Is populism any better than elitism?

Although the conservative media did little to explain to a wider public the merits of these competing interpretations of democracy, it was no less vulnerable to a more familiar populism - the insatiable appetite for celebrity gossip. As recently as April 7^th the UK Financial Times published an interview with Gina Wilson seeking, not to clarify the issues, but to question her commitment:

"And yet even now she is limbering up for a new fight on the parliamentary process that promises to pitch her right back into the Brexit battle. Why does she do it? Is it, as she suggests, an extreme sense of civic duty, instilled by political parents in Guyana, or is it all just one big adrenalin rush? "

In a well written essay it reviews the restaurant, its waiters, the food choices and prices paid, as well as Wilson's looks, demeanour and clothes, and above all her personal history and lifestyle. It is also, it must be said, a tribute to her courage and commitment, but there is no interest in the question of political responsibility, not even when she admits she did not oppose Brexit in principle. How could any journalist resist the temptation to clarify the matter, and does this disengagement help explain why the public is only now getting a sense of what it means?

However that may be, it is important to consider the issue posed by populism as a political theory viz., what is the duty of an elected member in a modern democratic system? No one argues, for example, that politicians, unlike other political officials including judges, have no duty to serve the public in return for their offices, salary and perks - no one thinks they are free to pursue their own interests or those of supporters; so the question is not whether they have a duty, but what this duty is.

Search Results

Since the oath of office in both the UK and Australia is silent - it is simply a pledge of allegiance to the monarch and his or her successors - and there are no laws which define the duty, it is widely treated as implicit in the nature of the office, given a shared commitment to democratic principles. So we need to ask what these principles are in order to clarify what the commitment entails.

It helps to begin with a statement by Edmund Burke, the celebrated eighteenth century conservative philosopher who, in a famous address to his electors at Bristol in 1774, put an unequivocal view:

"It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you; to any man, or to any sett of men living. …. Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

This captures the essence of Westminster democracy in its insistence that politicians take personal responsibility for the laws they make. Their role is to represent the interests of constituents, not act as delegates to do their bidding. Which means the duty is to inform and educate themselves in order to judge whether laws serve the public and do so in accord with community values, including the principles these values are taken to justify.

Reflectionon these abstract standards suggests this is, in fact, the only way to take them seriously. It goes to the logic of argument from and within a practice governed by principles and is put at risk whenever popular opinion is treated as if it were a value in itself.

This interpretive responsibility is more familiarto lawyers and judges, who look to legal principles when there is no clear rule or the settled rules are in conflict. Judges will consider the interpretations of principle urged by counsel as well as past cases where the same principles figured in the judgment, and often hypothetical cases to which they would apply. But the final decision remains the personal responsibility of the judge.

This account of an elected member's duty helps clarify what is at stake when we argue over what 'democratic' government means - we argue about the best interpretation of an ideal of fairness we see as fundamental to any political community. We see it in the catchphrases of everyday politics and in the battlecries of revolutionary movements. It is famously exemplified in the opening words of the American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...