An effort to define some basic tenets of populism
Because there are few words which are more misused
Okay, I think we all know by now that liberals, and others of a technocratic bent, like to use “populism” as a slur against any ideas or people they disagree with. I once read in a “reputable” newspaper, though I forget which one (probably the Guardian) an article describing Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman as such. That’s right, an absolute monarch who spends all his time trying to get infeasible vanity megaprojects off the ground, which are built with literal slave labour and appeal to nobody but foreigners with more money than sense, is apparently doing so out of concern for what his people want. But not every case is as straightforward as this.
For instance, Javier Milei has an edgy, iconoclastic image as well as a genuine disdain for the Argentine political establishment and technocratic governance, but his program is full-bore Chicago School libertarianism. Especially in South America, such a program is about as anti-populist as you can get: typically when something similar came to power there, it was imposed from above with the backing of the US, sometimes even by means of a military dictatorship. So, is Milei a bona fide populist? I doubt there is a stable consensus on this in political theory circles, or indeed anywhere else. Compact recently ran an interesting article that explored this exact question. Populism may be more nebulous than other political ideologies by its very nature, but at some point we have to have a solid idea of what it is and isn’t for it to be of any use as a description.
Before attempting to make a coherent definition of the philosophy behind populism, I will start by listing some traits that I would like that definition to capture:
Populism isn’t inherently left-wing or right-wing. In fact, a common populist sentiment is “it’s not about left versus right, it’s top versus bottom”.
Populism doesn’t just mean “enacting policies that are popular”. It needs to have a way by which the people are actually involved in decision-making, although it need not be conventionally liberal-democratic.
Populism always values community strength and togetherness above any one person’s individual desires.
With these ideas in mind, I have formulated five philosophical beliefs that I think anyone who identifies as a populist, no matter whether they come in from the left or the right, can and should agree with:
People need to believe in something bigger than themselves, or they will feel alienated from society and lacking purpose in life with no hope for the future.
No man is an island, and society is not just a collection of individuals. People are stronger together, and nobody should ever feel that they have to get by on their own.
The strength of a group lies first and foremost in its similarities, not in its differences. While forcing people to be entirely the same is not healthy, a group of people with no belief or experience in common to bond over cannot work together effectively.
Generalisation is the most basic operation of human thought, and is something that nobody can ever avoid without completely giving up their ability to make sense of the world. Popular movements should try to move away from particularism and towards what is universal.
Any leaders of a popular movement must consider themselves not as people who discipline it, hold it back or impose their own ideas upon it, but as the “tip of the spear”: that which focuses its aims and translates them into concrete action.
I do not claim that this is an exhaustive list. Like anything to do with populism, this is a collaborative endeavour. As such, using this list to determine who qualifies as a populist and who doesn’t is not something which it is my place to do: that is left as an exercise for the reader.