5. Populism and democracy

The relationship between populism and democracy has always been a topic of intense debate. Depending on its electoral power and the context in which it arises, populism can work as either a threat to or a corrective for democracy. To better understand this complex relationship, “Populism and democracy” presents a clear definition of (liberal) democracy, which helps to clarify how the latter is positively and negatively affected by populist forces. It then presents an original theoretical framework of the impact of populism on different political regimes, which allows us to distinguish the main effects of populism on the different stages of the process of both democratization and de-democratization.

4. The populist leader

A common feature of populism is its reliance on strong leaders who are able to mobilize the masses and/or conduct their parties with the aim of enacting radical reforms. Populism is often guided by strong leaders, who, through their behavior and speech, present themselves as the voice of the people. “The populist leader” describes the characteristics of the charismatic strongman, such as Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. Yet, some populist actors portray themselves as voices of the people by using their gender, profession, and ethnicity. There are three types of populists: outsiders (very rare), insider-outsiders (often the most successful), and insiders (also very rare).

3. Populism and mobilization

There are three different types of populist mobilization: personalist leadership, social movement, and political party, although some populist actors have aspects of two or three. Personalist leadership is more prevalent in certain regions, such as Latin America. Social movements are more common in America, and political parties are the paradigmatic type of populist mobilization in much of Europe. “Populism and mobilization” concludes by considering why some types of populist mobilization are more prevalent in certain places than in others and asking: do these different types of populist mobilization have an impact on the electoral success of populism?

2. Populism around the world

Today, populism affects almost all continents. While all populists share a common discourse, populism is an extremely heterogeneous political phenomenon. Individual populist actors can be left or right, conservative or progressive, religious or secular. Almost all populist actors combine populism with one or more other “host” ideologies. “Populism around the world” provides a concise overview of the main populist actors of the past 150 years. It focuses on North America, Latin America, and Europe in describing the characteristics and host ideology, and the specific interpretation of “the people” and “the elite” of the populists in these regions before looking at some recent populist actors outside these traditional areas.

6. Causes and responses

To explain the success (and failure) of populist actors one has to take into account both the feelings of voters and the behavior of elites. In addition, it is crucial to consider the ways in which the socioeconomic and sociopolitical context can both hinder and facilitate the demand for and supply of populism. “Causes and responses” considers another important issue: how to respond to the rise of populism? It maps different democratic responses that target the demand side and the supply side of populist politics and concludes with some suggestions on how best to both strengthen populism’s positive effects and weaken its negative effects on (liberal) democracy.

1. What is populism?

“What is populism?” explains the ideational approach taken by this VSI. Populism is positioned within the context of liberal democracy. It is a label seldom claimed by people or organizations themselves. Instead, it is ascribed to others, most often with a negative connotation. Populism is defined as a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps, “the pure people” versus “the corrupt elite,” and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people. The three core concepts—the people, the elite, and the general will—are then explained in more detail.