Why ‘populism(s)’?

In search for conceptual clarity

Populism is in fashion due to its appropriation by politicians, media, and journalists. Yet, unfortunately, there are also scholars who employ the term without consideration for its conceptual richness, and without methodological rigor. Over the years, use of the term has waxed and waned to describe a range of social-historical phenomena concerning political leadership, discourse, social movements, regime types, economic and social policies, criminal justice perspectives, etc. This creates severe challenges for a coherent theorization and systematic assessment of populism. As has happened in recent times in the case of other used/abused concepts like globalization, neoliberalism or human security, these works, consciously or unconsciously, contribute to the confusion that surrounds the term.

Recently, there have been explicit efforts to bring clarity to populism as a concept. For instance, within politics, a consensus seems to emerge around three approaches or understandings of populism: ideational, political-strategic, and socio-cultural (as recently cited in the Oxford Handbook of Populism by Rovira Kaltwasser et al., 2017). The ideational approach focuses on the sovereignty of ‘the people’ and its protection at all costs against a dishonest, fraudulent elite. This can be seen as a discourse or worldview (e.g. Hawkins, 2010), or a political style (see Moffitt and Tormey, 2014; Moffitt, 2016). According to the ideational perspective, populism offers little in terms of policy content, and can function as a vessel for both right- and left-wing politics, proposed by a wide range of actors (and not only presidents gone rogue or willing to break social conventions or norms). This perspective has become particularly popular among empirical researchers, who look for a wide range of evidence to identify the existence and effect of this framework when it emerges. The other two approaches – strategic, focused on rulers and their direct connection with ‘their people’, and socio-cultural, emphasized on unconventional and controversial political leadership styles – are very important as well, and are linked to common understandings of populism.

Bearing this in mind, we have prepared this special section of Thesis Eleven to help clarify and unravel the conceptual difficulties that prevent an accurate study and use of populism as a concept. We think a vigorous conceptual debate is essential prior to conducting analysis of populism and, more importantly, to categorize actors, phenomena or processes as such. Whilst some decide on an inductive interpretation of populism, based on isolated analyses of concrete historical cases, we wish to privilege a preliminary conceptual understanding of it to develop pathways for historical and comparative analyses.

Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser in a recent piece (2018) introducing a special issue of ‘Comparative Political Studies’ alert us to two major shortcomings of contemporary conversations about populism(s): the lack of connection with existing/previous research, and the lack of scholars’ linkages with other academic fields. We feel our special section can contribute to breaching gaps in this respect. The scholars who participated in this first iteration of the ‘populism(s)’ project have, for the most part, framed their discussions with a view to longstanding debates on populism from different vantage points and disciplinary orientations. Additionally, we have made a deliberate effort to include scholars located in different regions around the world, trying to offer a perspective that – whilst still connected to dominant interpretations of the concept – reflect other preoccupations and uses of the concept. The contributions help to distinguish populism from other related phenomena, such as the rise of ethnic nationalist projects (Calhoun, 2017), and refrain from pegging populism to an ideological project (right or left).

Furthermore, the articles in this special section emphasize the values by which to conform to a definition of populism, and help to grapple with the ambivalence of the concept. A mode of political activity, populism is closely related to democracy (Panizza, 2005) – with its relation being deemed either as deformed or idealistic. As some of our contributors highlight, populism has the potential to divide the population through its paradoxical attempt to configure the entity of ‘the people’. Quite often, populism is portrayed as a ‘seductive’ strategy – an open manipulation for the purpose of the leader’s selfish political gain (De La Torre, 2010). It often relies on human passions and emotions, such as resentment and hope, as it deposits attention and responsibility on groups and leaders that feed these emotions. Moreover, it may privilege promises of liberation over present responsibilities of the self. Populism can be empowering, but it can also (even simultaneously) disempower ‘the people’. Rather than privileging one explanation over another, we think that a proper understanding of populism must accept these competing – even contradictory – accounts.

Finally, we wanted to emphasize some themes that are often unexplored by the literature on populism – we wanted readers to remember the historical background of the concept, the importance of previous traditions, and think hard about its potential consequences and challenges (Hawkins, 2010). By reading the papers that follow, we hope that readers will find not only a theoretical introduction to the concept, but also new intellectual challenges.

Structure of populism(s)

The section is comprised of four articles that revisit the conceptual configuration of populism, as well as its boundaries when used to explain political processes across the world.

Filipe Carreira da Silva and Mónica Brito Vieira offer a systematic historical account of the concept of populism as conceived from the late 19th century onwards. Their narrative traces the origin of the term to the 1890s, back to the emergence of the Populist Party in the Southern region of the United States of America. Here, a work of fiction written by novelist (and populist leader) Ignatius Donnelly – Caesar’s Column – expresses key characteristics of populism that can help to guide current analyses. Framing their explanation in terms of ‘utopic’ temporality, da Silva and Brito Vieira go beyond resentment as a central feature of populism, paying attention instead to the redemptive character of populist politics. Redemption, its content and emotional power, are often sidelined by the existing literature. This is unfortunate, as its redeeming quality can help understand better the connection between populism and (majoritarian) democracy, and also understand the nature of the grievances that often precede the ‘populist moment’ and specific forms of leadership.

Next, Mexican philosopher María Pía Lara proposes to focus our attention on the conceptual battles that happen in politics more generally, and how populism can be part of such battles. In particular, she calls our attention to the ways in which terms like ‘populism’ are weaponized to incite fear among civil society and other sectors. To achieve this, she revisits Reinhardt Koselleck’s analysis of ‘crisis’, which holds a close connection to the uses that populism is given as an asymmetric-combat concept. Lara argues that, because the concept does not possess a final and definitive meaning, it has been subject to indiscriminate use. She also argues that populism does not possess any real significance, calling instead for a closer examination of the politics involved behind the use of the term in specific situations and contexts. This would help increase the precision of the concept and its interpretation in order to discern among the variety of movements that are currently labelled as ‘populist’.

Gustavo Morales, on the other hand, contributes to the development of a more nuanced use of the concept of populism in order to explain one of the alternative pathways to neoliberal modernity in Latin America. He scrutinizes the political-economic models that – in his view – seek to replace neoliberalism, and helps provide tools that go beyond simplistic characterizations of any (or most) of these processes as populist. Making use of his analyses of official documents from countries like Argentina, Chile and Mexico, and commenting with respect to other countries in the region, Morales concludes there are four discernible models that offer alternatives to the neoliberal policies implemented since the mid-20th century. The range of ideas and answers proposed in different countries situate them under categories that behave differently and aim to achieve goals of peripheral reconstruction; the articulation of top-down populist leadership; moderate reform from the center outwards, or a radicalization of the economic benefits achieved from current illicit practices. In addition to contributing to our discussion centered on populism, this article adds to other works seeking to make sense of the anti-neoliberal responses of Latin America (most of which came before the reactions that took place in the West during and after the Global Financial Crisis; see Silva, 2009; Weyland, 2003)

Venezuelan sociologist Margarita López Maya provides us with an insightful account of the current regime led by President Nicolás Maduro, whose ruling style leaves aside the main populist features that his predecessor Hugo Chávez was known for, and instead acts in traditional authoritarian ways that benefit his closest circles at the expense of the population. At some point Chavismo as a redistributive project generated expectations amongst activists, progressive leaders and intellectuals across the world. It was also seen as the last manifestation of a strong populist tradition in the region (Hawkins, 2010; Knight, 1998; Levitsky and Loxton, 2013). However, as López Maya shows, the Venezuelan regime has effectively become an increasingly worrying case. The regime’s governance no longer relies on charisma and has little to offer in terms of actual performance for ‘the people’ or otherwise. Rather, the ruling elite’s systematic abuse of power now includes shameless criminal activities that are unpunished despite internal and external pressures. To document her argument, the author identifies a series of cases that would otherwise be punishable by law, in which the political elites of the country have been involved. In Venezuela, the demise of accountability is largely responsible for the country’s catastrophe – a warning for those who approach populist processes and their potential without taking due account of normative and institutional limits.

Concluding remarks

All of the contributions coincide in various themes that function as guiding threads of the conversation here displayed. Populism is a style of politics with a logic that ties it uncomfortably to the visions of democracy entertained across the world. It is marked by emotions of resentment but also of hope, since these are necessary to achieve the recognition and belonging to that ‘loose signifier’ that we call ‘the people’. Populism is a tool for political combat constantly placed in a temporal line of unachieved goals and dangers of uncertainty. Moreover, populism also omits the concrete character of politics and the consequences it holds for those who remain marginal.

With this special section, Thesis Eleven hopes to contribute to a growing theoretical debate on populism, opening new avenues that allow for a careful discussion of the concept that builds bridges across different traditions and perspectives. Moreover, the issue will introduce new debates in this same space. At the moment of writing this introduction, there is another special issue in preparation about the same topic but focused on the Global South – an area of the world where populist political projects have played a significant role in contemporary politics.