For a Complex Concept of Populism

Abstract

Scholars researching populism often stress how little consensus there is on a general definition of the term. Depending on the discipline or perspective, definitions can contradict each other, especially when applied to empirical cases. Populism can, for instance, be described as a category of political movement, ideology, strategy, leadership style, form of political communication, and more. Depending on a given perspective, different aspects connected to distinctive dimensions of politics are privileged. This situation gives rise to one crucial question: Are we talking about the same thing? Attempting to overcome disparities in the field, two approaches have been particularly successful in finding a common ground on populism research: the minimal ideational definition as a “thin-centered ideology,” and the ontological notion of populism as a discourse articulation. Although these approaches are useful, they share one limitation: the assumption of coherence (i.e., that populism affects ideology, political communication, and organization form coherently). Looking at empirical cases, it becomes clear that populism can affect each of these dimensions in differentmanners and degrees. Political actors adopting populismmight develop populist communication without necessarily strongly embracing populist ideology or building a populist organization form. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi is a good example for this incoherence since his communication is typically populist, but the ideology adopted is weak in populist content. Neither the minimal nor the ontological approach can account for such incoherence; populism is a multidimensional and gradual phenomenon that does not coherently permeate politics.