I've always qualified myself as a conservative revolutionary. I am not quite sure what it exactly means and though it comes across as totally contradictory in words/concepts, for me it feels quite comfortable, and nothing paradoxical about it.
Simply put I don't trust the mass effect. That is not to say that people's grievances are not real, not valid, and that they should not be addressed, but it is to say that taking the masses as an indicator of anything terribly enlightened is a humongous political mistake.
Anyone who has studied mass movements knows all too well, that mass momentum is short lived, the astute strategist will capitalize on its short life span and turn it to its political advantage.
Mass movements are easily ignited and easily tamed provided the timing and context are favorable, and provided that an intelligent leader understands what makes his own people tick and what appeases them.
If the leader (also called government) has been divorced from his people, and the gap has widened with time, he creates the optimal conditions for his own downfall. If the leader has repeatedly ignored his people's pleas, his downfall is ultimately guaranteed.
Opponents know how this works, and they exacerbate this distance, this gap, by exaggerating it even more through propaganda...
I am putting it all in simple terms. But this is basically how the whole thing functions.
If you like, it's like having a woman you neglect for a long time, and then suddenly she turns against you. You think it's all out of the blue, totally uncalled for...well think again. Women (in context of relationship with opposite sex) and mass movements have much in common.
Basically put, all things being equal, there are leaders and there are those who are led. And leaders can't remain leaders if they take things/status quo for granted for a long period of time.
And all the rest is ideology.