Populism

Populism is one of the most important and contentious concepts in contemporary political science, often associated with movements that claim to represent the interests of “the people” against a perceived corrupt or distant elite. Over the centuries, populism has manifested in myriad forms- left- wing and right- wing, democratic and authoritarian- making it an elusive phenomenon for both theorists and practitioners of politics. Its appeal lies in its simplicity and adaptability, offering apparent answers to societal grievances and promising political renewal, but also threatening the stability of democratic institutions and values. Populism resists easy characterization due to its multifaceted nature. At its core, most definitions agree that populism divides society into two antagonistic groups: “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite.” Politics, in this worldview, becomes an expression of the general will of the people, often portrayed in stark moralistic terms. Notably, the ideational approach- adopted by leading scholars such as Cas Mudde- calls populism a “thin- centred ideology” because it does not present a comprehensive blueprint for society, but instead attaches itself easily to wider ideologies like socialism, nationalism, or conservatism. The ideational approach emphasizes a moral and rhetorical framing: the people are inherently virtuous, while the elite represents vice and deceit. This framing creates a binary worldview that resists compromise and fuels anti- establishment sentiment.

Populism is also conceptualized as a discursive phenomenon. Ernesto Laclau and the Essex School offer a constructivist approach, positing that populism is a means by which various unmet demands coalesce around a symbol-often a charismatic leader-who embodies the collective will. Here, “the people” are not a fixed entity but a discursive construction, enabling leaders to define inclusion and exclusion fluidly based on strategic aims. This discursive approach allows for immense variation in populist movements and their social bases. A third influential perspective emphasizes populism’s roots in social class dynamics. Early Latin American scholarship interpreted populism as a phenomenon of mass mobilization by previously excluded social sectors during periods of rapid modernization. Marxist interpreters in Latin America and beyond contend that populist regimes integrate popular masses into electoral and welfare politics, often demobilizing grassroots labor in favor of state-led benefits, while American sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset saw populism as cross-class movements led by charismatic figures.

Origin and Evolution

The first major populist movement can be traced to the late 19th-century United States with the rise of the People’s Party, which championed farmers and workers against financial and corporate power. The party advocated for progressive reforms such as direct democracy, government regulation of the economy, and an end to monopolies. Over time, the label “populism” was applied to heterogeneous movements across the world: Russia’s Narodniks, Latin America’s mass-based parties, and more recently, the surge of right-wing and left-wing populisms in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. In the 20th century, populism often surfaced during periods of social crisis-economic downturns, rapid technological change, migration, or perceived political corruption. In Latin America, populist leaders like Juan Perón mobilized working classes and established welfare states while simultaneously subordinating collective organization to state power. In the United States, populist rhetoric was used by both progressive reformers and demagogues, reflecting the ambiguity and versatility of the concept. In India, populist politics has influenced the design and implementation of welfare policies, sometimes prioritizing short-term electoral gains over long-term reform.

Political Techniques of Populism

Populist movements, irrespective of left or right orientation, share several key characteristics. They privilege direct appeals to the people, position themselves as outsiders to the political establishment, and frequently question the legitimacy of intermediary institutions such as courts, parliaments, and the media. Cultivating an “us versus them” mentality, populist leaders claim they alone represent the true interests of the people, delegitimizing opponents as traitors or enemies of national interest. A distinctive feature of populism is its embrace of majoritarian democracy over representative democracy. Populists favor mechanisms such as referendums, direct mandates, and personal leadership, which they claim are more responsive to public will. This preference often undermines constitutional checks and balances, minority rights, and the pluralistic deliberation essential for liberal democracy. In some cases, populist governments have centralized power, revised school curricula to align with ideological narratives, and sidelined concerns like environmental protection or minority rights in pursuit of rapid policy successes.

Populist rhetoric also tends to simplify complex issues, offering “common sense” solutions to problems like globalization, migration, or technological change. This approach can generate trust among disenfranchised segments of society but risks exacerbating polarization and making governance less effective or sustainable in the long run.

Populism’s Relationship with Democracy

The relationship between populism and democracy is deeply ambivalent. On one hand, populism derives its legitimacy from popular sovereignty and mass mobilization, making it a force for the inclusion of marginalized groups and the expansion of political participation. Populist governments have often enacted redistributive policies, welfare schemes, and reforms that address grievances overlooked by established parties. On the other hand, populism contains the seeds of democratic erosion. By rejecting pluralism and vilifying opponents, it can corrode the norms of debate, tolerance, and institutional autonomy essential for stable democracy. Populist leaders have at times attacked media independence, threatened judicial autonomy, and rewritten constitutions to entrench their own power. The tension between the “will of the people” and the constraints of constitutionality and minority protection lies at the heart of this debate. Moreover, populism is often cyclical, arising in response to failures of representative government but potentially destabilizing the same democratic fabric it claims to renew. Its rhetorical character- celebrating authenticity, directness, and purity-can foster a climate of suspicion and mistrust, alienating citizens from the slow but necessary processes of policy deliberation and compromise.

Contemporary Examples and Criticisms

In recent decades, populism has surged globally, with landmark events such as the election of Donald Trump in the United States, Brexit in the United Kingdom, the rise of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Narendra Modi in India. These movements frequently tap into economic anxieties, cultural insecurities, and the failures of establishment politics to address national concerns. In Europe, parties like France’s National Rally and Germany’s AfD combine anti-immigration sentiment with attacks on European integration, navigating tensions between national sovereignty and globalization. In India, populist politics has dramatically altered the policy landscape, from welfare schemes targeting rural and urban poor, to the centralization of power in the executive, to the reworking of historical narratives in education and the sidelining of environmental and minority interests in favor of infrastructure and national development. Populism’s influence on Indian democracy involves both the mobilization of subaltern voices and risks associated with the breakdown of decentralization and pluralism.

Populism faces strong criticism for its tendency to undermine institutional norms, encourage polarization, and promote simplistic solutions to complex problems. Critics argue that by emphasizing short-term gains-tax reductions, benefits, protectionist policies-populist governments often neglect fiscal responsibility, long-term development, and inclusive governance. Populist regimes have sometimes increased economic inequalities or social divisions, as benefits are tied to electoral loyalty rather than sustainable policy frameworks. Further, the “othering” techniques deployed by right-wing populism-targeting minorities, migrants, or dissenting social groups-have raised concerns about violence and exclusion, eroding democratic institutions and the public trust needed for collective growth. Analytical scholarship stresses the importance of distinguishing populism from fascism or authoritarianism, noting that while populism can be anti- democratic in practice, it is not inherently so in theory. In practice, much depends on the interplay between populist forces and the broader democratic ecosystem.

Populism remains an enduring phenomenon, reshaping how societies conceptualize governance, representation, and the scope of democratic inclusion. At its core, populism is about the mobilization of ordinary people against perceived elites, using rhetoric and action to redraw boundaries of who belongs and who decides. While it can democratize politics by expanding participation, it can also destabilize institutions and undermine the virtues of pluralism, compromise, and constitutionalism.

The study of populism requires engagement with diverse theoretical traditions, from ideational and discursive construction to class-based mobilization. It calls for a robust analysis of how policy, political culture, and leadership interact, how routine crises give rise to populist language, and how democratic systems can be fortified against polarization and simplistic solutions. Populism’s future will depend not only on its rhetorical power, but on the ability of democratic societies to address grievances without sacrificing their fundamental values and structures.

PSIR Ecosystem

UPSC

NET JRF

CUET PG

UGC NET Paper 1

NCERT

Populism