You see it wrong.Populism is not a stand-alone trend. It is a symptom and has arisen because governments have ignored long-term understandable and justified annoyances of large parts of the population. They have continued with very unpopular policies, such as the public sector, the raising of burdens on the people and the reduction of taxes on business, the neglect of housing, weak policies in the field of tackling Illegal immigration and the flow of refugees who came to Europe from a safe country like Turkey. People are furious about the incompetence that speaks of it.
So you should not wonder what is the result of increasing populism, but what is the result of the persistent tendency to ignore the desires of large parts of the population and to worsen their fate by neoliberal government measures.
Populism is the fever, not the infection itself.
Tsja” ¦ The question is first of all natural… who or what are the popusts?Are these always those who tell loud how wrong the government is doing? Or perhaps that party who, for fear of runaway voters, makes a jerk to the right or left?
The term ‘ populist ‘ belongs in a serious competition, which is fed on content with arguments, actually not at home.Indeed, it is always used to make the declarable appear less relevant without going into the content. It is a kind of dished word. And with the ladies and gentlemen politicians, it is now Bon Ton to reject any critical opposition against the established order as populism.
So does populism really matter?Or are it only the ever more critical sounds about policy and society that sound ever more often and louder and where the established parties have no other answer to than ‘ Lalala ‘… populism?
The main consequence is that a valid protest voice is bent to Conspiracy Theories and fake solutions.
Populism derives its voices from the less fortunate population groups.PVV and FvD are successful because this group of people loses confidence in the established politics. A good example for this development is e.g. The SP that does not want to form a part of the government despite a victory. Another example is the PvdA who, with VVD, have pursued a pruning neo-liberal policy with decentralisations and privatisations.
The rich become richer and the poor become poorer, and there is no confidence in politics to adjust this.
In this vacuum where ever left-wing parties were, a few figures stepped forward that say they express the unpeace of the people.Actually, two theorems are the most important here: a) The government is a corrupt elite, and b) the foreigners make up the money.
But in reality this is not the core of the problem.Populist parties reject public dissatisfaction with fictional dangers.At the heart of the problem is that left-wing parties dissociate themselves from the concerns of the less fortunate citizen and especially ear for businesses and capital.So yes, the government is in a sense a corrupt elite, but it is more about the relationship that companies can handle with politics (e.g. Lobbyists, or the 40 commissions that some politicians hold on to it). Another part of the problem is found in the inability of a country to deviate from neoliberal policies, given this would lead to lower creditworthiness of the Dutch state and would target economic damage. This second point does not hear your populists.
But the migration policy is not an existential danger to the Dutch economy or to the Dutch culture.It is the deflecting of dissatisfaction so that the core of the problem is not touched. One of the least influential groups in the population, NML. ‘ The aliens ‘ are held responsible for the financial downward trend experienced by the low to middle incomes.
They are no different from the other politicians, and offer a nepopsolution. The populist parties are as well intertwined with their financial resources, and the only difference between these parties and ‘ the elite ‘ is that the latter is in governments.See e.g. The funding and/or support received by the PVV of Russia and Israel, or see e.g. Baudet suddenly deny climate change in order to have a little more claim to the business community just before the provincial elections. They are both not for social equality. Baudet specifically seems very much like libertarian free-market thinking oriented, which is particularly bad for lower incomes. Wilders is not clear in this, but he comes from the VVD.
In all honesty, they are also not unfair about their support for social equality.That should be clear when they start over minorities. I find it amazing that the indigenous vulnerable groups in the Netherlands seek their salvation in politicians who are rather seedy about concepts that affect the rule of law.
Populism claims the protest voice with half-truths.This is interesting for certain factions, mainly the richest. By fictional dangers, the core of dissatisfaction, namely growing income inequality and undermining the social safety net, is being rejected by vulnerable groups. Because populism claims the protest voice, it becomes an effective, sustainable, and in my opinion the most important, NML.Prevents a humane solution to public dissatisfaction. For what makes the populist different from the VVD, neoliberals and Liberarians?A story that blames the blame for international conspiracies (climate, EU, media conglomerate) and people with a different belief or skin tone.
What will ultimately be the influence of populism within the EU, and whether it is an existential danger to the EU or not, will prove over time.In the broadcast of Office abroad (Radio 1, 24 April 2019) about a possible populist spring in the EU it does not seem so hard to run: https://podcast.npo.nl/file/bure…
The consequence of increasing populism in Europe on the EU may be that the inhabitants of all the Member States are still looking for a connection to each other in all sorts of areas.
But the consequence may also be that the same inhabitants of all Member States do not want to seek interconnection.
Democracy is, by definition, populism.Most votes apply and if you can check the mood then you are well.
More democracy.”Populism” comes from “populus” or “people”. Populism therefore implies that the will and desire of the people is followed. And is that not the true “democracy” (demos Kratein, the People reigns)?