What exactly is populism?
Can the meaning of something be so abstract that it spans multiple scenarios, or does it become useless? The conceptualization of populism is a debate that has been going on for decades...
Isaiah Berlin best depicted the problem of finding an ultimate definition by using the terminology “Cinderella Complex” (Berlin 1967: 6) explaining “that there exists a shoe — the word ‘populism’ — for which somewhere there must exist a foot… but we must not be trapped by these nearly-fitting feet” (Berlin 1967: 6). Nevertheless, the general academic consensus of populism consists of a strong opposition towards the established elite (could be political, economic, media, or cultural elite) guided by the will of the people (Rooduijn 2021). However, there is still a lack of a concrete definition, and therefore the importance of evaluating different approaches. In the contemporary world, political scientist Cas Mudde provided his own conceptualization that has been praised academically, described as an ideational approach, abstract and thin-centered. On the contrary, Benjamin Moffit proposes another conceptualization centered on a political strategy approach, arguing that Mudde’s conceptualization loses its usefulness and validity by being so broad (Broersma et al.: 2021). Thus, through the comparison of these conceptualizations, this essay will demonstrate how Mudde’s conceptualization better defines what populism is based on the inclusiveness quality it possesses and openness for multiple research usages, in contrast to Moffit’s
The comparison will start by analyzing Mudde’s conceptualization of populism, which is: “an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people” (2004: 543). His conceptualization intends to be open to multiple usages, consequently being a thin-centered ideology; “these are ideologies whose morphology, whose conceptual patterns and arrangements, were insufficient to contain the comprehensive solutions for the full spectrum of socio-political problems that the grand ideological families have customarily sought to provide… and restricted themselves to a narrow core” (Freeden 2017: 2). By keeping the conceptualization so broad, only focusing on a core element: the people’s will against the elite; allows populism to be studied under many thick and thin political ideologies like communism or environmentalism. Besides, it evades the necessity to specify a type of organization, such as charismatic leadership or news media (Mudde 2004: 544). To illustrate this conceptualization is going to be exemplified in two real-life cases. Mudde sees populism in the “US People’s Party” (late nineteenth century) (2004: 548), as being an extremist agrarian movement that was able to present radical leftist policies in government without a principal leader since their attempt at achieving the presidency failed (Shaw 2020). Likewise, the right also presents populism, such as Trump’s carrying the “Make America Great Again” slogan, trying to take “the people’s” (far-right republicans) moral wishes to be executed on government against the “corrupt political elite” (democrats and Obama’s past administration)
Furthermore, Moffit differs from Mudde’s vague conceptualization and instead proposes that populism is “a political style that features an appeal to ‘the people’ versus ‘the elite’, ‘bad manners’ and the performance of crisis, breakdown or threat” (2016: 3 45). He mentioned his conceptualization in his book “The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation”, where he indicates that populism is a political style based on the performances of leaders and not on specific content or ideology, where their control of the new media and charisma can determine the success of the populist movement they command (Abromeit 2017: 179–180). His basis for the leaders to be the focus is “that they are the figures that ultimately ‘do’ populism” (Moffit 2016: 51–52). Moffit tries to explain his less normative conceptualization of “the elite” versus “the people” through Hugo Chavez, where his regime in Venezuela captured the masses with his political rhetoric and media attention (DiMaggio 2018: 212). Donald Trump is a prime example, he used “the people” to go against the “political elite” with a performance depicting his “bad manners” (captured by the media) by mocking the political correctness of democrats, expanding his hyperbolic views on “the crisis” he wanted to attend, like immigration, abortion, among others (Abromeit 2017: 179).
Having both conceptualizations analyzed, there is a clear understanding of how they can be similar since both technically are able to be studied under right-wing and leftwing ideologies. Nonetheless, Mudde tries to appreciate the development of populism in these thick ideologies while Moffit argues that populism differs from genuine political ideologies and that it relies more on the way politics is being performed (Abromeit 2017), excluding a deeply important variable: context. Researchers need context to understand where populist leaders gather their ideals from. For example, Moffit’s focus would be mainly on the rhetoric of Chavez instead of also appreciating his leftist manifesto that mobilized Venezuelan society. Mudde embraces multiple scenarios, by being a thin-centered ideology, for example, researchers can examine how the populist movements of far-right republicans mobilize their ideas of electoral fraud, considering that their leader (Trump) lost his political legitimacy. Moffit’s conceptualization would limit this investigation due to its dependency on a leader figure. Even if we take to examine a counterfactual, and say that Trump still has legitimacy, Moffit’s lack of specification of what “new media”is, limits the research since he has been banned from all of the most popular social media platforms and therefore not able to mobilize his masses, limiting him to just a simple corner of what we maybe could consider as “new media” like 5-minute tv-appearances.
All things considered, this essay demonstrated that Mudde’s conceptualization of populism provides a better definition of what the word means since it embraces multiple scenarios where populism can be developed throughout various parties, leaders, or ideologies. Conversely, Moffit’s conceptualization, unfortunately, falls short in embracing multiple scenarios. It leaves out context, limits research space, and is contradictory to what it stood for since it becomes a victim of vagueness due to the lack of a “new media” definition. The exclusive scenarios that can be applied to Moffit’s political style approach can also be analyzed under Mudde’s ideational conceptualization, evidencing that his conceptualization opens the field for more extensive research and a fair interpretation of what populism is for the rest of the academic community since it preserves the core element of “the people” versus “the elite”.
Bibliography:
Abromeit, J. (2017). “A Critical Review of Recent Literature on Populism”, Politics and Governance, 5(4): 177–186.
Berlin, I. (2013). “To define populism Isaiah Berlin 1968”, https://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/lists/bibliography/bib111bLSE.pdf. Consulted on November 15 2022.
Broersma, M., Eldridge, M., He, K. (2021). “Conceptualizing Populism: A Comparative Study Between China and Liberal Democratic Countries”, International Journal of Communication, 15: 3006–3024.
DiMaggio, A. (2018). “Book Reviews”, Populism, 1: 211–213.
Freeden, M. (2017). “After the Brexit referendum: revisiting populism as an ideology”, Journal of Political Ideologies, 22(1): 1–11.
Moffit, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation. California: Stanford University Press.
Mudde, C. (2004). “The Populist Zeitgeist”, Government and Opposition, 39(4): 541- 563.
Rooduijn, M. (2021). “Populism, do we all mean the same thing?”, https://www.uva.nl/en/shared-content/faculteiten/en/faculteit-der-maatschappijen-gedragswetenschappen/news/2021/02/elections-populism-do-we-all-mean-thesame-thing.html. Consulted on November 15 2022.
Shaw, B. (2020). “Populist Party”, New Georgia Encyclopedia, https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/populist-party/. Consulted on November 17 2022.
