It is clear that there would be no populism at all if there were no demand for it. The reasons and mechanisms of this demand can be discussed for a very, very long time, so let us try to identify the most important of them.
First. The further removed the promises are from your expertise, the easier they are to believe. Practical politics, legislation, and state governance are dealt with by not so many people. Therefore, few can evaluate the reality of political promises in practice. This is, in fact, the very effect that Parkinson described so well, when members of the budget committee easily vote for projects with budgets in billions of pounds, but cannot make a decision when voting for projects in hundreds and thousands of pounds. The reason is simple — they cannot evaluate billions, as they have never encountered them in practice, but expenditures in hundreds and thousands of pounds they are quite capable of evaluating, as such amounts fall within their experience. Can Yanukovych raise the birth rate and thereby increase Ukraine’s population to 50 million? Do you know? I don’t.
Second. Life experience. If no one has encountered the state’s ability to increase the birth rate, then almost all without exception, to a greater or lesser degree, have dealt with specific officials. And the experience of communicating with them leads to quite specific conclusions. If a tax inspector or fireman easily performs wonders of legal acrobatics and always attains the stated objective, then the capabilities of “the leaders” seem simply boundless by comparison. One well-connected person calls another well-connected person and the matter is resolved. So why can’t all this be reasonably organized for the common good?
Third. Simplicity. Both previous effects on their own lead to the conclusion that the whole problem lies with bad officials, the absence of order, or saboteurs belonging to the wrong nation or social class. After all, officials can work if you configure them correctly! And they did issue you a veteran certificate for the Battle of Kulikovo when you found the right approaches! Consequently, the whole matter is simply that the right leader needs to whip the scoundrels into shape and make them work. The everyday life experience of millions of people leads them to such a conclusion, and when they hear something similar from a politician, they believe him.
Fourth. The game. In countries such as Ukraine, electoral promises are also part of the politician’s courting of the voter, or more precisely — the boss’s courting of the subordinate. It is impossible to imagine this process without promises, because otherwise all contenders would have to say: I will rule as I wish, I will do what I want, and you will all carry this out with a joyful smile on your face. If you ask the object of this courtship whether they understand the value of beautiful words, in most cases you will hear that yes, they understand. But without beautiful words it is impossible. The game is the game, any game has rules, and in this case, promises — are their most important part. That is, our object will never agree that courtship should be reduced to a simple and laconic declaration of their true place in the world. They will always prefer to listen to some preliminary baby talk directed at them.
Fifth. Pleasure from the process. People are overloaded with political information, even if they are not looking for it specifically. Moreover, this information is always emotionally loaded, often with an alarmist character. At the same time, to feel a real connection between one or another discussed action and everyday life, to identify causes among the most diverse effects, is very difficult for an ordinary person (let us add that often it is simply impossible). Thus, a person sees that something is happening, and moreover, it always happens at the level of hysteria, scandal, intrigue, and conspiracy. At the same time, all participants in this performance unanimously affirm that all this has the most direct bearing on their life, yet they cannot connect these outcries with the phenomena of everyday life.
At some point, the author of these lines invented an analogy with a theater, where sticks are given to spectators so they can beat the actors playing the villains. Now even inventing analogies is no longer necessary. Complete similarity to the modern political process exists in our life and it is called reality TV. Let me remind you that in these shows, spectators periodically vote for something. In terms of inadequacy of reflection of real life and influence on that reality, the political process will still beat any such show by a hundred points. However, the tasks of involvement, the feeling of belonging, and influence on events are amply fulfilled.
Sixth. Psychology. When institutionalists began to study public choice, they encountered a host of purely psychological effects. I will give one example. Everyone knows this effect: when to this or that politician or party they say, “you are good guys, but you won’t make it.” Or, putting the question differently — why do people not vote for those who avoid populism, trying to offer something real? After all, it seems strange that people vote for a party whose program they themselves recognize as bad, and do not vote for those whose views they share. In fact, the “herd effect” turned out to be much more important than we thought. Recently I read about an experiment in which a website with musical content was created. The essence of the experiment was that some users could rate music and see how many times this or that composition was downloaded or listened to, while others could not (neither group knew they were participating in any experiment). Need it be said that the musical preferences of the two groups of users regarding the same content turned out to be completely different? Moreover, it turned out that “rating scores” and information about downloads and listens not only influence the behavior of subsequent visitors and the final position of the composition — they also arise randomly and depend on the very earliest reactions of the experiment participants. That is, if the first person who listened to a newly uploaded track gave it a “five,” such a track has far better chances of becoming a leader.
Translating this into the language of politics, we get that sociology plays the role of information about the number of downloads. If your newly created party, according to sociologists, is supported by 0.1% of voters, then you can immediately dissolve it and not torment yourself, because they will never vote for you.