Originally, however, populism referred neither to a fully-fledged ideology nor simply to bad behaviour. It is based on a particular vision of society: on the one hand, a people regarded as honest, homogeneous and neglected; on the other, elites portrayed as corrupt, out of touch with reality and responsible for all misfortunes. The populist thus claims to directly embody the will of the ‘real people’, often in opposition to institutions, countervailing powers and intermediary bodies.
The essence of populism is therefore not simply to speak to the people. Fortunately, every democracy seeks to do so. Nor is it populist to denounce injustice, criticise those in power or call for greater popular sovereignty. Populism begins when the people are transformed into a single, supposedly pure bloc, for which a leader or movement claims to be the sole legitimate voice.
This distinction is essential. To say that the working classes are suffering from inflation is a political observation. To claim that all problems stem from a small, malevolent caste and that the person speaking to you is the only one capable of returning power to the people is a populist construct. The tactic involves simplifying a complex society into a moral conflict between the good and the bad.
Populism can be found on both the right and the left. On the right, ‘the people’ are often defined in terms of the nation, identity, borders and opposition to immigrants, judges or European institutions. On the left, it may be directed against the financial oligarchy, billionaires, multinationals or the political ‘elite’. The opponents may change, but the mechanism remains similar: the people against those who are alleged to have seized power from them.
The problem is that the word has gradually moved away from political science to become a weapon in the media. ‘Populist’ now means, depending on who is using it: demagogue, extremist, simplistic, vulgar, irresponsible or simply popular. Does a proposal upset mainstream economists? Populism. Does a majority reject a reform? Populism. Does a referendum produce an unexpected result? A populist surge. Does a candidate speak without resorting to the usual technocratic vocabulary? More populism.
This lazy use of the term sometimes reveals a certain social contempt. Labelling a demand as populist allows one to avoid asking whether it reflects genuine suffering. The protester is discredited before their arguments are even examined. The word thus ends up meaning: ‘the opinion of the people that serious-minded individuals should not listen to’.
But the opposite extreme would be just as misleading. Just because the term is overused, we must not deny the existence of genuine populist strategies. Some leaders exploit anger, invent internal enemies, promise miraculous solutions and portray any criticism as a betrayal of the people. Once in power, they may seek to weaken the press, the judiciary or independent institutions on the grounds that these stand in the way of the will of the people.
Populism thus has an ambiguous relationship with democracy. It can raise issues that traditional parties no longer wish to address. It can put neglected citizens back at the centre of attention and expose a genuine usurpation of power. But it can also reduce democracy to the victory of a fleeting majority, as if this were enough to grant all rights. Yet democracy is not limited to elections: it also protects minorities, the plurality of opinions, the separation of powers and the possibility of challenging those in power.
To use the term correctly, three elements must be present: the construction of a supposedly homogeneous people, the designation of elites as necessarily corrupt, and the claim by a leader or movement to be the sole representative of the true will of the people. Without these, we may be dealing with anger, radicalism, demagoguery or opportunism, but not necessarily with populism.
The term therefore remains useful, provided we do not bandy it about indiscriminately to describe anything that causes discomfort. Populism is neither the act of pleasing the people nor that of speaking simply. And the people are not being populist when they reject a policy. By constantly labelling any challenge to authority as populist, we paradoxically end up proving the true populists right: those who claim that the elites no longer listen to anyone.
The utter nonsense therefore stems not from the concept itself, but from its use. Today, ‘populist’ is all too often used to shut down a discussion rather than to understand a phenomenon. The word was intended to enable the analysis of a political mechanism. In many debates, it has become a vaguely elegant way of saying: ‘These people are thinking wrongly. ’ And for a democracy, that is perhaps even more worrying.
This definition is supported in particular by academic work which presents populism as a moral opposition between a supposedly pure people and elites deemed corrupt, whilst emphasising the diversity of its political forms. La Découverte
