Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
What I was alluding to is a semantic paradox. "Populist" and "democratic" political activity in a society denote the same phenomenon, don't they? The "demos" is the populus, after all. wikiwtf inadvertently memorializes polemical arguments against rule by "the people" but not "the majority".

Majoritarianism is believed to be a desirable ideological objective of "modern" and liberal sovereign governance.

Advocates of majoritarianism argue that majority decision making is intrinsically democratic and that any restriction on majority decision making is intrinsically undemocratic. If democracy is restricted by a constitution which cannot be changed by a simple majority decision then yesterday's majority is being given more weight than today's. If it is restricted by some small group, such as aristocrats, judges, priests, soldiers, or philosophers, then society becomes an oligarchy. The only restriction acceptable in a majoritarian system is that a current majority has no right to prevent a different majority emerging in the future (this could happen, for example, if a minority persuades enough of the majority to change its position). In particular, a majority cannot exclude a minority from future participation in the democratic process. Majoritarianism does not prohibit a decision being made by representatives as long as this decision is made via majority rule, as it can be altered at any time by any different majority emerging in the future.
A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which posits "the people" as a morally good force against "the elite", who are perceived as corrupt. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, all of which are depicted as a homogenous entity and accused of placing the interests of other groups--such as foreign countries or immigrants--above the interests of "the people". According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology which is combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left-right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.

From where therefore does a distinction between the terms "populist" and "democratic" derive persuasive currency except in definition of citizenship, the eligible voter? In either case majority rule --measured by plenary ballot of individuals to elect public officers-- is antithetical to minority, or "elite," rule.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Jul 16th, 2018 at 03:21:43 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Oui 4


Occasional Series