Populism as a phenomenon of modern society is fueled by a number of factors – the „rebellion of the masses“, the communication revolution, the globalization and the simultaneous polarization of the world. All of this in turn creates huge and expanding space for ideological substitutes.The author defines populism as a characteristic of political behavior that short- ens the gap between „politicians” and „the people” by eliminating the elite and uncritically accepting mass demands, attitudes and stereotypes. In populism, priority is given to short-term effects as a basis for policy decisions, as well as simplified, one-sided „views” of long-term problems. Populism is a double rejection of the elite – as a privileged social group and as a carrier of specific knowledge.Two types of populism are defined. The first one is tactical, where in a political platform or in a specific political action mass expectations are imposed in order to provide a rating effect. The second one is strategic (positive and negative), where rating decisions are not the „garnish", but the principle, the structure defining factor.The author seeks to answer the questions whether populism is only political stylistics or is it a political ideology and what its historical perspective is.
The main thesis of the text is that populist actors often voice legitimate critiques of the ruling elites in liberal democracies. The alternatives they offer, however, are worse than the illness they claim to cure. There is some merit in their central critique – the global meritocratic elites have betrayed their respective people, as the governing elites in liberal democracies are often too distant from the citizens who elected them to govern. The alternative that the above mentioned critics offer – nationally responsible leadership, claiming to be the unique voice of the authentic will and interests of the people – sounds attractive. Yet it is not credible and moreover, undermines political pluralism – the fundamental presupposition of a well-working liberal democracy. The better alternative, it is argued in the text, are responsive to their citizens, meritocratic pluralistic governing elites.
The article considers populism as a democratic element, not as a phenomenon outside of modern democracy. The arguments of the critics of populism remain on the same rational ground as the populist ideas because they imply a clear and undeniable distinction between the elites and the masses, between the lead- ers and the governed, between the professionals and the ordinary people. The suggestion made is that national populism should not be identified as populism because it is anti-democratic, but as a manifestation of primordial-fascism.
The article traces the main elements, the historical context and the stakes of the discursive theory of populism of Ernesto Laclau, which was further developed by the Essex school of discourse analysis. Laclau’s approach is key, because he articulates a rigorous theory of populism, which is able to save the concept from its excessively pejorative and pre-theoretical (mis)uses that are prevalent today. The main argument is that the critique of anti-populism is amongst the strongest features of the discursive theory of populism. To achieve that, however, the theory risks becoming a general theory of political identification, which may lead to another over-inflation of the term „populism“. A way out of this deadlock is a reflexive turn, by looking into the historical transformations of the very term populism instead. In other words, the strong sides of the theory may be rescued by a refusal of the universal pretentions (to explain every political identification) and, instead, to hold within the researchers’ perspective the historical and contextual trajectories of the populist problem and the populist and anti-populist positions.
