172 CHAPTER 8
CORE THEMES Much disagreement surrounds the nature of populism as a political phenomenon. Not only has populism often assumed different forms in different parts of world – leading some to question whether populism in Latin America has the same underlying character as populism in, say, Europe – but populism has also been treated, variously, as a movement, a syndrome, a style of politics and a political strategy. For example, as a political strategy, populism has been associated with so-called anti-party parties , which have a combative, even insurrectionist, character, and reject conventional politics’ obsession with compromise and centre-ground thinking. However, recent years have seen a growing tendency to adopt an ideational approach to populism, conceiving it essentially as a political ideology (Mudde and Kaltwasser, 2015 and 2017). From this perspective, populism is defined by its Manichean tendency to view the world in terms of conflict between good and evil, or ‘us’ and ‘them’, these antithetical forces being articulated through ‘the people’ and ‘the elite ’, respectively. Nevertheless, populism is very clearly a thin-centred ideology, possessing only a limited range of core features. This affords populists considerable scope to draw on other political traditions, notably conservatism, nationalism and socialism, which act, in effect, as ‘host’ ideologies. Not only does this mean that there is no such thing as ‘pure’ populism, but also that populism can vary dramatically both in the forms can take and where it is located on the political spectrum. Like all ideologies, however, populism is associated with a distinctive set of ideas and beliefs. The most important of these are: z z the people z z the elite z z populist democracy. The people The key claim made by populists is that the people are the ultimate source of political authority. In that sense, they believe in the primacy of the people. But who are ‘the people’? The people is among the vaguest and most contested concepts in political analysis. ‘People’ (without the definite article) refers, quite simply, to the human species, encompassing all its members, without restriction. By contrast, ‘the people’ is a narrower and more specific concept, distinguishing those who are part of the people from those who are not. However, such boundaries can be drawn in at least three different ways (Canovan, 2005): z z First, the people are citizens, members of a political community (usually a state), who are endowed with formal rights and duties. This is the sense in which the term is used in the preamble to the US Constitution, which begins: ‘We the people of the United States…’ Thanks to the liberal quest to establish universal citizenship, this use of the term is highly inclusive, and only fails to encompass those who are ‘aliens’ or ‘undocumented immigrants’.
Anti-party party: A party that sets out to subvert traditional party politics by rejecting parliamentary compromise and emphasizing a strategy based on popular mobilization. Elite: A minority in whose hands power, wealth and prestige is concentrated.
z z Second, the people are the common people , or the masses , those who are viewed as somehow downtrodden, exploited or marginalized, as opposed to those who possess wealth, power or social prestige. z z Third, the people is equivalent to the nation. In this sense, the people are defined in cultural and ethnic terms, distinguishing them clearly from those who do not share their national identity, whether they live in the same political community, or a different one.
Powered by FlippingBook