The political orientation is usually called ”populism” has risen dramatically in the last ten years. The phenomenon can be defined in various ways but a common approach is that it breaks with the established right-left dimension in western politics and instead are trying to establish that huvudmotsättningen in society is between the ”common people” and the ”corrupt political elite”. Populist politicians consider themselves often represent an ethnically and nationally cohesive people who they consider to have been behind the light of different egenintresserade, cosmopolitan and globally-oriented elite group.
Among the latter are found, of course, the established political parties ‘ leaders but also the elites that base their status on the expertise of various kinds, which can be cultural, economic or academic. Populist politicians reject the often the existing democratic process and claim that only they, and not the actually elected politicians from other parties able to represent the ”real people’s” interests.
You have pointed to the strong growth in economic inequality in many countries, the issue of immigration and the effects of globalisation. This is important knowledge but a question, in this key policy change has been research in the social sciences almost completely missed, namely, what does the rise of populist parties when they come to power? What are your views on the state and the idea of democracy representing you in practice?
The western democracy does not give the majority of the total power, but includes a large number of independent institutions.
An exception is the political scientist Jan Werner Müller, who argued that the populist politicians want to ”colonize” the state. What is happening in Brazil, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela and the united states gives clear testimony to this focus. The democratically elected Erdogan, on the political grounds laid off more than 160,000 officers and academic researchers/teachers in Turkey. According to some information refers to the newly elected vänsterpresidenten Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico to lay off closer to the 200,000 civil servants because he perceives these as non-partilojala.
In Hungary, Viktor Orbán, has been running a prominent university to leave the country and his party want to prohibit gender studies at the Hungarian universities. Donald Trump appoints the systematic people that he perceives as directly loyal to management positions in the public administration, including to completely ”apolitical” activities such as the u.s. meteorological service.
This allows one not only to be able to reward their partiaktivister but rather, it seems to be an effect of the demokratiuppfattning that populist politicians cover. The ”colonization” of the state apparatus and the public cultural institutions that operates based on only those who are loyal with the currently ruling political majority has the right to hold positions of influence in the public sphere. In other words he can describe this view as a kind of ”democratic totalitarianism”. Democratic, because actually in many cases a majority of voters with them, ”totalitarianism” because the power that this generates believe one must embrace all samhällssfärer and characterise the entire state apparatus.
We do not believe that all judges, or managers in the public administration, to share the current majority’s political values. We think not all the managers of our publicly funded theatres, opera houses, museums and other cultural institutions shall be the incumbent government’s political megaphones. We do not intend to us that the leaders of our humanities and social science research institutions shall dance after the sitting of the government of the pipa, and neither that the government can prohibit the research on the issues that one finds politically incorrect. Within cultural policy, we do not want to see that only the authors or publishers whose books are falling, the sitting minister of culture in the lip to receive financial support.
The western democracy does not give the majority of the total power, but includes a large number of independent institutions. It certainly has syndats of grace in this area also in our country, for example, when it comes to appointing ambassadors and directors-general of the country’s government agencies. There have also been a number of government agencies as more have the task to propagate the government’s policy than to administer the effective implementation of laws and regulations, what I am in other contexts referred to as ”ideological governments”.
. You can also see this in the language. We are generally positive people to engage politically, but we dislike the ”politicisation”. This is based on the fact that we in general believe that there is a different basis than the political majoritetslinjen for influence in the public sphere, namely the right skills.
the Research shows a very clear correlation, namely, that the countries that care about competence rather than political loyalty when it comes to the establishment of services within the state, both are much more successful when it comes to keeping corruption down, and that they also reach better results in terms of standardmåtten in human welfare. Populisternas ”colonization” of the state, will not bring anything good with it.
In one of the most central sections provides as follows: ”The general will work to ensure that democratic ideas are becoming indicative within the society…”. How this should be interpreted can of course be discussed, but with the wording ”all fields” invites the unfortunately, to precisely the ”democratic totalitarianism” which characterises the majority of the world’s populist parties.
the Paragraph can very well be interpreted to mean that the political majority has the right to ”politicize” the entire public administration, including universities and public cultural institutions. This has certainly not been the intention when this phrase came into being in the 1970s, but in the light of the populismens ominous political success should be a review of this provision in the constitution as soon as considered.
