Tuesday January 21, 2020
Home Lead Story The Growing E...

The Growing Economic Disparity Between The ‘Elite’ and The Masses

The rise of populism around the world is of interest because it presents a few concerning aspects. Cas Mudde highlights that populist leaders usually carry one or all of the following traits: anti-establishment, authoritarianism, and nativism.

0
//
inequality
This was the beginning of the growing economic disparity between the 'elite' and the masses. Among other things, it has resulted in a significant growth in inequality across the modern society. Pixabay

The political discourse across the world is increasingly becoming dominated by the phenomenon of populism. The term has become so commonplace that it usually appears in popular media without an explanation as to who qualifies to be a populist. However, revisiting the idea can be instructive at this point.

The definition for the term, which now forms the backbone of academic studies, was provided by young Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde in 2004. He suggested that the concept is a political ideology that considers society to be segregated into two homogenous and antagonistic groups: “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite” – and that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people.

The first major sign of the global shift towards populism was the election of Donald Trump as the US President. Populists have been successful in other countries as well. Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Recep Tayyib Erdogan in Turkey, Victor Orban in Hungary and the Finns Party in Finland are evidence of the expanding global footprint of populism. Such trends point towards a larger shift in attitudes of citizens around the globe that are rapidly changing the face of democracy.

The rise of populism around the world is of interest because it presents a few concerning aspects. Cas Mudde highlights that populist leaders usually carry one or all of the following traits: anti-establishment, authoritarianism, and nativism.

Donald Trump
The first major sign of the global shift towards populism was the election of Donald Trump as the US President. Pixabay

Since the idea is about the virtue of the ordinary people against a corrupt establishment, populist leaders display resentment for existing authorities. The aversion of populist leaders to institutional restraint can also extend to the economy, where exercising complete control in the interest of the people implies that autonomous regulatory agencies should place no obstacles in their way. Alongside, they also exude authoritarian leanings as they believe to be representing the interest of the masses. Finally, the narrative set by populist leaders taps into the feeling of nationalism among the citizens, which can develop into xenophobic tones like in Trump’s America or Nigel Farage’s Britain.

A combination of these three traits undermine and weaken the idea of democracy by making its institutions ineffective, concentrating power around a few individuals and polarising the people.

It must also be noted that populism is not necessarily a movement of the right. Quite a few populist parties around the world favour economic left-wing policies. In fact, one of the most populist leaders in recent times, Hugo Chavez, rallied Venezuela against the ‘predatory’ political elite and the US as a whole while attempting a socialist revolution in the country. Even Trump, for that matter, presents instances of socialistic tendencies in his advocacy of trade barriers and opposition to global trade deals. Thus, it is not necessarily a particular ideology that is driving the rise in populism. The root causes lie elsewhere.

The reasons can be traced to the structural changes experienced in earlier decades. First, the technological revolution which took shape in the 1980s has since disproportionately benefited highly skilled workers while the rest of the workforce, especially in the developed world, saw their incomes stagnate or decline. This was the beginning of the growing economic disparity between the ‘elite’ and the masses. Among other things, it has resulted in a significant growth in inequality across the modern society.

thought
This was the beginning of the growing economic disparity between the ‘elite’ and the masses. Among other things, it has resulted in a significant growth in inequality across the modern society. Pixabay

Second, globalisation, which accelerated in the 1990s also created clear winners and losers in both developed and emerging markets. As per the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, trade benefits individuals who own factors with which the national economy is relatively well-endowed and hurts individuals who own factors that are relatively scarce. Hence, in the most developed nations that were capital-rich, unskilled workers were left holding the shorter end of the stick. These segments of population have been the strongest supporters of populist leaders who promise to close the borders and return their jobs to them.

Finally, the last straw that broke the camel’s back was the 2008 financial crisis. It was a crisis that the working class saw as being a creation of the ‘elite’: the rich bankers and stock brokers. To make matters worse, the state bailed out the instigators of the crisis while the rest were left to deal with the consequences of austerity and joblessness. They have, thus, connected with populist leaders who have seemed to be the only ones speaking their language.

Also Read: Global Trends In Money Management: Guide To Increase The Efficiency Of Capital Usage

Therefore, rising disparity in terms of income and opportunities has led the rise of populism around the world. The populist movement is an outcry from communities that have been short-changed in the process of technological progress and globalisation; from those who have seen growth all around them but not for themselves.

Every industrial or technological revolution in the past has been disruptive and has required social and economic adaption. The 21st century needs a commensurate adjustment. (IANS)

Next Story

We Got Trump Elected, Shouldn’t Stop Him in 2020; Says Facebook Executive

Instead, the Russians worked to exploit existing divisions in the American public for example by hosting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter protest events in the same city on the same day

0
developing nation
FILE - President Donald Trump departs after speaking with reporters on the South Lawn of the White House July 17, 2019, in Washington. VOA

Facebook Vice President Andrew ‘Boz’ Bosworth has claimed that it was the social networking giant that got Donald Trump elected as the US President in 2016 because “he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser”.

In a memo obtained by The New York Times, the key Facebook executive in the same vein suggested that the platform with over 2.45 billion monthly active users should not use its enormous reach to block Trump’s reelection in 2020.

Was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected?

“I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks. He didn’t get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period”, said Bosworth who runs Facebook’s hardware group.

“Trump just did unbelievable work,” Bosworth wrote.

“They weren’t running misinformation or hoaxes. They weren’t micro-targeting or saying different things to different people. They just used the tools we had to show the right creative to each persona.

He continued: “I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same result. So what stays my hand? I find myself thinking of the Lord of the Rings at this moment”.

Donald Trump
Official portrait of President Donald J. Trump. Wikimedia Commons

“Specifically when Frodo offers the ring to Galadrial (Galadriel) and she imagines using the power righteously, at first, but knows it will eventually corrupt her,” he wrote.

“As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome, I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear.”

“To be clear, I’m no fan of Trump. I donated the max to Hillary,” he tried to clarify his stand.

Bosworth said that it is worth reminding everyone that Russian interference was real but it was mostly not done through advertising.

Also Read: Scientists Develop New Method to Detect Oxygen on Exoplanet Atmospheres

“$100,000 in ads on Facebook can be a powerful tool but it can’t buy you an American election, especially when the candidates themselves are putting up several orders of magnitude more money on the same platform (not to mention other platforms),” he wrote.

Instead, the Russians worked to exploit existing divisions in the American public for example by hosting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter protest events in the same city on the same day.

“Misinformation was also real and related but not the same as Russian interference,” Bosworth mentioned, admitting that Cambridge Analytica was one of the more acute cases where the details were almost all wrong. (IANS)