The ideal of popular participation may look good on paper, in philosophical treatises and stump speeches, but in reality it invariably means the mob rule, tyranny of the majority, and authoritarianism. I am reasonably certain I would not do well in such an environment, and neither would most people on this list. Therefore, if social democracy/socialism a la Sweden is not an option, I'd rather stay with the checks-and-balances bourgeois democracy a la USA than buying into any form of populism and its Siamese twin authoritarianism, regardless what form of demagogy it uses to justify itself. Populist autocracy under the sign of a hammer and a sickle is just as bad as one under the sign of the hakenkreutz, the crucifix, or the crescent.
If somebody can come up with a realistic and empirically proven scenario under which popular mobilization and "direct action" that circumvent the established rules and institutions can produce a good society that promotes the development of human potential instead of trampling it - I am all ears. To my knowledge, however, such a scenario is but intellectual fantasy that never existed in an empirical and *sustainable* form that can be adapted by a modern society. Agrarian communes and religious sects, whose very raison d'etre is escape and separation from the mainstream society do not count.
Wojtek