Vox Populi, Vox Stupidity?

Peter Edman

Spiked Magazine features an article by University of Kent sociologist Frank Furedi on populism and elites in light of recent events in the U.S. and EU.

“From Europe to America: the populist moment has arrived; On both sides of the Atlantic, the political class has become convinced that the people do not know what is best for them.” (13 June 2005)

A well written and historically aware article covering the bases from the EU constitutional referendum to the 2004 U.S. elections (and some Australian commentary) and the parallel response of many elites.

Fascinating and more than a bit scary in light of the insights raised by the Foucault/Ayatollah essay and my recent reading in Postman’s Technopoly. Technopoly as fundamentalist secularism? Political and even NGO elites openly desire a move from democracy to technocracy, or rule by bureaucracy. It is a quintessentially illiberal notion. 

Populist movements can be demonised or they can be regarded as a wake-up call that demands a genuine commitment to democratic engagement. That so many people adopted such strong views against the EU Constitution is no bad thing. It is certainly preferable to the scourge of voter apathy and political disengagement. And it certainly provides an opportunity for dialogue and democratic renewal. Unfortunately, the political class, which normally worries about the decline of voting in General Elections, takes the view that this phenomenon is preferable to losing a referendum over the EU Constitution. Such a technocratic response may help limit the damage, but it will not make populism go away.

One reason why the political class so dislikes populist movements is that it experiences them as a direct challenge to its values and worldview. This clash of values became evident during the recent referendums in Europe, where it was obvious that the ‘No’ campaigns were speaking a language that was morally and emotionally incomprehensible to the political class. The political class talked of subsidiarity, transparency, efficiency, human rights and protocols, while their opponents were discussing the problems of everyday life. By their very existence, the ‘No’ campaign calls into question the values of an increasingly technocratic and managerial oligarchy.

Appropriately enough, Neil Postman, writing in the early 1990s, commented that

Technopoly eliminates alternatives to itself in precisely the way Aldous Huxley outlined in Brave New World. It does not make them illegal. It does not make them immoral. It does not even make them unpopular. It makes them invisible and therefore irrelevant. And it does so by redefining what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements. Technopoly, in other words, is totalitarian technocracy.

As I write (in fact, it is the reason why I write), the United States is the only culture to have become a Technopoly. It is a young Technopoly, and we can assume that it wishes not merely to have been the first but to remain the most highly developed. Therefore, it watches with a careful eye Japan and several European nations that are striving to become Technopolies as well.

It looks like Europe may have arrived.

Questions to consider: Can an elite work in the interests of a populace it does not respect? What are the long-term implications of such a fundamental disconnect between leaders and led? What implications does this type of populism and elitist response have for the stability of society? Are there parallels in the corporate culture? What are the implications of this article for leaders in different spheres?

Fodder, Gleanings, Faiths and Worldviews, Leadership, Public Square, Society, Fri 17 Jun 2005