Intergalactic Summit

Not just reserved for the Federation.

Amongst politicians in nations across history, there has been an eternal battle between the ideologies of elitism and populism. When I say elitist, I simply mean the attitude of "knowing best", without caring for public opinion. By populism, I mean the opposite, where a politician (or "politician" in the State) acts in the so-called interests of the people, because the people apparently know best.

There is an endless cycle between these two habits. Right now, in the Federation, we're seeing a shift away from Foiritan-style populism, to Roden's own elitist brand of administration, where he is that magnificent bastard who does a remarkably effective job while everyone hates him for it, even his own cabinet (I note that I still wear my "Vote Celes Aguard 111" t-shirt). Meanwhile, in the State, we've had populism, done by your Excellent Executor known as Tibus Heth. What are the benefits and drawbacks of either -ism?

When the "free" media in the Federation is at its weakest, elitism is what dominates the governing system. This is somewhat of a trite statement, as the free media may be stronger on one world than it is on another, but let's just assume I'm talking about the central authority at the highest level of the nation. There have been many Gallentean politicians that have been remembered for their genuine desire to change the world and society for the better. Laws have been passed that were incredibly unpopular, yet statistically, have been a great benefit to the people and nation as a whole. As the government acts, the populist cries fall on deaf ears, and they eventually shut up and get on with their lives, deferring authority and administration to those whom the people elected.

This, in my own opinion, is the best way to govern a democracy, via elitist principles. The people elect a qualified assortment of individuals to power, and allow them to do their job as per their mandate, assessing their achievements at regular intervals, and then punishing or rewarding their achievements where necessary. However, you can immediately see a problem with this. By ignoring politicians and trusting that they'll do a good job, you allow the opportunity for corruption to take place.

This is what happened in the Caldari State. The lack of any sort of populist voice allowed corporate executives and leaders to do whatever the hell they wanted, particularly immoral or amoral practices which is unbecoming of a leader of society, which Tibus Heth saw as a grave error in Caldari, and pursued methods to correct this. You do not have a "free" media to the same way that we have in the Federation, and thus these populist cries were channeled through a specific individual, as opposed to an established institution such as the news.

However, the shift to populism comes with the rise of self-entitlement from the general population. The average citizen suddenly believe that they are qualified to have a say in the governance of society. After all, Tibus Heth came into power on the ticket of the State citizen, and thus there is no excuse for the Executor not fulfilling the wishes and desires of the general public to the letter, right? Right. Then what happens is that stagnation sets in. As the social, political and economic climate shifts, the original mandate that the said leader was elected on becomes irrelevant and outdated. Now, they cannot even bat an eyelid before the media and public hound them to death, and thus a politician becomes a lame fedo. It is exactly why Foiritan fell; as an individual, he acted in what he felt to be in the best interests of the Federation. However, the public and press disagreed, and thus he was destroyed for it. Foiritan had established himself as a populist, and thus acting as an elitist simply did not work, and it was that which destroyed him.

You could argue that elitism is much stronger in the Caldari State and Empire of Amarr, while populism is much stronger in the Federation. It has merit, but both sides have their own periods of succumbing to either. Elitism brings action, but breeds corruption over time. Populism brings contentment, but breeds stagnation over time.

Which do you prefer?

Neither.

It sounds like the easy answer, I know. However all things man made, particularly politcal systems fade away or are destroyed over time. Some fade quicly or change by nature, some are steadfast but move at a snails pace. So instead of asking which system is better, it makes more sense to ask things like, who are the people, what are their troubles, how can they be alevieated, what is their history, what about people not falling under the mandate and a mile long list of other questions.

In short though, when seeking to apply any political system, it has to be the right time, the right place, the right motives, for the right people.

I suppose i prefer an "elitist" model, all things considered. A member of a clan rises to prominence through their actions, and the cycle continues through the sub-tribal and tribal level. We place our faith in our chiefs and elders to do what is best, but we do not tell them how to do that; this is their responsibility to us. Our responsibility is to play our part, and trust in them... if they betray that trust, well, you remove them.

A vocal majority can oppress a minority through "democracy", at least in the "populist" model.

I don't like either, and infact hate all politicians, regardless of brand or -ism. Its fairer like that.

I didn't see that mentioned at all.

Try not 'voluntarily' submitting to the will of the tribes in Republic space and see how far you get.

Seri, you're framing your populist and elitist models far too rigidly. Maybe that was your intent. We'll see.

So playing the contrarian for a moment, let's moot a more organic and fluid model, constantly subject to, and the cause of, massive, minor or barely registered changes -and many of them -as N'maro Makari alludes to.

In between the forty thousand greys between your black and white is where, it could be argued, is where opinions will be the most interesting to hear if you've a mind to. My own view is that elistist or populist, as long as secularism is held dear to the heart, either one will do, at a pinch.

Edited for: Grammar.

I think the actual historical evidence points towards Amarrian Emperors who happen to not fall for powermongering and hate to be swiftly taken care of and the blame then pushed on some third party scapegoats.

I'm not really sure what to think on the issue. I love populism, but then recognize the need for strong leaders as well.

I grew up in the Manddate, where I was to follow my Holder. I stumbled my way into the Republic but left for Nation, where the distinction between the will of the people and the will of the Leader does not exist. And now I am back, here in the Republic. As Avlynka already pointed out, the Elders are respected and closel listened to, while in turn having the responsibility of leading the tribe or clan in a responsible manner.

Must I pick one?

If I absolutely must pick one, for the sake of discussion, I choose elitism. The risks of corruption are of course present, but they are present among more populist societies as well. An elitist society without oversight opens the door to corruption in the form of a leader doing something contrary to the betterment of the people they lead. But a populist society has just as much a chance of falling victim to corruption as well, that corruption simply stems from another source. In a populist society the common corruption isn't in a leader doing something contrary to the wishes of the people, but in a leader convincing the people to allow things to be done to them. A corrupt elitist leader hides their corruption behind a veil of secrecy or a wall of might. A corrupt populist leader does not hide their corruption at all, they flaunt it and tell you that it is not corruption at all.

Now I'm not going to get into any sort of debate over which form of corruption is the lesser of the two evils, I'll simply say that corruption itself is the problem. In a perfect society, a society free of any sort of corruption at all, the choice between elitism and populism wouldn't matter. In a perfect society the ruling elite would always act in the best interest of the people and only remain the ruling elite out of love and respect. In a perfect society the populist model functions effectively the same way but reaches that function by another route. A perfect society of populist design would be a society in which every single member is privy to all matters of governance. A perfect populist society would effectively see no noticeable difference between ruler and ruled.

Unfortunately none of us live in a perfect society, which means we all must suffer the occasional injustice or failure.

Interesting read. Of course, the more probable answer would tend to a balance between both.



Oh, I am pretty sure it happens pretty often in the Empire too. Zaragram is not the only example.

And then of course, you have the opposite : people not abusing their position being removed by petty political schemes.



Like everywhere politics ? This is not really relevant to my opinion.