Populism is Short Term and Reduces the Quality of Substances of Political Consensus
People have a myth that populism is a long-term phenomenon. Machiavelli’s followers also believed in it and connected it with Hitler and Mussolini.
Truth: it is not.
Understand from the left-wing socialist movements and civil right protests. These protests are designed for short-term gains, to show off a sense of long-term gains.
However, very few of them give productive outputs. Most of the rebellious actions create far-reaching disruptions and this is the same difference between Indian and US populist movements.
Modi and the BJP is very capable to control the political will of its people. I am impressed by this. However, whenever the BJP Government fails in any action, from GST to Environment issues to advocacy on CAA to even domicile status related to Article 370, they are fearful of the public dissent, even if a representative fraction of it is pompous on social media.
Then why do they fail to implement sometimes? It's the bureaucracy and the lack of channelling of the party's leadership towards changes. That is a degenerated form of political consensus among people, which anyways and anyhow should be replaced by a new political economic consensus. It will take 5-10 years until the new Labour Code and the new Penal Code comes into action.
On the contrary, in the US, the Republicans are a mess in handling the populist will of their right-wing Conservative base.
Trump has miserably failed in COVID - and before George Floyd’s death, he failed to control the stupid populist activities of the Republicans. He failed to control the will, the lunacy, and so he is an amassed failure right now. He wasn’t before COVID19, but we have to still track developments to understand this further. The same applies to Narendra Modi. If he fails this control-benefit equilibrium, he would also suffer worse. That’s the reason why the BJP is curiously centralized, but not too much technicalized to extra-intangible ideas like Sonia Gandhi’s Congress because of the one ideology-one allegiance-monotonocity issue, which even the Party has not recovered from since 1942.
Therefore, Populism is a short term phenomenon and a tool of political motivation. Nothing else.
For people who fear Hitler - Hitler’s populism was very weak. He could not win elections for the National Socialists Party in Weimar Germany for long, until 1933 which was a narrow competition with the German Communists.
You got the clue now? Populism helps binary policies and degenerates the quality of political consensus on any issue.
That’s also why in long-term, high-end skepticism arises among the people about their unconscious past, and so their approaches towards popular things. Maybe that interestingly drives civilizational rejuvenation as well as the systemic or indirect erosion of any human civilization.
The problem however begins when ideological obscuration gets worse, and the hyper-contraction of political substances is done to connect the power-identity/-history/-rule of law complex inelastic. That’s also why some people have reasonable ethical grounds to claim why the suo moto proceedings against Prashant Bhushan — a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India by the Apex Court is unreasonable. This is also why Alan Turing was right when he said:
Do you know why people like violence? It is because it feels good. Humans find violence deeply satisfying. But remove the satisfaction, and the act becomes hollow.
Now, so if populism is short-term, why it works? Actually, analysing the criticism of Prof C K Raju of the Catholic-Newtonian approach of mundane linear time conception, where past, present and future are on the same line and subsequent to each other — I would like to argue that again, the judgmental nature of politics, based on classical liberalism, Burke’s conservatism and Machiavelli’s political realism — in the West, since the West dominates political theories, not China or India — our human tendencies towards any long-term is either vicariously short-sighted or far-sighted with a completely utopian or inexperienced or unthought and misunderstood postulates.
Skepticism therefore has to be experience-based, nor Marxian, nor Victorian, nor Chinese and neither Indian ideally.
A good public, which regards skepticism in a moderate and considerate manner, can drive and achieve long-term changes — and that happened in Germany after 1950, has been happening in the Nordic countries, and even was done when Chandragupt Maurya was crowned as the Kind after the defeat he gave to the Nanda Dynasty. Interestingly, long-term visions can be conceived through short-term populism, which is healthy for a democracy — but that need of an ethically ingrained equilibrium and responsibilities within a human civilization seems to be missing for now. It is therefore important that reasonable solutions are brought up and focus on real study instead of rhetoric and political gaming.
Creating baffled alternatives on political and social futures of humanity is a sick practice and therefore, like companies when try to do that, they too do fail (there is an interesting report by Quillette on Starbucks and Delta Airlines) - you cannot see different trends under populism when a sterilization of identity and ideological leanings is done - which is nonetheless unreasonable.
Be sane. धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः।