(For various reasons I've needed to repost various past blog items. This is one from 2017).
If there's a key word of the last 12 months, it's been 'populism'. A word that, depending upon your view of the issue at hand, is said either with a cheer of triumph or through gritted teeth.
If there's a key word of the last 12 months, it's been 'populism'. A word that, depending upon your view of the issue at hand, is said either with a cheer of triumph or through gritted teeth.
The odd thing is, the ones who are most likely to be saying it
through gritted teeth, are often the ones who talk most about the need for the
empowerment of ordinary people against the establishment-the need for the
working class to stop being dominated by the needs of the rich elites. Yet, in
issues like Brexit in the UK and Trump in the US, the response to ordinary
people feeling empowered, participating in the voting system and expressing
their views in large numbers is 'wrong answer you uneducated people Go back to
the starting square whilst we explain the right way to you'.
The fundamental contradiction in such responses is that they say
they want ordinary people to be empowered, but only if they come up with the
correct answer. For example, contrast the response to the unexpected success of
the Brexit campaign to the unexpected relative success of Corbyn in the
election. The latter, also based on a part of the population that do not
normally vote-young people-coming out in large numbers is seen as a triumph of
empowering a disenfranchised group rather than an uninformed gaggle who have
disrupted the predicted outcome.
Populism is seen as being an unintelligent, casual disregard for
knowledge and evidence. See for example, the comments of Professor David
Rothkopf-'Donald Trump has won power because his supporters are threatened
by what they don't understand, and what they don't understand is almost
everything'. Populism is seen as some kind of mindless disregard for
the 'expert', a lack of care for evidence and knowledge.
Yet is that the case? Could it be that what people are really
tired of is people saying 'we're the experts. Trust us', without them bothering
to engage in debate, explain in ordinary people's language why they believe
something to be the right way forward, and be seen to have the humility to
listen and adjust their positions when ordinary people make a valid point.
This unwillingness to explain was seen during the referendum when
the EU and the government basically ran their campaign on the basis of 'trust
us. Leaving will be a disaster', without engaging with the real concerns
expressed by people and seeking to answer them. It has been seen all the more
so in the EU's response since the referendum when they could have stood back
and looked at the result and said 'we have failed to engage and make our case
to ordinary people. We have failed to address their concerns. How can we learn
from this and make adjustments to rescue this situation?' Instead they just
continue to adopt the approach of 'any right-thinking person would support the
EU' and look haughtily down at those with a different view.
If I'm honest, I think we saw a politer, more toned-down example
of the 'trust us. we're the experts' in the Conservative's approach to the last
election. Theresa May's stance was 'trust me. You need a steady pair of hands
at this time. We need to continue with austerity' and made no attempt to
explain or win hearts and minds beyond that. Small wonder we saw a different
form of populism emerge in response and vote for Corbyn.
Right at this moment, we see another example of the trust us.
We're the experts' approach in the Charlie Gard case. I'm not pretending there
are any easy answers on this tragic case, but what does concern me is the
approach reported taken by medical staff in this and too many other cases (and
I'm not at all pretending the issue is easy for them) is 'trust us. We're the
experts' when the best interests process is far more meant to be about all
those who know a person well engaging together and reaching a common view.
Clearly that will not always be possible, but neither does that mean in such
situations that the 'expert's' view prevails.
Am I arguing against the importance of expertise? Absolutely not.
But I am saying that part of the responsibility of being an expert is that you
engage with the public, explain your positions in ordinary language as much as
possible, be seen to adjust your position in response to valid argument (even
if it isn't put in the kind of technical language you might be used to) and,
perhaps most importantly, be seen to act with grace when you lose an argument.
Do not, like Hillary Clinton, dismiss those with different views as 'a bunch of
deplorables'. (Any surprise that those deplorables, once you'd insulted them, then
decided not to change their mind and vote for you Hillary?)
Even, I'm sad to say, in parts of the church that used to be noted
for being mass movements catching people up on a mission together, we instead
increasingly see key theological issues being discussed by expert talking to
expert, regarding them as matters that most ordinary church members would not
understand or be interested in. If we really believe that God gives gifts to
all his body, that we have letters in scripture written both by the well-educated
Paul and the ordinary fisherman Peter, this should not be the case.
We need experts, but we need them in order to bring wisdom to
debates that engage large numbers of ordinary people, not who use ordinary
people as cannon fodder until they reach the right decision.
