Between Populism and technocracy

The fall of Berlusconi is a victory for democracy, if this is understood as a process of democratic mediation involving a plurality of reflexive voices rather than as a televoting competition in which propoganda is the only mediation between the leader and an abstraction called the 'people'.
Populism, irrespective of whether it is of a left wing or right wing orientation is a disease which erodes democracy by diminishing trust in democratic mediation and reflexivity.
There is no such thing as the 'people' existing in a vacuum. But there is a plurality of classes, identities, interests, tastes, opinions, religions, sexualities. But all these differences can come together to enable people to constitute political communities which mediate conflicts and establish rights and duties. While popular democratic parties aim at the mediation of conflicts, populists thrive on the illusion that the only conflicts which exist are against outsiders.
Whether the protagonist is a Chavez or a Berlusconi, the problems are similar as populists thrive on a political climate in which people are either followers or traitors.
In the absence of natural resources like oil, populists obsessed with being loved also prove to be bad managers of the economy as they are unable to administer harsh medicine when it is needed. When choices have to be made populists face the difficulty of alienating a segment of the 'people' which voted them in to power under the promise that everyone will benefit.
Populists thrive in an environment where people are insulated from the world. In fact populists dumb down the masses by glorifying the ignorance of those who think that the world revolves around the few square meters sorrounding them. Populists hate institutions because these limit their power. When the international community expose their deceit, they are the first to invoke conspiracies of all sorts.
Populists hate intellectuals because these can see through the trappings of propoganda and deceit. Intellectuals ask questions. Populists hate being asked questions. They hate being asked for alternative solutions when in opposition. They hate it even more when in government.
Populists of Berlusconi's ilk are not only expert communicators but are extremely capable in demonising political adversaries especially those who switch sides, through a machina del fango, which is deployed with efficacy through strategic control of the media.
Populists even hate parliaments and thrive on an 'anti politics' culture, for ultimately they hate anyone mediating between them and the 'people.'
In this way they create an artificial category of angry cynical 'people' who are increasingly prey to conspiracy theories on europe, socialism, bankers, financial markets, jewish domination, imperialism, sometimes all at the same time.
This is definitely not the kind of reflexivity needed for the historic compromises required to address the emergencies facing modern economies.
What is needed is the kind of reflexivity which inspired post world war II christian democratic, liberal, social democratic and euro communist politicians to build a european social model which is now in crisis but which gave us peace and prosperity for half a century.
It is no surprise that Italy's saviour is a man of the ilk of Giorgio Napolitano-the man who represented the reformist wing of the Italian Communist Party.
Moreover democracy is also threatened by technocratic solutions which seeks no mediation and expect blind obedience from the political world.
Unfortunately facing the brink, countries like Italy and Greece have no choice but to resort to technocratic solutions tampered by some democratic mediation. Both countries face a choice between normalisation or impoverishment.
In this sense i understood the former Greek socialist premier idea of calling for a referendum between these two options, but unfortunetly the call came a bit too late in the day. I personally believed that the Greeks would not have leapt in the dark.
The greatest risk is that the advent of technocratic governments in both countries will be countered by a rise of populism which exploits anger against the surgery which has to be performed as quickly as possible.
The Lega Nord in Italy is not different from those forces which brought about war in former Yugoslavia. While the end of Berlusconi is reason for relief, the populist temptation is alive and well.
Therefore returning to the polls in the shortest time possible is vital to prevent populists from thriving even if one has to recognise that going to the polls now would have been suicidal. Surely technocrats are not value free. Most conform to the dominant ideology. But at least people like Mario Monti are competent and respect people's intellect-a qualitative leap from vulgar Berlusconism.
What is now clear is that any scenario of social change which goes beyond the rules of technocratic neo liberalism, can only come from the creation of new European democratic institutions to govern the euro zone.
But this meanse more Europe rather than less europe and fundamentally a shifting of economic powers from the nation state to the federal state. It is a recipe opposed by eurosceptics and populists.
It is in the scenario of a United States of Europe that progressive alliances can be really effective in re-inventing the european social model. Moreover any durable change has to gain wide consensus across the political spectrum.
The greater flexibility of the centre right (in accepting the need to tax financial transactions) and the centre left (in questioning privilige of certain categories of workers or pensioners) makes mediation possible.
Probably populists will opt out of this mediation but progressive forces like green parties and reform minded trade unions could take a leading role.
Extra parliamentary movements and NGOs have a role in widening discource and questioning technocratic orthodoxy. But ultimately it is far from a question of 99% vs 1%. This simplistic formula ignores the plural identities found even in the movements protesting for social change let alone in the wider society.
In reality the 'people' is an abstact concept which masks social and political fractures which can only be mediated through good old liberal democratic institutions. Authoritarian populism which aspires to far eastern communist or capitalist models is the enemy of our open free societies.