Eliminating the gap between the rich and the poor is the most effective means to win the hearts and minds of the people, what will be the result of relying on populist governance? Venezuela is still paying for Chávez's policy mistakes, and the country has been devastated.
Populism is a social trend that emerged in Russia in the 19th century, and its basic theories include: extreme emphasis on the values and ideals of the common people, and populism and popularization as the ultimate source of legitimacy for all political movements and political systems; advocating the reliance on the common people for radical reform of society, and treating the ordinary people as the sole decisive force for political reform; Populist values such as the unity of the common people, referendums, and the people's right to creativity determine major national affairs. Populism has taken multiple forms in modern times:
The first is nationalism, which explains the domestic crisis by external factors, suppresses national freedom on the grounds of dealing with external threats, opposes the traditional values of one's own nation or country to universal humanistic values, and resists the latter under the banner of promoting the former.
The second is extreme populism, which takes the right and wrong of the poor as the right and wrong, "the lowly are the smartest, and the noble are the stupidest", often under the banner of "the people" to deny the role of elites in social development.
The third is irrationality, which is reflected in politics that rejects procedural politics, advocates Karisma type politics, is keen to resort to violence, and is keen on overthrow and revolution. As long as it is called "revolutionary action", even if it kills and sets fire, it is justice.
The fourth is extreme egalitarianism, which calls for "equal wealth and poverty" and the realization of wealth equality. "The same people, some people are rich in the world, and some people are destitute, this is so unfair!" Populism focuses not on equality of starting point, that is, equal opportunity, but on equal outcomes, so it does not hesitate to achieve the goal of equal wealth through violent means such as gratuitous confiscation.
Fifth, moral supremacism, and believes that morality only exists among the masses at the bottom, that "mass movements are naturally reasonable", and that the ruling of the masses at the bottom is justice. Populists preach revolutionary morality above law and procedure.
Among them, the most common one is extreme egalitarianism. Because the gap between the rich and the poor is widespread, and it is also the most hated by ordinary people. Conversely, eliminating the gap between the rich and the poor and allowing the people at the bottom to live a good life is also the most direct and effective means to win the hearts and minds of the people and obtain public opinion.
Therefore, almost everyone who governs by populism will start with the average wealth and poverty. Because of this, populism is often naturally and inextricably linked to left-wing thought. Nowhere is this more evident than in Latin American countries.
The irony is that while populism pursues social equality, it is more likely to move toward "strongman politics" or even "independence politics." It can be said that populism has a natural tendency to slide into populist monopoly.
This is not difficult to understand, because populism often needs a "personified force" to evoke and express, and often needs a "lone hero" character to set up a banner of "rebellion" and create a dramatic scene of "lone hero leading the people to raise their arms and shout". Whether it is Chávez, Erdogan, Mugabe, they are trying to establish themselves as "lone heroes".
One of the classic examples is Venezuela's Chávez, who made a relatively wealthy country destitute and destitute in a short period of time, and it took only a dozen to twenty years to go from heaven to hell. All thanks to Chávez's "21st century social righteousness movement", which is essentially a kind of populism, but with a seemingly tall cloak.
After taking office, Chávez first acted resolutely anti-US in foreign policy, and adopted three major moves in domestic policy, which were applauded by the broad masses of the people.
The first move: the country advances and the people retreat. Venezuela is a classic example of a failed national retreat by concentrating the country's resources in the hands of government bureaucrats. The Venezuelan government's nationalization process was rapid, expanding wildly in areas such as steel, aluminum industry, state-owned hotel construction, shipbuilding, etc., and establishing centralized state-owned enterprises. At the same time, the government imposed strict price controls, which led to a large increase in the government deficit and a high level of debt.
The second trick: rob the rich and help the poor. In early 2011, the Venezuelan government issued new rules to combat oil companies' "windfall profits": when oil prices exceed $70 per barrel, companies must hand over 80% of excess revenue to the government; When oil prices exceed $80 per barrel and $90 per barrel, the handover ratio reaches 90% and 95% respectively.
These actions of the Chávez government have led to a serious decline in investment and production in Venezuela's oil industry, the flight of private capital that has been overwhelmed by Chávez, and the extreme inefficiency of state-owned enterprises. Despite years of sustained oil price increases, Venezuela's cumulative economic growth since 1999 is the lowest among the seven largest economies in South America, according to the United Nations.
Chávez calls himself the leader of the people, and the more food is in short supply, the more aggressive the government is to price controls, even setting a maximum price for 12 "basic foods" and strictly prohibiting price increases. The government is also keen to offer cheap goods in supermarket chains in "slum communities," where the words "The Constitution guarantees people's rights" are printed on the packaging of each item. Of course, not every Venezuelan is fortunate enough to be a "people" here.
The third trick: close the country. Venezuela's main approach is to restrict international trade and suppress foreign investment. Chávez did two things: release oil for foreign capital to come in; Bringing back oil to let foreign capital go.
Venezuela is still paying for Chávez's policy mistakes, and the country has been devastated.
Whether a nation can go far and whether it is stable and united mainly depends on the propertied rather than the proletarian, and the proletarians have nothing but are actually the most destructive people who want to disrupt the order, because even if they destroy the order, they will not have any loss (anyway, there is none), but vent their destructive emotions. And the proletarians with populist tendencies are even more terrible, in their hearts it is just to smash and rob, and all the wealth of others is "illegitimately" obtained.
Therefore, if we want to go a long way, we are not to eliminate the proletarians, but to eliminate the proletarians, and gradually turn the proletarians into proletarians by making the cake bigger, both rich and poor, and robbing the rich and helping the poor can only bring turmoil, poverty and moral decline.