, and technological innovation that renders millions of jobs redundant, all accompanied by stagnant incomes for most people with huge benefits for a few.

But you cannot either justify your grievances or solve your problems by electing demagogues, particularly buffoons like Donald Trump. Populist leaders, quite aside from their generally bad manners, rely on negative narratives—anti-elites, anti-politics, anti-foreigners and often anti-minorities. They dislike the complexity and the limitations of democracy and tend to undermine it. They prefer an authoritarian approach and promise simple solutions to complex problems. When citizens choose the route of populism, they sell themselves out.

But, as a democrat, do I not accept people's right to do stupid things? Of course I do. I am an ardent supporter of self-governance. Furthermore, I have confidence in the masses—but only when they are well-informed. When they are ill-informed they are capable of very stupid things indeed. They can, for instance, easily be roused into a mob, and they can run ardently into the arms of demagogues.

This is why I'm an elitist. If we are to be governed well, we must be governed by elites. Politics is no different than any other field of endeavour—the arts, science, the crafts, the professions, all must be led and inspired by the best if they are to excel. Without elites we would still be crouched around campfires gnawing on bones and shivering at the shadows.

The great thing about democracy is that we can choose our own elites, our own aristocracy if you like. We can elect representatives to form an elite, but only if we choose them wisely. We can elect highly competent people who familiarize themselves thoroughly with the issues and listen to all views before making decisions ... or we can elect populists.

Or we can become our own elite via direct democracy. I do not refer to referendums, perhaps democracy's poorest instrument (meat for another post). I refer to citizens' assemblies—randomly chosen groups of citizens brought together to decide an issue. If they are provided with ample material to immerse themselves in the relevant facts, hear a variety of views from experts and others, and spend time in face to face discussions before making their decision, they will become an elite and they will make a well-informed decision. Assemblies are an instrument that deserves much greater application in our democracies.

So we can elect an elite or we can become the elite. We have no excuse for abandoning ourselves to demagogues. We do indeed get the government we deserve.

2 comments:

Rural said...

Bill, you say “I Am a Democrat”, I presume you are “A Canadian Democrat” although I cannot be sure for you write about both sides of the border. I must admit that the above statement threw me so much that I had to look up the definition of 'democrat' where it says “a member of the Democratic Party.” a tag I associate entirely, perhaps wrongly, with the U.S. party of that name. However it also says “an advocate or supporter of democracy” a description which I fully endorse and embrace. I am a strong supporter of democracy but would never describe myself as a democrat for I would not wish to be associated with the cluster fk that is U.S. politics nowadays! Thoughts?

Bill Longstaff said...

I am most definitely referring to myself as a small-d democrat, Rural: "an advocate or supporter of democracy." No way will I surrender this proud term to the U.S. Democratic Party.