The contemporary agonist thinker, Chantal Mouffe argues that conflicts are constitutive of politics. However, this position raises the question that concerns the survival of order and the proper types of conflicts in democracies. Although Mouffe is not consensus-oriented, consensus plays a role in her theory when the democratic order is at stake. This suggests that there is a theoretical terrain between the opposing poles of conflict and consensus. This can be discussed with the help of concepts and theories that seem (...) to be standing between the two, namely compromise, debate and the borders of democracy. I will argue that we can reveal this position with the theoretical analysis of compromise in the works of F. R. Ankersmit on the historical origin of representative democracy, and Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson on the role of compromise in divided communities. J. S. Mill’s view of colliding opinions offers a moderate agonistic understanding of politics, while the concept of debate plays a similar role for Márton Szabó, a contemporary Hungarian political theorist. Finally, Mouffe’s position stands at the conflictual end of this spectrum, although conflicts are delimited on the normative ground of democracy. (shrink)

Populist movements have become key players in European politics. These movements are readily criticized by journalists or political rivals, yet none of the common objections to populism seems to arrest their success. This article turns to normative political theory to cultivate sensitivity to problems arising from some existing arguments against populism, and to explore possible alternatives. It offers a critical reading of prototypical liberal and conservative arguments against populism, and proposes that the principles of solidarity and procedure provide good grounds (...) for a sustainable critique of populism. (shrink)

In recent decades, Claude Lefort has become a recurring reference point for mainstream authors hostile to populism. This article delves into the paradoxical character of Lefort’s own ‘populism’ to challenge these anti-populist approaches. It explores Lefort’s nuanced stance in which, despite his explicit rejection of populism, he nevertheless embraced social division and the empowerment of the people against the grandees. The analysis is divided into three parts. First, it presents Lefort’s objections to populism, echoed by scholars such as Marilena Chaui, (...) Andrew Arato, Nadia Urbinati, Pierre Rosanvallon and Stefan Rummens, who often associate populism with Carl Schmitt’s political theology. The second part highlights latent ‘populist’ elements in Lefort’s work, as examined through his study of Machiavelli and his reflections on a wild democracy. The third part critically assesses the supposed rupture between Lefort and populist thinkers such as Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, identifying moments of consistent theoretical alignment and even shared political engagement rather than stark disagreement. The conclusion challenges the prevailing narrative by positing a sophisticated theory of populism in Lefort’s work. It emphasises the inclusive and emancipatory aspects of appeals to the ‘people’ without overlooking potentially undemocratic expressions. Ultimately, the article argues for a nuanced understanding of populism from Lefort’s work, emphasising the need for a delicate balance in navigating between populism’s democratic and tyrannical manifestations. (shrink)

Over the last 30 years, scholarship has produced countless books, essays, and articles on populism by investigating it from various perspectives and angles. This article seeks to contribute to this ongoing debate by offering a political-philosophical reconstruction of populism to define such a phenomenon from a multilateral perspective. The essay will proceed as follows: The first section will investigate populism from a purely political-philosophical position, while the second will discuss the constitutional effects of such a phenomenon, to define it mainly (...) as a form of anti-liberal and anti-judicial redefinition of democracy. Moreover, the first section will expose the dichotomy between the so-called left- and right-forms of the populist model and the populist threat to democracy, where the second will address populist constitutionalism and its antithetic relation to liberal constitutionalism.Footnote11 This article is the result of a period of research spent at the CAS-SEE UNIRI – Center for Advanced Studies of the University of Rijeka, Croatia. I wish to thank the Institute and its members for the opportunity to develop this research. Part of this research has been presented at the doctoral seminar of the Doctoral School of History and Philosophical-Social Sciences, University of Rome Tor Vergata. I wish to thank my colleagues Alessandro Ferrara, Matteo Bianchin, Tonino Griffero, Claudia Gina Hassan as well as the doctoral students of our programme, for comments and suggestions. (shrink)

Constellations, Volume 28, Issue 4, Page 522-536, December 2021.

While early studies of populism, usually dated from the 1960s, were highly interdisciplinary, contemporary research in this field is dominated by political science and political theory. This current phase of research is narrowly focused on certain forms of political action and remarkably reluctant to pathologize the US case. Social theory plays at most a marginal role. Recent historicizations of this field have failed to recognize the significance of the prior ‘missing first phase’ of populism studies (1940–65) led by key sociological (...) figures among the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School. Social theorization was prominent then and US populism’s contingent vulnerability to demagogic exploitation was a major research focus. This article provides an immanent critical reconstruction of these thinkers’ key social-theoretical insights, building to a schematization of ‘modern demagogy’. (shrink)

This introduction presents the articles contained in this special issue of Philosophy and Social Criticism on the topic of populism. It does so by placing them in the field of discussions that the standard conception of populism as ‘illliberal democracy’ has stimulated in many areas of the populism-research that was produced in response to the recent increase in populist governments in established constitutional democracies world-wide. Following the methodological canon of studies in the field, it presents the individual contributions roughly in (...) three segments according to leading questions they focus on. In each segment, the introduction attempts to indicate the degree to which the articles depart and provide reasons for departing from the initial standard conception and thereby point to new relevant directions for further work. The first segment consists of essays that take on the definitional and empirical question of what and where populism is, and which varieties of it there are. The second segment presents new work focusing on the diagnostic question of what conditions and institutional conditions enable contemporary populism in established liberal constitutional representative democracies. They thus also aim at explaining or at least providing insight into the structures on the supply side that make populism popular as an `outsider option'. The third and largest segment comprises essays that present various approaches to answering the therapeutic question what democratic political systems and societies can do to confront, absorb or internalize the lessons from populist challenges. (shrink)

This study aims to analyze populism in the scope of South Korean politics. It addresses the contexts in which political actors adopt dichotomous populist discourses and the implications of populist mentality on the social fabric of country. Populism can be defined in three different dimensions as an exclusionary, divisive and marginalizing ideology, discourse politics and a mobilization strategy. It is typically built on others that take on various forms. In this framework, the recent reflections of populism in the case of (...) South Korea are discussed through the dichotomies and constructed perceptions of the other. It seeks to shed light on how political actors in South Korea which is assumed to have a homogenous social structure, point out the internal and external others that constitute the essence of populist politics. While populism’s understanding of the other is relatively uniform in different contexts, in South Korea the reflections of populism are differentiated and concretely understood through a range of internal and external others. South Korea, which is considered as one of the successful democracies in East Asia, is also affected by populist wave. The reflections of populism in South Korea are not severe and can generally be expressed as soft populism. Moreover, it is predominantly effective on discourse politics and is not observed in the form of concrete policies. (shrink)

This article re-examines current definitions of populism, which portray it as either a powerful corrective to or the nemesis of liberal democracy. It does so by exploring a crucial but often neglected dimension of populism: its redemptive character. Populism is here understood to function according to the logic of resentment, which involves both socio-political indignation at injustice and envy or ressentiment. Populism promises redemption through regaining possession: of a lower status, a wounded identity, a diminished or lost control. Highly moralized (...) images of the past – historical or archetypal – are mobilized by populist leaders to castigate the present and accelerate the urgency of change in it. The argument is illustrated with Caesar’s Column, a futuristic novel written by the Minnesota populist leader Ignatius Donnelly. The complex and ambivalent structure of this dystopian novel – a textual source for the Populist Party manifesto in the 1890s, which stands in contrast with agrarian populism as everyday utopia – enables us to move beyond the polarized positions dominating the current debate. Reading Caesar’s Column ultimately shows that populism can be both a corrective and a danger to democracy, but not for the reasons usually stated in the literature. (shrink)