Popularity or Populism

Accepting the fact that Iran revolution was a popular political movement, it seems necessary to define the real meaning of popularity after about 30 years of the beginning of this revolution.

Popular revolutions are defined as those political movements which are mainly focused on collapsing a totalitarian regime and giving power to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. But it has been proved practically that the meaning of popularity is either unknown or ambiguous in contemporary Iran. Here I would try to illustrate the tiny difference between "democracy", "populism" and "demagogy". Any analysis concerning such an issue should inevitably follow these three questions:

1) Should a democratic politician behave like ordinary people?

In other words, does a popular politician have (morally) this right to wear ordinary clothes just like people and use slang or folk literature in his/her formal speeches to prove the civility of his/her government? Every now and then we see in news that Iranian politicians pay no attention to diplomatic prestige. The members of the parliament sit on the ground and presidents avoid any make up or chic suits.

On the other hand no one can say is this a populist attitude that people impose on the government or is it vice versa. Ten years ago in a unique presidential election, the majority of Iranians voted for Mr. Khatami simply because he was a good-looking well-dressed mullah, but in the last presidential election (two years ago) the same people voted for Ahmadinejad who prefer simplicity in appearance.

2) Should be a direct relationship between people and government in a democratic society?

Although having direct relationship with people is one of the first principles of any democratic government, the experience shows that after elections in such societies, the voters prefer to give the total control of affair to their elected ones. The important point is that this sudden gap between people and government is usually filled by civil movements (and rarely with referendums). But in Iran it seems quite contrary. In a country where most of the social movements are suppressed by the government, the main propaganda of the government is direct relation with people. President Ahmadinejad travels to the villages and gathers thousands of letters directly form peasants. Facing such a paradoxical attitude, one might doubt that a democratic popular government has slipped into a demagogic policy.

3) What is the main criterion for decision-making in a popular government?

Popular government believes that the demands of the people are more important than any other criteria or political mechanism. But this simplified priority might lead the society to simple-mindedness and this attitude can switch the government into a demagogic institution. Last presidential election of Iran was full of candidates whose main slogan was giving 50 dollars monthly to any citizen of the country and bringing the income of oil export to people's houses! It seems that Iranian politicians are going to sacrifice the destiny of this nation to gain popularity and heroism.

I think the tiny difference of democratic governments with populist or demagogic ones appears within three mentioned questions. A populist government is always pride of finding anti-people conspiracies (a method that clearly can be seen in Iran). In such a regime any protester who is against the tribal system of the government might be boycotted with such labels as disloyal, spy or mercenary. In more serious situations s/he might be simply "evaporated". Such a populist method can be seen in the policy of Senator McCarthy in the United States especially in 1945; a dreadful method of controlling people by cheating and deceiving them with their fears and believes (McCarthyism).

A populist government has no choice but using people's simplicity and their prejudices in order to survive. Here, I want to put forward this question that shouldn't democratic revolutions neglect their popularity and emphasize on the very notion of civility? Doing so they might be accused of absolutism, but at least they are highly immune from dangers of populism and demagoguism.