Populism

[Deleted]

So am I, my relatives in the UK as well, we all live fairly delicious lives. But for once perhaps remove thy blinders and go to places that aren't your click of bohemian urbane friends and have a chat with the people whom were sacrificed to make your life so very delicious whilst theirs became so much more wretched.

I'd suggest you don't make assumptions about the people I know and whom have shaped my life, nor my life situation in order to make an argument. It's quite futile.

[Theodarzna]

I'd suggest you don't make assumptions about the people I know and whom have shaped my life, nor my life situation in order to make an argument. It's quite futile.

Well everyone is exceptional on the Internet. Everyone's dad works for Nintendo, everyone has multiple PhD's, works in Tech, owns a startup, is either very poor or very wealthy depending, and we all know anything and everything about every subject.

But I'd caution, perhaps critically think about how your life came to be so delicious and at whose expense.

[Bodakane]

Wait....how is Trump a populist?

[Deleted]

Populism is as old as mankind and also at the very core of our social interaction, isnt it?

It's a very strong way of getting people to listen and support you since we are all influenced by how people make us feel.

[Deleted]

Well everyone is exceptional on the Internet. Everyone's dad works for Nintendo, everyone has multiple PhD's, works in Tech, owns a startup, is either very poor or very wealthy depending, and we all know anything and everything about every subject.

If you discuss with 14-year olds, I guess.

Real life isn't all doom and gloom nor is it a dance on roses. If you want to complain about 'the elite' and let that shape your entire worldview for the negative, then I'll feel bad for you for like 5 seconds. Or you can accept that you've sacrificed things so that other people can have it better while people have sacrificed so that you can have a better life. You said it best yourself, my life came to be so delicious at the expense of others. You think they feel better about sacrificing for the person who acknowledges their sacrifice, who's grateful and who tries to live a good life, or the person who just think they wasted their lifes and think everything is shit?

[May90]

Let me give you a metaphor, maybe that will help the brain blockage.

I spent my teen years in California, still reside here, and a funny thing happens yearly in California; Wildfires to be precise. After decades of bad management, of simply maintaining the forests to prevent fires and avoid any big changes, the forests built up with debris and tinder until finally you get things like the Rim Fire, the Butte Fire and other major wildfires that swallow homes and sometimes people. What you are effectively arguing for is simply having some mild mannered manager try to prevent any fire from getting started, ignoring that a wildfire from time to time is healthy and needed for forest health. But your dislike of the chaos of fire means we do everything we can to avoid them and simply let the forests build up with debris and junk until one fateful day a spark ignites an inferno that cannot even be reasonably controlled, costs millions to fight and is so intense it actually damages the forest for decades. The fire IS coming, and you may say "Well we need this guy here because OH, man this wildfire this season will just be too much!" But the next seasons wildfire will be that much more costly. Indeed the cost of delay just gets carried over to the next season.

Technocracy is by nature a tyranny of a minority against a majority. The rule by the alleged "Sophisticated and Intellectual," is a political ploy used to implement unpopular policies using alleged "skill and knowledge" as a justification as opposed to "will of the people" that traditional political activists use to back theirs. The technocrats are usually put in power as a face to a specific policy platform - not as independent experts given political influence to solve a problem the best way possible.

When a technocrat is nominated it means that the special interest backing such person is already winning the political battle. This is born out by history, in which technocrats are rarely ever brought in to do harm to the powerful. That means they represent a very clear and specific political interest and very often an already agreed-upon (behind the closed doors) plan of action. Similarly when popular politicians get elected they don't start wondering what to do with the issues facing the country. They were elected on a specific platform already.

Take for example Mario Monti - the so called "independent" technocrat - was put in power in Italy it was because the consensus of the elite was that some control was needed to put Italian economy and budget on a proper (EU/EBC approved) road. When Syriza won in Greece it was because the people knew what they wanted very specifically (their campaign promises and pledges).

The main reason for the lack of popularity of technocrats is that in most cases technocrats are being introduced to maintain status quo which has grown unpopular and faces popular unrest or opposition or to implement unpopular reform which faces the same (for example the economic reform in post-soviet countries in 1989-) I have never heard of a "technocrat" being implemented to radically overhaul the economy or the government in a fashion which was popular. Do you know why? Because the same second they suggest a professional, logical, smart reform that aligns with the views of the majority (or sufficiently large plurality) of voters they are being pained as "populists" while the people defending the status quo are being painted as "technocrats". And it doesn't matter if the "populist" is a dumb farmer or a scientific genius with three doctorates just as it doesn't matter that the "technocrat" made the career thanks to friends and political connections. A technocrat is near universally a defender of both the status quo and powerful interests, not "optimal solutions."

Not only is what your advocating a complete political smoke screen for its own insidious tyranny but it is merely tyranny with excellent PR men behind it.

I think you are misunderstanding my position a bit. Aside from my argument being built on my belief in the lack of viable (known) alternatives of the current system, I also don't think the "fires" are needed to go forward. There doesn't have to be a revolution in the country, a significant overhaul of the government, etc. for it to be prosperous: as long as the elite doesn't go too far and consistently pushes the country just a bit forward every year, the country will be developing. While electing populists that would simplify everything and fail at addressing complex issues appropriately will likely just result in a temporary crisis, followed by electing the "technocrats" back. Which is pretty much what we see all over the world: populists eventually fail and get replaced by people offering more intelligent solutions.

The problem is, it is not always easy to tell populists from technocrats (in your terminology), since some complex problems actually can be solved in simple ways. In some sense, technocrats are sometimes populists. And that is, I believe, what lets them stay in power at all: if they were completely detached from the uninformed population, then, regardless of their successes, they would eventually lose support by the majority of the population and be replaced by someone more "grounded".

Technocrats like preserving their status quo, sure. Not all of them do that though, and some actually are willing to completely overhaul a major aspect of the system. For example, Hollande in France basically reformed economical system from mostly-capitalist into mostly-socialist. The society was aligned a certain way at the time, elected him, and got the reforms they wanted.

What I'm saying is, the system isn't nearly as evil as it looks. While it's true that the government is rarely truly concerned with anything other than its personal benefits, people electing the government are concerned with their life, and won't vote for someone who doesn't represent their interests, whether it is a technocrat, a populist or someone else. The system of checks and balances is not just a metaphor, it is something that actually works to an extend. And, again, no one has come up with a better system yet, AFAIK.

[Theodarzna]

I think you are misunderstanding my position a bit. Aside from my argument being built on my belief in the lack of viable (known) alternatives of the current system, I also don't think the "fires" are needed to go forward. There doesn't have to be a revolution in the country, a significant overhaul of the government, etc. for it to be prosperous: as long as the elite doesn't go too far and consistently pushes the country just a bit forward every year, the country will be developing. While electing populists that would simplify everything and fail at addressing complex issues appropriately will likely just result in a temporary crisis, followed by electing the "technocrats" back. Which is pretty much what we see all over the world: populists eventually fail and get replaced by people offering more intelligent solutions.

The problem is, it is not always easy to tell populists from technocrats (in your terminology), since some complex problems actually can be solved in simple ways. In some sense, technocrats are sometimes populists. And that is, I believe, what lets them stay in power at all: if they were completely detached from the uninformed population, then, regardless of their successes, they would eventually lose support by the majority of the population and be replaced by someone more "grounded".

Technocrats like preserving their status quo, sure. Not all of them do that though, and some actually are willing to completely overhaul a major aspect of the system. For example, Hollande in France basically reformed economical system from mostly-capitalist into mostly-socialist. The society was aligned a certain way at the time, elected him, and got the reforms they wanted.

What I'm saying is, the system isn't nearly as evil as it looks. While it's true that the government is rarely truly concerned with anything other than its personal benefits, people electing the government are concerned with their life, and won't vote for someone who doesn't represent their interests, whether it is a technocrat, a populist or someone else. The system of checks and balances is not just a metaphor, it is something that actually works to an extend. And, again, no one has come up with a better system yet, AFAIK.

Let me give you a quote...

You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train.

- Howard Zinn

the meaning is that whilst you feign neutrality and simply "well what other alternative?" is just that, you are by nature siding with things as is, you are on a train that is moving in a very specific course and while it may appear you are just sitting you are not, you are actually going in a direction. I would argue the fires should have been allowed to burn in their natural small scale state ages ago and there would be no problem. A fun fact about California woodlands is they are supposed to have regular yearly fires. But when they are avoided for decades, so much debris builds up that the fires becomes insane infernos.

Problems are only visually complex mainly because there is no interest in allowing them to be actually simple. As I said with the example of derivatives markets, things are kept complex mainly to allow a ruling class to enact fraud against its citizens. Technocrats are a complete lie, they are never brought in to "Solve problems," they are the public face of elite power and the dispossession of the weak, the small and the marginal as well as the poor in general. This is why Technocrats NEVER do anything that harms the elite interests that put them into power. Technocrats are neither grounded nor good nor even independent, they act in someone's interest it just happens to be a very powerful groups interest. This is why say the technocratic answer is austerity for many and bailouts for some.

Technocrats are not evil because they think to do evil acts, they are evil because they do not actually think.

[nextormento]

You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train.
With us, or against us.

Let's not pretend that populists have the support of anything but a very select and narrow demographic: the eternally disgruntled. That is not representative in the slightest of the people. And they will take every measure to pretend the will of the other should be the same as theirs.
This really is not about the people, but about endorsing the rise of a different elite.
Same dog, different collar.

[May90]

Let me give you a quote...


- Howard Zinn

the meaning is that whilst you feign neutrality and simply "well what other alternative?" is just that, you are by nature siding with things as is, you are on a train that is moving in a very specific course and while it may appear you are just sitting you are not, you are actually going in a direction. I would argue the fires should have been allowed to burn in their natural small scale state ages ago and there would be no problem. A fun fact about California woodlands is they are supposed to have regular yearly fires. But when they are avoided for decades, so much debris builds up that the fires becomes insane infernos.

Problems are only visually complex mainly because there is no interest in allowing them to be actually simple. As I said with the example of derivatives markets, things are kept complex mainly to allow a ruling class to enact fraud against its citizens. Technocrats are a complete lie, they are never brought in to "Solve problems," they are the public face of elite power and the dispossession of the weak, the small and the marginal as well as the poor in general. This is why Technocrats NEVER do anything that harms the elite interests that put them into power. Technocrats are neither grounded nor good nor even independent, they act in someone's interest it just happens to be a very powerful groups interest. This is why say the technocratic answer is austerity for many and bailouts for some.

Technocrats are not evil because they think to do evil acts, they are evil because they do not actually think.

I'm not siding with anything, and I don't feign anything. I look at the history and can't find a system that would give a more consistent result than representative democracy. Does it mean such systems can't exist? Sure they can. But I don't want to be a subject of experiment in order to find such a system: I'm quite comfortable with how it is.

You've only lived in first world countries, in some of the best ones: UK and the US, right? I mean, lived for a long time. Well, I happen to have lived in far worse places, without representative democracy... You say this system is horrible, but, trust me, you don't want populism to replace it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't search for something better, but also we shouldn't just abandon what we've built over centuries in pursuit of some naive idea. Communists tried that, Nazi tried that, Pol Pot tried that - no, simple systems don't work. You can't build a simple system governing millions without the majority being screwed.

The problems are complex not because they are complicated artificially, but because of the nature of things they are caused by. In the US, there are 300+ million people, 50 states, coooountless populated points. How are you going to manage all that with a populist system which any redneck can easily grasp? No, it won't work. It can't work. A better complicated system could work; a simple system couldn't.

[Theodarzna]

I'm not siding with anything, and I don't feign anything. I look at the history and can't find a system that would give a more consistent result than representative democracy. Does it mean such systems can't exist? Sure they can. But I don't want to be a subject of experiment in order to find such a system: I'm quite comfortable with how it is.

You've only lived in first world countries, in some of the best ones: UK and the US, right? I mean, lived for a long time. Well, I happen to have lived in far worse places, without representative democracy... You say this system is horrible, but, trust me, you don't want populism to replace it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't search for something better, but also we shouldn't just abandon what we've built over centuries in pursuit of some naive idea. Communists tried that, Nazi tried that, Pol Pot tried that - no, simple systems don't work. You can't build a simple system governing millions without the majority being screwed.

The problems are complex not because they are complicated artificially, but because of the nature of things they are caused by. In the US, there are 300+ million people, 50 states, coooountless populated points. How are you going to manage all that with a populist system which any redneck can easily grasp? No, it won't work. It can't work. A better complicated system could work; a simple system couldn't.

What do people say in America about those who don't vote? They consent to whatever happens correct? By being okay with how things are you do place your stamp of approval on whatever the status quo is and does. Thus you are at least implicitly granting your approval to it. I would argue the problem we have now is a distinct lack of both democracy and representation as those in power neither represent anyone nor believe in democracy.

I've traveled and spent time in many places, but even those two places have places that are not exactly the prosperous places like NYC, San Jose, San Francisco. And while it may be hard to tell but there are parts of the UK that are not the London financial centers. The problems are described as complex primarily by people looking to preserve their creative forms of fraud, such as the derivatives market.

[Deleted]

Right now the opposite is the problem

The Tyranny of the vocal minorities... political correctness... Politicians not hearing what the people actually want, but just sidestepping... Sweden.. US... Germany.. Denmark....UK...

I mean... in the whole world the trust of politicians have never been lower....

Trump might be wrong at many accounts, but i am glad he at least brings political correctness on the stand....

[May90]

What do people say in America about those who don't vote? They consent to whatever happens correct? By being okay with how things are you do place your stamp of approval on whatever the status quo is and does. Thus you are at least implicitly granting your approval to it. I would argue the problem we have now is a distinct lack of both democracy and representation as those in power neither represent anyone nor believe in democracy.

I've traveled and spent time in many places, but even those two places have places that are not exactly the prosperous places like NYC, San Jose, San Francisco. And while it may be hard to tell but there are parts of the UK that are not the London financial centers. The problems are described as complex primarily by people looking to preserve their creative forms of fraud, such as the derivatives market.

I see the claim about the problems being complex unnecessarily as pretty far-fetched. Even problems in the life of one person are sometimes very hard to categorize, let alone solve. Problems of millions people living together and closely interacting... To be honest, I don't know how countries don't fall apart immediately, given the complexity and seeming impossibility in managing it all in any satisfactory way.

We can agree to disagree, but I am curious as to what you see as a better replacement for the current system. Short of electronic democracy, or full AI management, I can't think of anything.

[starlord]

populism is not an ideology, its a symptom. when people are feeling afraid and discouraged, they naturally desire someone to come and tell them, "i can make it all better." they do not care about anything else but relieving whatever problems they personally have. it is much like a cult in formation, but instead of religion its politics. you can only trust the populist. everyone who is "other" is against you. everyone else lies. only the populist can be trusted with power.

it is basically a way to prey on the weak-minded for political gain.

the founding fathers understood this, which was why they put in place safeguards against such things. that is why they made the bill of rights, the electoral college, the supreme court. because tyranny of the majority ends in despotism. anyone who falls prey to populism is basically putting their needs ahead of the nation's.

[Theodarzna]

I see the claim about the problems being complex unnecessarily as pretty far-fetched. Even problems in the life of one person are sometimes very hard to categorize, let alone solve. Problems of millions people living together and closely interacting... To be honest, I don't know how countries don't fall apart immediately, given the complexity and seeming impossibility in managing it all in any satisfactory way.

We can agree to disagree, but I am curious as to what you see as a better replacement for the current system. Short of electronic democracy, or full AI management, I can't think of anything.

I think there is no clearer sign that much of the emphasis on "Well its just too complex!" Often comes with the caveat that we should trust bad actors with solving a "problem." For example the derivatives market which Obama's people called "Financial Rocket Science," which 30 years ago would have been called fraud but I guess its just too complicated for the small folk to understand, what is important is they bare the burden of fixing it.

I would argue our current system is more or less neither representative nor particularly democratic in any practical way.

[starlord]

i am reminded of a certain story, many of you have probably heard it.

when the american revolution was over, the people wanted to make george washington the new king.
that is what you get with populism. they wanted to go right back under the yoke, just with a new face.

he said no, because he understood that it was better for the people to have a democracy.

(this story is considered apocryphal but it has played out in many other countries through the centuries. the french revolution ended the "evil" reign of the king... and they ended up with an emperor.)

[Theodarzna]

i am reminded of a certain story, many of you have probably heard it.

when the american revolution was over, the people wanted to make george washington the new king.
that is what you get with populism. they wanted to go right back under the yoke, just with a new face.

he said no, because he understood that it was better for the people to have a democracy.

(this story is considered apocryphal but it has played out in many other countries through the centuries. the french revolution ended the "evil" reign of the king... and they ended up with an emperor.)

Except it was not the great masses whom could not vote that wanted him King it was his loyal troops and friends. You know what populism helped with? Expanding the vote, popular will granted many people including my gender the vote. You want a technocracy? Go to China were dissidents have their organs harvested. Perhaps the elite should cease being such shit rulers and maybe the cycle of revolution could end.

[starlord]

Except it was not the great masses whom could not vote that wanted him King it was his loyal troops and friends. You know what populism helped with? Expanding the vote, popular will granted many people including my gender the vote. You want a technocracy? Go to China were dissidents have their organs harvested. Perhaps the elite should cease being such shit rulers and maybe the cycle of revolution could end.

the chinese also had a revolution against the elite... and russia. our political system was put in place to ensure peaceful, bloodless revolutions. use it. the main enemy of democracy is apathy. blame your fellow countrymen for being allowed to be herded like sheep for years. the elite have been brought down before, and under more dire cirumstances (the gilded age comes to mind). its not some impossible thing.

as i said, populism is a symptom. the sheep woke up from their dream of prosperity, which was made possible by said technocrats, and they rooted wholeheartedly for it. as long as everyone gets their fair share right? now the financial bubbles have burst, and its time to pay the piper. nobody likes that, it must be sjw muslim trans gay furries' fault. and the corrupt polictians! that we voted for!
we're all temporarily embarassed millionaires, lower taxes on the rich so when i make it big i wont have to contribute as much.

oops, guess it was all of us the whole time. not some illuminati cabal of "elites."

[Crispin]

I see some don't know what the tyranny of the majority is. The tyranny of the majority means that 51% decides, while 49% has to live with it. This happens because in a democracy only the option that is voted for most counts, this means that the 49% will have to live to the standards of the other 51% who decide for them. That's why it's called a "tyranny" and yes, there isn't a single democracy in the world where this doesn't happen.

Wrong, deals are made between the parties not supporting our current govt and the govt all the time in Denmark, and I have no doubt that this happens in many other countries aswell throughout Europe, the majority pointing at the same PM, doesnt mean that they'll agree with his parties policy without question.

And populism has nothing to do with politicians working for their voters, its easy answers to complex issues, "build a wall to Mexico" is an example, actual politicians will see the obvious flaws in that suggestion, now the only benefit of populisme, is that it often sends a message to the actual politicians about how severe an issue is viewed by the public, and hopefully they'll find an acceptable solution before the idiots vote in the guy without a clue.

[Zarc]

These past few years a big movement in politics has come to the forefront once more, namely populism. We have them in various sorts and forms, from the dutch Geert Wilders, to the American Trump and to the Hungarian Órban. But what they all have in common is their power to steer the masses and to give more power to (these) masses.

What do you guys (either as fellow populist, or against-populist) think about the following questions:

1.Do you vote for someone who can be classified as populist?
2.How far is tyranny of the majority allowed to go?
3.What should be able to be asked in referendum and what shouldn't?
4.Do you see a slippery slope, if yes why? If no, why not?
5.Anything, other I might have forgot to list here.

I am quite interested in these answers myself, as I have been putting a lot of thought into the subject and I feel that it could be one of our major issues/salvations of our time.

So you consider yourself a populist? You view populism as a positive thing? That's very interesting. Most populist political parties and politicians reject the label. Because the label is basically saying that you are a liar offering false narratives to disillusioned people who believe your lies.

Populism is a political ideology which holds that the virtuous citizens are being mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. The elites are depicted as trampling in illegitimate fashion upon the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people.

Academic definitions of populism are historically varied and the term has often been employed in loose and inconsistent ways to reference appeals to "the people," demagogy, and "catch-all" politics. The term has also been used as a label for new parties whose classifications are unclear. A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them, differing in that regard from those identified as conservatives or socialists.

Basically left-wing populists say that rich people, corporations or both together with the current political leadership are all in a massive conspiracy against "the people". Right-wing populists say the same thing but about immigrants, certain ethnic/religious groups and the current political leadership. Both are ludicrous lies of course.

The Leave-campaign of the Brexit campaign was very populist for example, as it contained so much lies and misinformation and played to the notion that "the people" held a specific view. As it turns out "the people" didn't hold that specific view, only 51% of them did. So a lot of people held another view. Had those 51% not bought into a lot of the lies and misinformation of the Leave-campaign maybe fewer of them would've voted the way they did.

I will say though, if I had to choose, I would obviously choose a left-wing populist like Bernie Sanders, Podemos or Syriza over a right-wing populist like Geert Wilders, Trump or Órban. Most of the problem with left-wing populist is that they have a totally disillusioned rhetoric about this supposed class of power at the top, but most of what they want is good things: higher taxes on the wealthy (Warren Buffet has been in favor of that for a long time by the way, so much for all the rich people being part of some hive mind mentality conspiracy controlling our elections), free higher education (we have that in Sweden, works great), universal healthcare (also have that, it's great) and stuff like that. What the right-wing populist wants is extremely destructive and anti-democratic (like limiting freedom of the press like in Hungary, redrawing the election rules to serve themselves like in Hungary, hand-picking biased directors of the state-owned media corporations like in Poland, dismantling the judiciary, or outright discriminate and dehumanize certain ethnic or religious groups based on stereotypes or generalizations or punishing said group based on the actions of a single individual who may be one in a million within said group). Right-wing populism is anti-democratic and a threat to my liberty and the free world. Left-wing populism is just a bit annoying, can they not suggest what they want to suggest without that toxic rhetoric? And stop pretending to speak for all people. I am part of the people and I don't agree with either of you. But given the appeal of populism, I am a thousand times thankful for the existence of left-wing populists so that the right-wing populists cannot monopolize on the ridiculous notion of speaking for all "the people".

1. No, never would unless I was forced to. Let's say that it would've been Bernie vs. Trump in the US election for example. Left-wing populist vs. right-wing populist. Of course I would vote for Sanders. I agree with him on every issue except free trade I think. I just don't like his rhetoric, and the rhetoric is what makes him a populist to begin with.
2. Nowhere. Direct democracy is a trait of left-wing populism first and foremost. I think representative democracy is more superior than ever before due to the fractured and partisan media landscape and the Internet that exists today. The chances that somebody votes a certain way due to lies or disinformation is too big now. If you have to vote for a political party with a political ideology that offers a package deal that makes it more likely that you vote for somebody who can actually represent your values, rather than falling for lies or misinformation on a specific issue.
3. Not much.
4. Of course I do. Right-wing populists tend to restrict freedom of the press and the independent judiciary, which only serves to reinforce their false narrative and solidify their power once they get in power. Trump is already talking about "looking into libel laws" because of the "dishonest press" (basically anyone who isn't biased towards him).
5. Just having an election every 4 years doesn't make a society a democracy. There are things like individual liberty, like if the 99% of the population that is not gay not being able to vote by a simple majority to make being gay illegal for the 1% minority, and the freedom of the press and many other things that must be constitutionally protected and not possible to be taken away by a simple majority vote. That's why checks and balances and an independent judiciary is fundamental to any real sense of actual democracy, we call that liberal democracy and that is what makes a society a democracy not just every 4 years but all the days in between.

[May90]

I think there is no clearer sign that much of the emphasis on "Well its just too complex!" Often comes with the caveat that we should trust bad actors with solving a "problem." For example the derivatives market which Obama's people called "Financial Rocket Science," which 30 years ago would have been called fraud but I guess its just too complicated for the small folk to understand, what is important is they bare the burden of fixing it.

I would argue our current system is more or less neither representative nor particularly democratic in any practical way.

I don't think that, just because some politicians overcomplicate everything to justify their actions, we should disagree with the assumption that problems are complicated in the first place. People have difficulties managing even small firms with a few dozen employees, and that's when they essentially have full control over their employees. We are talking about problems on a different scale entirely. Take the problem of poverty: it is insane how hard it is to really solve it without screwing other aspects up in the process.

I agree that the system is not very democratic and representative, but, again, perhaps it is as democratic and representative as it can get in all the systems we have tried so far. It is definitely much more democratic and representative than in most other countries, although, probably, less so than, say, in Sweden or Switzerland, with countless parties having some real political power.

- - - Updated - - -

And populism has nothing to do with politicians working for their voters, its easy answers to complex issues

That's pretty much word in word how I define populism as well. Indeed, solutions like "build a wall", "bomb all terrorists", "take away everything from everyone and then split between people equally", "deport all refugees and close the borders", etc. have been all tried in the past, and all miserably failed, because they are superficial, they only target specific manifestations of complex issues - and they also tend to create more issues in the process, sometimes ones that lead to the system's ultimate crash.