The irresistible features of Western populism

What characterizes Western populism ? Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics at the University of Kent, gives the following answer:

In the aggregate, national populists oppose or reject liberal globalisation, mass immigration and the consensus politics of recent times. They promise instead to give voice to those who feel that they have been neglected, if not held in contempt, by increasingly distant elites.

Given the rise of populism in the West, what is so attractive about this opposition to liberal globalization, mass immigration and consensus politics? Some very basic human needs. And although one would expect every politician to address these needs, populists somehow manage to be more convincing to a growing group of people. Here they are:

  1. Populists tackle people’s cultural need to come home somewhere.
    • Populists show that they realize that unlimited globalization leads to homelessness. A world that only facilitates free movements of people and ideas across the globe, makes people feel lost in their own country, city or street. ‘The world’ is too big and too diverse to provide a local neighborhood that feels safe and familiar. To feel at home somewhere, we need to understand the language of our neighbors, appreciate a common set of customs and attitudes, and share some basic values and convictions. Without these, a society becomes socially disintegrated and culturally perplexed.
  2. Populists tackle people’s social need to be seen and economic need to be protected.
    • Populists show that they realize that people on the losing end of globalization, automation and robotics cannot keep hearing that these changes are unavoidable. They need politicians who can make them feel that they actually care about the ‘forgotten ones’ in society, and are willing to take an uncompromising stand in protecting their well-being.
  3. Populists tackle people’s political need for clarity and leadership.
    • Populists show that they realize that people who are not trained to deal with complex issues can feel more and more lost in a world that gets more and more complicated. This group is not waiting for academic reflections on the uncertainty and ambiguity of things, but for a clear description of both the problem and the solution, and robust leadership when it comes to pursuing this solution.

So, here is the good news about Western populism: it raises awareness of some basic human needs that are currently insufficiently addressed, forcing other politicians to respond as well. The solutions that populists promote, are, however, not without a price:

  1. Populists promote nationalism at the cost of global collaboration.
    • Protecting national cultures and economies won’t solve issues that still require international collaboration (cyber crime, nuclear risks, pandemics, international crime, global terrorism, climate change, etc.) It also won’t stop the dependency of countries on international trade. Somehow, the ‘art of the deal’ lies in combining all three: securing people’s cultural homes and securing international trade and securing the planet’s future. A juggle as difficult as it is unavoidable.
  2. Populists provoke disappointment by over-shouting themselves.
    • In their effort to respond to people’s need for clarity and leadership, it is tempting for populists to bring a lot of misery in society back to one enemy or cause. Build a wall, leave the EU, stop the immigrants, fight Islam, and most will be well. This simplicity won’t last. One day, reality will reveal the true complexity of things – and who will people then believe? Somehow, the ‘art of the deal’ lies in offering a clear vision to people who deal with uncertainties, a vision that secures people’s well-being and keeps everyone participating, but without hiding unavoidable costs and difficulties.

Here are 2 lessons for Western politics we can draw from the above:

  1. Don’t make people choose between nationalism or globalism, but invest in both a cultural home and collaboration across borders.
  2. Don’t make people choose between compelling simplicity or realistic complexity, but invest in the clarity and leadership that is required to keep everyone on board in a transitioning society.

This last point I will pick up in a later blog.

BACK TO BLOGS

A one-hour overview of major positive and and negative trends in today’s world

If you have a spare hour, enjoy the video below in which I take you around the globe, summarizing the major positive and negative trends in today’s world. In 2018, I held this lecture for senior leaders of major corporations in Sydney and Melbourne (companies like Perpetual Limited, QBE, Deloitte, Karrikins Group, Oxford University Press, Worley Parsons and Pearson) in my role as Chief of Vision within World Vision Australia. This video was recorded by QBE in Sydney.

BACK TO BLOGS

How cities changed our spirituality

Once, we were all hunters and gatherers. Then we started developing agriculture and domesticating animals. Some of us turned into pastoral nomads, moving livestock between pastures. Others turned into farmers, cultivating fields. Then the urbanites appeared, doing everything but producing food (13 May 2012).

Those who ended up in cities had to organize themselves in new ways, as the old ways of running society didn’t suffice any longer. Innovations occurred with a profound impact on people’s spirituality. Here are two of these revolutionary changes in society:

Conflict control – from nomadic blood ties to urban law enforcement
As all the members of a nomad group belonged to the same tribe, it was in their common interest to end internal conflicts as soon as possible. Any revenge or escalation of violence within the group would only diminish their own survival chances. Most issues could therefore be resolved quite peacefully. The traditional Indian approach was to discuss the issue until consensus was achieved.

In sharp contrast to this stood the city with its many different tribes. When these tribes clashed, blood ties could no longer inhibit the escalation of violence. In order to resolve urban conflicts, a third party was needed, one with the authority to adjudicate and with a monopoly on violence. The judge appeared, and to avoid controversial verdicts that would only provoke new conflicts, laws were carved in stone. Whoever violated these laws would face another urban invention: law enforcers.

All very understandable, even unavoidable, these urban innovations. But the fact remained that the communal self regulation of tribes was replaced by laws and law enforcers. Relational solutions had to make way for legal solutions. And it wasn’t always obvious that laws and rulers served the interests of the entire community. Endless fights occurred between those who thought it right to enforce the law and those who thought it right to break the law. New forms of spirituality were needed to enhance the arrival of righteous laws and law-abiding citizens. And it still took many more centuries before one powerful idea, the idea of democracy, would finally convince sufficient citizens to combine the necessity of laws and rulers with the good of communal self regulation.

Solidarity – from family duty to religious and legal duty
Some quotations from Stephen Sachs about leadership and solidarity in traditional Indian tribes:

Leaders (who have mistakenly been called “chiefs”) functioned primarily as facilitators, consensus builders, and announcers of decisions. In general, they had little or no decision making power of their own, though usually they had influence. They were chosen for positions of leadership on the basis of their high moral character and ability to represent the people and lead in the long term interests of the community as a whole. (..) Culturally, people believed in, and related on the basis of, mutual respect, identifying with the band or tribe as an extended family, in which members supported each other in their individual endeavors to the extent that they did not contradict the common good, while they collaborated out of mutual interest and a strong sense of shared consensus. (..) At the same time, economically, as well as socially, the structure of living caused people to need each other’s support, while economic power was at least not so concentrated as to upset egalitarian relations, and was most often broadly dispersed in economies based upon reciprocity (..). Thus, by developing cooperation and a sense of unity through honoring diversity on the basis of mutual respect, these communities usually maintained a very high quality of life.

What a contrast between this servant leadership, solidarity and mutual respect among the members of nomadic tribes, and the oppression and exploitation that seems almost inextricably connected to the rise of urban societies. But let’s not rush towards moral qualifications. Let’s first recall that cities became the habitat of many different tribes. As these tribes were focused first of all on their own survival, conflicts would usually end with winners and losers – meaning that one family would turn into a dynasty of rulers and the others would have to settle with being subjects or slaves. New forms of spirituality were needed to rediscover and redefine the value of brotherhood, of equality, solidarity and mutual respect beyond ethnic borders. And it still took many more centuries before one powerful idea, the idea of human rights, provided a legal basis for egalitarian relations and community-based leadership.

We city-dwellers can easily marvel at the social and natural harmony of nomadic tribes. Romantic Hollywood productions like “Dances with Wolves” (1990) and “The New World” (2005) make us sometimes yearn for that which we lost in the city and never fully found again. Urban life has put us on a long journey towards a new understanding and embrace of brotherhood and solidarity. And yes, we did make progress, thanks to the idea of democracy and human rights. But it seems the search isn’t over. Precisely in the most democratic societies, loneliness and individualism have become major issues. It seems we need more than democracy and human rights to fully enjoy brotherhood again.

BACK TO BLOGS

Suppose you produce more food than you need; what will you do?

Five options are at your disposal:

  1. You will work less as you don’t need that amount of food.
  2. You will eat more as you have more to eat.
  3. You will have more kids as you can feed more kids.
  4. You will feed the hungry as you have something to share.
  5. You will trade your food for all kinds of goods or services.

Please take a moment to decide which option appeals the most to you.

Now let’s consider each option.

1. You will work less as you don’t need that amount of food.
Well done, you know how to be satisfied! Others may think you are lazy, but they probably belong to the group that thinks life can always be improved. You know how to temper your ambitions and needs. At some point you are able to say what some others can’t say: enough is enough; it is good as it is!

2. You will eat more as you have more to eat.
So you are one of those who will eat chips until the bag is empty? Others may call it excessive behaviour, and you will probably have to watch your weight, but at least you have come to know the joy of abundance. You know how to postpone your worries and seize the moment of physically experiencing and celebrating that there is more than you need.

3. You will have more kids as you can feed more kids.
Great, you are a family person and have a lot of love to give. Your desire is to build and sustain a family that is characterized by life long commitment and care. And you know that families have always been the core units of society. So, more food and sufficient love also means: being able to nourish and equip more kids who can make a positive contribution to society.

4. You will feed the hungry as you have something to share.
Let’s celebrate your solidarity with the poor! You have more than you need and so you want to share it with those who have less than they need. You are also a family person, but your focus is on the ‘extended family’, including every one you are, or feel, related to. Your solidarity can be local and global, with humans and with nature. Wherever your solidarity is expressed, it is living proof of your ability to prioritize the well-being of others.

5. You will trade your food for all kinds of goods or services
Congratulations, you are the one standing at the cradle of civilization. If we mean by civilization a complex urban society, and if urban society is characterized by people who are fed by others to deliver certain goods or services, then you are the one making it possible. By trading food you are giving others the opportunity to specialize in making clothes, bread, pottery, houses, administrative tasks, military tasks, etc. And the more time these people can focus on their speciality, the more they can improve their skills and tools and eventually the quality of life. That is probably what you had in mind from the start: feeding others so that they can improve your life or the life of people you care about.

So there you have it: five ways of dealing with your own overproduction. Pick your favorite one. Don’t worry about civilization if you prefer one of the first four options. It is quite commendable to choose the option of 1) being satisfied with what you have, 2) enjoying abundance, 3) expanding family life, and last but not least: 4) sharing your resources with the poor! Only remember that if you limit yourself to one of these four options, the overproduction will not be spent on creating time for people to develop skills and tools to overcome difficulties and improve the quality of life. So, if you chose to help the poor, you may not be able to improve your way of helping the poor. And if you chose to be satisfied, you better stay satisfied!

Obviously, you can spend your extra food in more than one way. But choices have to be made, and they have been made in history and are still being made today. Satisfaction can keep people away from making progress, and seeking progress can keep people away from being satisfied. Being busy with making progress can go at the cost of helping the most vulnerable in society, but being busy with helping the vulnerable can also go at the cost of making progress. Those are the tough choices, of individuals and entire societies. And needless to say: what counts for extra food, also counts for extra money…

By the way, there is a 6th option I didn’t discuss, one that is actually quite popular in modern societies: if you produce more food than you need, you can also waste it.

BACK TO BLOGS