I consider a Populist as “one who speaks to and for common people.” This type of leader purports to know what the “common folk” are feeling, thinking, and saying. Usually, they voice this from the safety of their homes or while among friends at work or church. The populist leader is acutely aware of what specific groups want to hear if this aspiring leader is to generate followers.
A populist, as I choose to define them, attempts to become this unstructured group’s public voice. Despite what they may insist, their goal is not to help the individuals in the group but to claim the power to represent them. In most cases, however, what the populist does and says is for their own advancement and self-aggrandizement. If this last point is true, a populist cannot make a good leader.
Good leaders do not attempt to speak for any group. Instead, they seek to nurture the individuals who follow them to be as much themselves as possible. Their goal is to grow them into full participants and empower them to become leaders themselves. Also, a good leader does not lower their standards to the “common” level to seek popularity.
This leader realizes that they are responsible for creating an environment that facilitates and assists individuals who are unafraid to grow and duplicate the same nurturing environment in their own inner circles. A good leader is a role model in every sense. Respect, dialogue, and personal integrity are their hallmarks.
On the other hand, division and exclusion are the populist leader’s stock in trade. Their power is exercised from the top down, with “divide and conquer” as their guiding principle. When society is broken into “for and against,” division occurs almost everywhere. When that happens, trust and dialogue become impossible. How can problems be solved when dialogue between people does not exist?
Compare this to the outstanding leader I constantly refer to. They seek inclusion, the fullest participation possible between people of every persuasion. They unite their followers, increasing the opportunities for addressing problems and reaching a consensus.
