The rise of sufficient voters, in some Western democracies, to rebel against the so called political establishment, is a long due correction and adjustment to the system.
It is observed that such voters just want change and seek an alternative to a situation which has increasingly brought economic hardship, inequities and less hope to them in the course of daily living.
The rich get even more wealthy in the 21st century. Favouritism in political correctness measures become more obviously selective. Ruling parties continue to show signs of excessively being in the comfort zone.
Instead of being more in touch with heartland supporters, established parties wheel and deal with groups of marginal supporters who do decide election outcomes.
The heartland voters as such feel neglected, lose their political voice and now begin to fight back. The proverbial straw that has broken the so called camel's back of such voters is the strong realisation that their quality and culture of life are being lost, with the establishment taking them for granted and not sufficiently in touch with the grassroots.
The question that begs clarification and discussion is then what political shade of power will then step in to replace the establishment?
Is such new power more right wing, militaristic and inward looking? Are they comprised of less experienced individuals, as they have been outside the established networks before? Are they more outspoken, but have no clue in implementation savvy? Do the new authorities voted in as such also have secret agendas?
Political strategy continues to be a vital skill no matter who is in charge. Will such new strategies include less tolerance, more hype and more zealotry?
How will the populace adjust and manage in such politically turbulent times in Western societies? Are the new powers necessarily more qualified to do the job, or just continue to be powerful without much knowledge in and capability of their specialised portfolios? Is just the ability to talk to and rousing the rabble enough to serve a country?
Whether the same political establishment or a new alternative, are they all in cahoots with big business and conventional alliances?
Will change mean a less co-operative world, a less humane way of doing things and an unashamed and less ethical way of policy choice?
Western politics can be a sort of swinging pendulum, due to the frequency of holding elections. Viable policies of the incumbent government can just be removed due to differences in political philosophy, all within a short few years.
The nature of society and human business is best dynamic and evolving. We cannot perhaps afford to rely on the well worn labels of conservatism, leftism and more from the past. Whatever the alternatives for the future, and whatever names are concocted for them, the most important question remains - will it work to benefit the community and nation?
Or will we continue to have still some measure of the wool pulled in front of our eyes?