Back to the beginning: the ever-lasting search for the meaning of populism(s)

The study of populism includes numerous attempts to define the phenomenon, conceptualise it in different contexts, and eventually draw conclusions about the corrective or corrosive effect that it has on liberal democracy. It is true that almost every study on populism focuses on these areas to a lesser or greater extent with only one goal: to understand what populism is. Every now and then, one of these studies attempts to provide an overview of the recent developments and offer some temporary conclusions about the state of the art of populism studies. 

One of the most recent endeavours of that nature is the textbook by Carlos de la Torre and Treethep Srisa-Nga who attempt to offer a conclusive account of the global manifestations of populism. As both authors state in the preface of their book, they have ‘normative goals’, as they find populism capable of being an inclusive phenomenon but not as a democratising ‘panacea’ (viii). Based on that, they examine populism through its connection to other concepts and through its expressions in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The structure of the book is indicative of that: populism in Latin America, populism and media, populism and fascism, and populism in Europe, are some of the themes that the authors address. It is interesting to highlight here that their introductory chapter is titled ‘who is afraid of populism?’. There the authors discuss the overuse of the populism concept and the possibility of getting rid of the concept from social sciences. Considering the preface, the selected aspects that they address in the book and the introductory chapter, one can safely assume that the authors have a very specific opinion about populism which they infuse throughout their textbook.

Primarily, the authors’ view on populism has two aspects: (first) the acknowledgment of how elusive the concept is, and (second) how it can be better understood through its connection to concepts such as nationalism, authoritarianism, and fascism. While this approach may seem sensible, it also entails certain dangers that must be avoided through the proper distinction between populism and other ‘-isms’. Indeed, the authors appear to conflate the populisms with other (‘related’) concepts throughout their book. An example can better illustrate this point. In presenting the cases of Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdogan and Duterte, the authors draw an almost intrinsic connection between populism and authoritarianism that leads to generalisations about the effect of populism on liberal democracies. The authors go even further and claim that the most dangerous aspect of populism is that it is leader-centric. Again, this opinion has been disputed by multiple accounts that have researched extensively anti-austerity social movements in Southern European periphery (such as the Indignados and Aganaktismenoi) and the Tahrir Square protests. These movements have been described as populist but did not have a strong leading figure. This connection between populism and authoritarianism also creates some rather troubling comparisons (such as the one between Alexis Tsipras and Viktor Orban), because they have been both hostile towards media. As a result, and given the normative goals proclaimed at the beginning of the textbook, populism’s negative aspects are over-emphasised while its positive attributes are downplayed. 

This approach towards populism is also evident in its connection and comparison to fascism. Based mainly on the case of Juan Perón in Argentina, both authors examine in greater detailthe common elements between fascism and populism rather than focusing on distinguishing them as separate phenomena. In doing so, they conclude at the end of the respective chapter that populism can potentially lead to fascism as populist actors (again, such as Bolsonaro and Trump) act against liberal-democratic institutions. While this may be true to some extent, the rest of the chapter does not allow any space to discuss the opposite – that is, the transformation of populism to fascism might not happen at all. On top of that, their understanding towards both phenomena leads the authors to employ the ‘populism’ label to describe actors that are (mainly) nationalist, racist, or fascist. This is indicative of how the conflation of populism with other notions negatively impacts the concept’s analytical utility; it also contributes to further conditioning the ‘populist hype’ that is (still) evident in populism studies.

These examples are representative of how the authors of the textbook understand populism, its connection to other concepts and its contemporary expressions worldwide. To their credit though they do acknowledge the differences between different ideological variations of populism as well as other elements that highlight populism’s uniqueness as an analytical concept. However, the authors move on too quickly and show little interest in exploring this further. 

There are, arguably, many similarities between Global Populisms and Jan-Werner Müller’s What is Populism? book. Considering that both books are five years apart, it is rather interesting to see that some opinions on populism have not been influenced by the progress of populism studies in-between. The use of ‘populism’ as the de facto concept that attached to contemporary non-mainstream political phenomena has been disproved by empirical and theoretical works over the last decade, so have claims framing populism as a force that is necessarily anti-(liberal)democratic. The authors however still embrace such normative claims. Indeed, the authors do warn about their normative goals in the preface of the book. However, when writing a textbook, the approach to populism should be more inclusive and avoid personal bias about the phenomenon. The scope of the book is global (as the title suggests) and for this reason, the authors should have extended their overview beyond any normative perceptions on populism that are region-specific.