If you look up the definition of populism in the dictionary it defines the word as "the elite versus the people". When one hears the word defined like that, one is automatically drawn to the word ... the many versus the few. It further gives a description of the 19th century populist party, and explains that these groups can be left or right wing in their thinking.
In fact 'populists' are nothing more than the 'have-nots' challenging the 'haves'. It becomes a challenge of the 'people' vs. the system. It could be said that, if there are enough populists, theoretically at least, more than 50%, then you could even call it a revolution. But what if there numbers are less than that? What then is the difference between them and anarchists?
In the 19th century, the populist party adopted a platform calling for free coinage of silver, abolition of national banks, a sub-treasury scheme or some similar system, a graduated income tax, plenty of paper money, government ownership of all forms of transportation and communication, election of Senators by direct vote of the people. That is about as left-wing as you can be without calling yourself a socialist or even, "heaven forbid", a communist.
Thus we can see that the term is not the same now as it was when it was first coined, and frankly, in my opinion, they are really no more that a bunch of selfish yahoos that want nothing more than to overhaul the system in their favour.
Let's not kid ourselves, that is how Hitler came to power. One person or a small group, taking advantage of public discontent, making use of people that have been left behind economically, for their own purposes. Forget the experts! They are the elite! Ignore the economists! What do they know? They are alarmist! Forget climate change! It is just a ploy from the rich to justify the price of oil!
Today we have the Supreme court deciding the fate of the next move in Brexit. Already the Judiciary are under fire from 'the people', which translated means the Brexiteers. They are interfering. But there are a number of key points that I would claim have already been made ... but somehow nobody is mentioning any more.
The point about government vs. the Parliament has already been answered. It was asked in 2016, when Gena Miller took the government to court and won. It was decided that there is no higher authority than the representatives of the people, namely Parliament.
The 'High Court' that decided that the prorogation of parliament was a matter for the politicians to sort out, and not the courts, is '*** Bullshit ***!' By making this call, they were in effect playing the political game, namely support BOJO. (Yes indeed - a clown doesn't deserve a real name). If a fight between government and parliament isn't one of politician vs. politician then I don't know what is! By defining prorogation as the right of the government and they can use it as they wish, they have , in essence, done two things.
(a) They have redefined prorogation in a way that it was never intended to be used.
- Let me give you an everyday example of what this is like, a simile if you will. This is like a kitchen knife that was used to stab someone. In court the lawyer holds that such a knife was designed and sold as a utensil for cutting food like meat and is therefore legal. Furthermore the person bought this legitimate utensil with his own money, so it cannot be illegal to stab someone.
(b) Allowing a super weapon to be used in this way, you have in fact redefined the role of parliament and government such that government is now supreme, and not parliament.
- Again let me give you an example that has the same effect. In a tennis match, two evenly matched opponents are in the final. During the match, one player goes across to the other side of the net, and by hitting his opponent hard on the leg with his racket, he manages to break his opponent's leg. The umpire looks at this, says this is violence a matter for the police, but since the player can no longer play the match, he forfeits the game and the other guy wins.
The High Court's decision was illogical, and frankly an abdication of its responsibilities. If the fight is between politicians, who else but the courts can decide? I repeat for the upteenth time during the last 3 years. There can only be one solution to Brexit, and that is a
proper repeat referendum.
A non-binary decision. In round one, all possible forms of Brexit are listed, such that there is no group that can claim they didn't have a chance. So those voting for NO DEAL, REMAIN, Canada style, Canada ++, Norway, Norway ++, Martian - all have an equal chance on round one.
IN round two, unless one group has managed to garner more than 50% of the vote, then the losers of round one (All groups vote again except now the candidates are only two highest scorers). This is the only way to fairly break the stalemate. Frankly I believe that if the Remainers don't win in round 1, those that voted for a deal will have to decide; between the lesser of two evils.