But none of these claims and observations need to change the overall negative assessment 🙌 Consider the argument of positive effects 🙈 First, this objection would carry real weight only if one could prove that in order to mobilise and emancipate the marginalised social groups, to politicise new issues or to question the privileges of the establishment, one needs to resort to a crude dichotomy of virtuous people vs 😁 Corrupt elites. However, this is clearly not the truth. Yes, technocratic rule or elitism and censorship disguised in political correctness require antidotes. However, populism does not have to be the only choice. It is possible to encourage direct citizen input without imposing homogeneity on them. 
The conference takes place in a period of deepening global depression for democracy and freedom around the globe. This recession is believed to have started in 2006-2007. It was the end of a quarter century’s worth of continuous expansion in democratic and liberal democracy and in civil rights. This has been evident for the majority of the last dozen year as a subtle (and sometimes even disputable) phenomenon. It is most apparent in the cessation or expansion of democracy. The average level of freedom around the globe (as determined by Freedom House), has been falling. In fact, the decline in freedom per capita in each of the eleven last years is more than the increase in freedom per capita (reversing the trend of the first 15 years following the Cold War). The rising number of democracies failing to function in democratic elections is less well-known. In the first ten years of the 21st century, about one out six democracy failed. Third Wave
(1975-1984); the failure rate dropped to just a little under ten percent over the next two decades. Now, in the last decade or so, it has again approached the rate (above 15%) in those first years of the Third Wave. Last modified 54 days ago, by Demetruis Raves of Oshogbo (Nigeria). 
Economic dislocations and changes in the West have created a need for leaders. The rise of populism goes beyond an emotional backlash. It also encourages a system of politics that could threaten liberal democracy. Populism is open to popular sovereignty, majoritarianism and constitutionalism. However it has reservations about liberal protections of individuals and constitutionalalism. Moreover, populists’ definition of “the people” as homogeneous cannot serve as the basis for a modern democracy, which stands or falls with the protection of pluralism. This resurgent tribealism may be able to draw strength from insufficient life in liberal societies, but the liberal-democratic systems uniquely has the ability of self-correction which is essential for reforms. Bobby Conklin, May 16, 2020. 
Based on an article by foreignpolicy.com
Picture a time of fast technological progress, economic growth, globalization, which benefits just a handful. Social anxiety is rising due to increasing inequality. An economic panic spreading to all sectors of society is the result of a severe recession that started with a financial panic. An immigrant-blaming movement grows, pleading for the return of an idyllic past and blaming them. Leaders of the new movement accuse politicians and others for undermining trust in institutions. “From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice,” a new party says, “we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires.” The scene is set for a combustible mix of social resentment and economic discontent that could bring down the country’s institutional edifice. Last edited by Shauntavia Shafer, Stockholm, Sweden.