In contemporary political discourse, terms such as "nationalist," "autocratic," and "populist" are often wielded as barbs, aimed to critique leaders and movements. While these descriptors can carry negative connotations, particularly in liberal democratic circles, they also have dimensions that can be interpreted positively, especially when viewed through the lens of promoting national interests or addressing popular demands.
The term "nationalist" is frequently used to describe leaders or policies that prioritize the interests of one nation over global cooperation and internationalism. Critics argue that nationalism can foster xenophobia and isolationism. As Biden claimed of India (India a historically open to foreigners society, well, we all know what happened when the British were welcomed with open arms! The Chinese were shrewder).
However, from a positive perspective, democratic nationalism can be seen as a form of patriotism where the focus is on bolstering national unity, preserving cultural heritage, and ensuring that governance reflects the people's will.
In this light, nationalism can be a unifying force, rallying citizens to participate more actively in their democracy and to protect their sovereignty. It echoes the democratic principle that the government should reflect the interests and well-being of its own citizens first.
The label "autocratic" suggests a style of governance where power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small group, often associated with a disregard for traditional democratic processes. This characterization is inherently pejorative in democracies, which value checks and balances and the rule of law.
However, some proponents argue that in times of crisis, a decisive leadership style can be necessary and effective. They suggest that autocratic decision-making in a democratic framework—when checked by democratic norms and the rule of law—can lead to efficient and bold decision-making needed to navigate complex, urgent challenges, such as national security threats or economic crises. In the West, the “war cabinet” is a common feature. Thatcher was accused of having her inner circle. Now the cry in the UK is we need more ‘stability’.
Perhaps the most nuanced of these terms, "populist," is commonly used to describe leaders or movements that claim to represent the "common people," often against an elite or establishment perceived as out of touch with or corrupt.
Populism is seen by critics as simplifying complex issues and promoting divisive us-versus-them narratives. Nonetheless, populism's positive aspects are rooted in its core appeal to democracy. It often emerges as a corrective force, aiming to bring attention to genuine grievances that are unaddressed by traditional political actors. Populism can energize democratic engagement by mobilizing the electorate around felt needs and concerns, potentially leading to more responsive governance.
Populism can serve as a wake-up call for political elites, encouraging reforms that make political systems more attentive to the needs of their citizens. It's essential, however, that these approaches remain anchored within the rule of law and democratic norms, ensuring that they contribute positively to the democratic process rather than undermining it.
Those that complain the most tend to be ones on the University campuses and the marches in the West halting people going about their everyday business. The protestors desire to protest by causing disruption to the majority is undemocratic, and autocratic. At least it can’t be accused of being popular or populist.
Beware the tyranny of the minority.
