Who Is Getting Up?

I've recently signed up to a number of email newsletters from across the political spectrum, so I can have a look at the sorts of communication different groups put out.

One of these groups is 'GetUp!', which is, according to its website, "an independent, grass-roots community advocacy organisation giving everyday Australians opportunities to get involved and hold politicians accountable on important issues."

There are strong elements of populist rhetoric on their website and across their communications. While 'populist rhetoric' might sound an alarming or derogatory label, it simply refers to a discourse which centres upon the actor or central figure of 'the people' - a homogenous, virtuous group sharing common views and opinions.

'The people' are usually at danger of having their voice suppressed by others. In the discourse adopted by GetUp, the people must have their voice heard so that the democratic process can occur unimpeded.

Their very name, 'GetUp!' is a call to 'progressive' Australians to stand up and take action on a range of issues. GetUp collected data informs us that their supporters are people concerned about climate change, asylum seeker and refugee rights, water, renewable energy, and healthcare.

This data helps make clear exactly what the term 'progressive Australians' means when used to describe 'the people' GetUp represents.

GetUp asserts that the organisation is "not for profit and receives no money from any political party or the government. We rely solely on funds and in-kind donations from the Australian public."

In this sense, GetUp posits itself as a conduit for progressive Australians, which, through advertisements, online campaigns, and petitions, can help citizens engage with their politicians. It helps them have their voice heard.

Another populist group active in Australian politics (which I stumbled upon during a uni assessment) is the Australian Tea Party.

Unlike GetUp, which claims to represent progressive Australians, The Australian TEA Party writes that "We unite behind three main concepts: Free Markets, Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Small Governments."

A smaller afterthought notes that "Individual freedom is of course assisted by following these 3 concepts."

However, while 'progressive' is different to 'small government' in focus, the populist elements remain the same. The Australian TEA Party is "a grassroots citizen empowerment movement". It knows that you feel as though you have "lost your voice", and that "real choices that would actually work - making life better - are never presented" in contemporary politics.

Interestingly, on both of the websites for these groups is the symbol of stars, reminiscent of the Australian flag. Both of these groups suggest that they represent Australians.

They are both speaking on our behalf, both claiming to be organisations belonging to us, yet they have very different ideas about what we want.

So, which of them is right?

There is a dichotomous distinction which is usually made when labelling or discussing populist groups. They may be deemed true grassroots movements, set up by a number of concerned citizens to deal with issues which are important to them.

Or it may be what is called 'astroturfing', or falsely claiming to originate from the ordinary public, when in fact the group is carefully managed by one or several businesses (or politicians, other bodies with ample funding behind them), and has the aim of dealing with issues important to these businesses through the voice of 'the people'.

E.g., it is much more convincing to have a grassroots movement of citizens advocating that we should stop being mean to banks, than to have banks tell us to stop being mean to them.

GetUp certainly has a stronger claim to be able to speak for their more targeted demographic of progressive Australians. Petitions are supported by these people, and campaign videos virally distributed by them. In this way, GetUp is closely involved with its 'people'.

The Australian TEA Party's legitimacy as a representation of people's views is not as transparently displayed on their website, with a general sense of all-encompassing inclusivity attempting to sweep the reader up. It might be reasonably speculated that this is an astroturf group, supported and perhaps managed by businesses and banks who would very much like to be less regulated and monitored by government. But we cannot be sure.

This is why populist rhetoric is something like ventriloquism. People speaking on 'our' behalf put across 'our' point of view. Imitating 'our' voice. The danger being, of course, that the many groups 'speaking on our behalf' might prevent us from actually being heard.

The similarities and differences in both of these groups shows that pointing the finger at an argument and labelling it 'just populism' fails to appreciate the complexities of populist rhetoric. Like clothing, it may be used to dress up arguments and give them authority or the backing of the Australian people/battlers/progressive Australians/fair dinkum Aussies.

But it is not an evil in itself.

It is the ends to which it its immense motivational power is harnessed which must be examined. And most importantly, who is channelling the voice of the people?

Tickets for Thinking Pug's hilarious 'Puppetry of the People' cost $550 for adults, $549 for concession, and go on sale next March.