Populism

Populism Plot Summary

Introduction

Populism has emerged as one of the most controversial political phenomena of our time, simultaneously celebrated as the voice of ordinary people and condemned as a threat to democratic institutions. At its core, populism embodies a fundamental tension in democratic societies: it claims to champion the will of "the people" against a corrupt "elite," yet its implementation often leads to illiberal outcomes that undermine pluralism and minority rights. This ideological duality makes populism both fascinating and troubling, as it reflects genuine democratic impulses while potentially eroding the very foundations that make democracy sustainable. The ideational approach to understanding populism reveals its nature as a thin-centered ideology that can attach itself to various host ideologies across the political spectrum. This explains why populist movements can appear in such diverse forms - from left-wing governments in Latin America to right-wing parties in Europe and grassroots movements in North America. By examining populism through this lens, we gain insight into not just the mechanics of populist politics, but also into the deeper tensions within democratic systems themselves, and how societies might respond to populist challenges without sacrificing core democratic values.

Chapter 1: The Ideational Approach: Defining Populism as a Thin-Centered Ideology

Populism represents one of the most contested concepts in political discourse, often used as a pejorative label rather than a substantive analytical category. The ideational approach offers clarity by defining populism as a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups: "the pure people" versus "the corrupt elite." This approach emphasizes that populism inherently argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people. As a thin-centered ideology, populism has a restricted morphology - it lacks the comprehensive worldview of "thick" ideologies like socialism or liberalism. This explains why populism almost always appears attached to other ideological elements. By itself, populism offers neither complex nor comprehensive answers to political questions, but rather provides a frame through which reality is interpreted. This thin nature allows populism to combine with diverse host ideologies, from nationalism to socialism, resulting in significantly different political manifestations. The ideational approach allows us to identify what populism is not, which is crucial for analytical precision. Populism stands in direct opposition to both elitism and pluralism. While elitism shares populism's Manichean distinction of society but inverts the moral qualities (viewing the elite as superior), pluralism rejects the dualistic perspective altogether, embracing societal diversity as a strength rather than a weakness. Importantly, populism differs from clientelism, which is a strategy of political exchange rather than an ideology. The core concepts of populism revolve around three essential ideas: the people, the elite, and the general will. "The people" in populist discourse is a construction that can refer to the sovereign people, the common people, or the nation. "The elite" is portrayed as a homogeneous corrupt group working against the general will, often including political, economic, cultural, and media elites. The concept of the general will draws from Rousseau, suggesting that the collective will of the people should be unconstrained by institutional checks and balances. Perhaps the greatest strength of the ideational approach is its versatility. It explains why populism can manifest across diverse political contexts, accommodates different types of mobilization (from charismatic leaders to social movements), and provides a nuanced understanding of populism's complex relationship with democracy. Most significantly, it allows analysis of both the supply side (populist leaders and organizations) and the demand side (populist attitudes among citizens), offering a more comprehensive framework for understanding this complex phenomenon.

Chapter 2: Global Manifestations: Regional Patterns and Historical Waves

Populism has emerged in distinctive patterns across different regions, adapting to local political cultures while maintaining its core ideological features. In North America, populism has a long history dating back to the late 19th century People's Party, which mobilized farmers against urban bankers and politicians. American populism transformed from a primarily progressive movement into a predominantly reactionary one during the Cold War period, when anti-communist sentiment fueled right-wing populist rhetoric. More recently, both the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left and the Tea Party on the right have employed populist frames, though with different conceptions of who constitutes "the people" and "the elite." Latin America represents the region with the most enduring populist tradition, having experienced three distinct waves of populism. The first wave emerged during the Great Depression and lasted until the late 1960s, exemplified by figures like Juan Perón in Argentina. These populists defined "the people" as a virtuous mestizo community of peasants and workers while portraying "the elite" as a national oligarchy allied with imperialist forces. The second wave in the 1990s, represented by figures like Alberto Fujimori in Peru, combined populism with neoliberal economic policies. The current third wave, inaugurated by Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, has adopted socialist rhetoric and emphasizes inclusionary politics for marginalized groups. European populism remained relatively marginal throughout most of the 20th century, despite the early narodnichestvo movement in 19th-century Russia. It was only in the late 1990s that populism became a significant political force in Europe, primarily through populist radical right parties that combined populism with nativism and authoritarianism. Parties like France's National Front pioneered this approach, attacking established parties as a "Gang of Four" and promoting welfare chauvinism. The end of communism also unleashed populist sentiments throughout Eastern Europe, with post-communist populist parties often claiming that a "stolen revolution" needed completion. Beyond these three main regions, populism has appeared in developing democracies across Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa. In Australasia, right-wing populist parties emerged in the 1990s in response to immigration and neoliberal reforms. In Southeast Asia, populism followed the 1997 Asian financial crisis, with figures like Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand achieving notable success. The Arab Spring movements, while not inherently populist, often employed populist rhetoric with slogans like "The people want to bring down the regime!" What connects these diverse manifestations is populism's ability to mobilize around perceived grievances that mainstream political forces have failed to address. Regional waves often reflect shared historical experiences and political contexts, with populists adapting their specific interpretation of "the people" and "the elite" to local circumstances. As democracy has spread globally, so too has populism, reflecting both the possibilities of electoral democracy and the frustrations with liberal democratic constraints.

Chapter 3: Mobilization Strategies: Leadership, Movements, and Parties

Populism manifests through three distinct mobilization types: personalist leadership, social movements, and political parties. This diversity challenges the stereotype that populist mobilization always requires a charismatic strongman. Personalist leadership represents the quintessential form of populist mobilization, where an individual campaigns largely independent of existing party structures. Figures like Alberto Fujimori in Peru or Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands exemplify this approach, creating a direct, unmediated connection with supporters. These leaders often construct personalist electoral vehicles—ad hoc political structures under their complete control—rather than genuine parties with internal democracy. Social movements represent a second type of populist mobilization, characterized by bottom-up organization rather than top-down leadership. Examples like Occupy Wall Street in the United States and the Indignados in Spain demonstrate how populist movements can emerge without centralized leadership, instead interpreting widespread anger against the establishment through a populist frame. These movements typically define "the people" inclusively as "the 99%" while portraying economic and political elites as a corrupt minority working against public interests. Social movements often struggle to maintain momentum without institutional structures, though they can influence broader political discourse. Political parties constitute the third and most institutionalized form of populist mobilization. Despite ideological tensions between populism and party organization, many successful populist forces operate as well-structured parties, particularly in Europe. Parties like France's National Front and Poland's Law and Justice have developed extensive organizational networks with youth branches, auxiliary organizations, and formal membership structures. These parties can often survive beyond their founding leaders, though leadership transitions frequently trigger periods of internal conflict and electoral decline. The type of mobilization populists employ is partly determined by the political system in which they operate. Presidential systems facilitate personalist leadership, as candidates can bypass party structures to appeal directly to voters. Parliamentary systems incentivize party formation, as control of the executive requires representation in parliament. Social movements thrive in political contexts with restrictive opportunity structures, such as two-party systems that limit third-party viability. Each mobilization type affects electoral prospects differently. Personalist leadership can achieve rapid breakthrough but struggles with persistence unless institutional structures develop. Political parties face challenges in initial breakthrough but can achieve greater longevity if they develop robust organizations. Social movements rarely achieve direct electoral success but can influence mainstream politics by shifting public discourse or transforming into more formal political organizations. The most successful populist forces often combine elements of multiple mobilization strategies, as exemplified by Bolivia's Movement Toward Socialism under Evo Morales, which integrates a strong leader, social movement networks, and party organization.

Chapter 4: The Populist Leader: Constructing the Voice of the People

While leaders are central to most political phenomena, they play a particularly significant role in populism. The stereotypical populist leader is often portrayed as a charismatic strongman or caudillo, exemplified by figures like Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina or Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. These leaders cultivate an image of decisive action, emphasizing virility and using simple, sometimes vulgar language to connect with "common people." They present themselves as embodiments of the people's will, capable of sweeping away corrupt elites through bold, decisive action. However, this stereotype captures only a minority of populist leaders. Many successful populist figures defy this mold, including women like Marine Le Pen in France and Pauline Hanson in Australia, who use their gender to strengthen their outsider status and authenticity. Female populists often emphasize their roles as mothers or wives to connect with traditional values while simultaneously presenting themselves as challengers to male-dominated political establishments. Their gender helps reinforce the narrative of standing apart from traditional elites. Entrepreneur-populists like Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand present another variation. Despite their immense wealth, these figures position themselves as self-made businesspeople who succeeded despite corrupt political systems rather than because of them. They claim to enter politics reluctantly as a "sacrifice," using their business success to demonstrate both their outsider status and their competence. Many leverage ownership of popular sports teams or media outlets to build connections with ordinary citizens despite their elite economic status. Ethnic identity can also be central to populist leadership, particularly in contexts where ethnicity correlates with political marginalization. Evo Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president, used his Aymara heritage to authenticate his outsider status and connection to the common people. Unlike European ethno-populists, however, Morales presented an inclusionary vision, inviting mestizos and whites to join his movement while prioritizing indigenous interests. Even minority ethnic identity can serve populist purposes, as demonstrated by Alberto Fujimori, who leveraged his Japanese heritage in Peru to distinguish himself from the European-descended elite. The populist leader's most crucial task is constructing an image as the authentic voice of the people. This requires both separation from the elite and connection to the people. Ironically, most successful populist leaders are not true outsiders but rather "insider-outsiders" with significant connections to political or economic elites. Many, like Dutch politician Geert Wilders or Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, held positions within mainstream parties before adopting populist politics. Some inherit their positions through family connections, like Marine Le Pen or Keiko Fujimori. True outsiders like Hugo Chávez are rare exceptions. This paradox illustrates how populist leadership often involves careful image construction rather than genuine outsider status. Populist leaders devote extraordinary effort to presenting themselves as ordinary, crafting profiles that resonate with local political cultures while obscuring their own elite connections. As political scientist Paul Taggart observed, populism requires "extraordinary individuals to lead the most ordinary of people" - but these extraordinary individuals must convincingly present themselves as ordinary to succeed.

Chapter 5: Populism and Democracy: An Ambivalent Relationship

The relationship between populism and democracy represents one of the most contested aspects of populist politics. While conventional wisdom often portrays populism as inherently dangerous to democracy, the reality is far more complex. Populism is fundamentally democratic in its appeal to popular sovereignty and majority rule, yet it simultaneously challenges liberal democracy's emphasis on pluralism and minority rights. This creates an inherent tension at the heart of populist politics. Liberal democracy balances two dimensions: public contestation (the ability to freely formulate preferences and oppose government) and political participation (the right to participate in the political system). Populism tends to emphasize the latter while potentially undermining the former. By claiming to represent the unified will of "the people," populism can justify bypassing institutional constraints designed to protect minority rights and prevent majoritarian tyranny. Populist actors often attack independent institutions like judiciaries and media as illegitimate constraints on popular sovereignty, undermining what political scientist Robert Dahl called the "institutional guarantees" necessary for liberal democracy. The impact of populism varies significantly across different political regimes and stages of democratization. During liberalization of authoritarian systems, populism typically plays a positive role by articulating demands for popular sovereignty that challenge state repression. In democratic transitions from competitive authoritarianism to electoral democracy, populism plays an ambiguous but generally constructive role by promoting free and fair elections. However, during democratic deepening, when reforms to protect fundamental rights are being implemented, populism tends to oppose the strengthening of independent institutions that limit majority rule. Populism can also contribute to democratic erosion by incrementally undermining institutions that protect fundamental rights. Hungary under Viktor Orbán exemplifies this process, where constitutional changes have systematically reduced checks on executive power. In more extreme cases, populism can facilitate democratic breakdown through what Peru's Alberto Fujimori called an autogolpe (self-coup), justifying the suspension of democratic institutions as necessary to implement "the will of the people." Interestingly, however, populism generally opposes complete reversion to full authoritarianism, as even competitive authoritarianism provides populists the electoral validation they require for legitimacy. Several factors mediate populism's impact on democracy, including whether populists are in opposition or in power, the type of political system (presidential or parliamentary), and the international context. Populists in opposition typically call for more direct democracy and transparency, while populists in power often work to tilt electoral playing fields in their favor. Parliamentary systems tend to constrain populists through coalition politics, while presidential systems can allow greater concentration of power. Strong international democratic networks can limit democratic backsliding, though their influence is not absolute. The complex relationship between populism and democracy suggests that populism functions as both corrective and threat. As a corrective, populism can give voice to marginalized groups, improve political responsiveness, and increase democratic accountability. As a threat, it can undermine minority rights, erode institutions protecting fundamental rights, and moralize politics in ways that make compromise impossible. Understanding this ambivalence is crucial for developing effective democratic responses to populist challenges.

Chapter 6: Causes and Responses: Understanding Populism's Rise and Management

The success of populist forces stems from the convergence of demand-side and supply-side factors within specific socioeconomic and sociopolitical contexts. On the demand side, populist attitudes are surprisingly widespread among citizens across different societies, though typically dormant until activated by specific triggers. Systematic corruption scandals, economic crises, and a general feeling that the political system is unresponsive to citizens' concerns can activate latent populist sentiments. The perception of a growing gap between elites and ordinary people becomes particularly acute when mainstream parties prioritize their role as "responsible agents" (implementing necessary but unpopular policies) over their function as representatives of citizen preferences. Long-term societal changes have created more fertile ground for populism. The process of "cognitive mobilization" has produced more informed, independent citizens who question elite authority, while changing media landscapes have intensified scrutiny of political misconduct. Traditional institutions have weakened globally, and social media has facilitated rapid mobilization of anti-establishment sentiment. These structural changes create an environment where populist messages find receptive audiences when crises occur. On the supply side, successful populist actors exploit these conditions by politicizing issues neglected by mainstream parties. When established parties converge ideologically, populists can credibly claim "they are all the same" and position themselves as the only genuine alternative. Populists actively work to create a sense of crisis, transforming moderate challenges into existential threats that require urgent intervention. Local political cultures significantly influence which populist appeals resonate - from the historically populist political discourse in the United States to the traditionally more elite-dominated politics of Western Europe. Democratic responses to populism must address both demand and supply factors. Demand-side responses should focus on preventing the activation of populist attitudes by combating corruption, strengthening state capacity, and improving elite responsiveness. Honest acknowledgment of the real constraints on political power can counter populist oversimplification, while civic education can strengthen democratic values. Supply-side responses typically fall between opposition and cooperation strategies. Some democratic systems use institutional barriers, media scrutiny, or international pressure to contain populist forces, while others incorporate populist concerns into mainstream politics or form coalitions that moderate populist extremes. Two common but counterproductive approaches should be avoided: coordinated frontal attacks that reinforce populist narratives of "the establishment versus the people," and mainstream adoption of populist rhetoric that further polarizes political discourse. Instead, democratic actors should engage in substantive dialogue with populist concerns while defending liberal democratic principles. This requires distinguishing between legitimate grievances and illiberal solutions, acknowledging democratic deficits while promoting pluralistic remedies. Ultimately, populism represents an illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism. It emerges when unelected bodies and technocratic institutions limit democratic choice without adequate justification or accountability. The growth of supranational organizations, market forces, and expert agencies has constrained elected officials without corresponding democratic oversight. Addressing the populist challenge requires not dismissing populist voters as irrational but recognizing the democratic deficits that fuel their grievances. Only by strengthening both democratic responsiveness and liberal protections can societies effectively manage the populist challenge while preserving democratic values.

Summary

Populism exists as a paradoxical force within modern democracy, simultaneously serving as its conscience and its challenge. This thin-centered ideology, built on the moral distinction between "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite," asks uncomfortable questions about undemocratic aspects of liberal institutions while providing illiberal answers. Its global manifestations - from left-wing governments in Latin America to right-wing parties in Europe and grassroots movements in North America - reveal how populism adapts to different political contexts while maintaining its core ideological features. The diversity of populist leaders, from charismatic strongmen to female politicians, entrepreneurs, and ethnic representatives, demonstrates how the "voice of the people" can be constructed through different narratives of authenticity and outsider status. The most profound insight emerging from this analysis is that populism functions as a mirror reflecting democracy's own internal tensions and contradictions. As liberal democracy has increasingly prioritized technocratic governance and institutional constraints over popular sovereignty, populism has emerged as a corrective force demanding greater responsiveness to citizen concerns. However, its rejection of pluralism and institutional checks presents genuine threats to liberal democratic values. Rather than dismissing populism as simply dangerous or celebrating it as purely democratic, we must recognize its dual nature and engage with the legitimate grievances it expresses while rejecting its illiberal solutions. Only by addressing the democratic deficits that fuel populist demand while preserving liberal protections can we navigate the challenge that populism presents to contemporary democratic systems.

About Author

Loading...

Cas Mudde

Dutch political scientist who focuses his studies on political extremism and populism in Europe. His research includes the areas of political parties, extremism, democracy, civil society and European politics.

Read more