Search

This paper develops a relational analysis of populism. After placing the rise of contemporary European populism in the post-Cold War context, the static definition of populism as a "thin-centred" and restrictive ideology is exposed. A definition of populism as a process is used, in contrast with the tendency to apply static definitions. The figure of Pablo Iglesias is in this sense presented as an exemplary case that demonstrates the limitations of the use of these static definitions. The EU is also examined as a body that is spearheading the depoliticising processes that provoke the populist reaction - placing the focus on the "New Intergovernmentalism" to interpret the integration dilemmas - and the populist-technocratic and liberal-democratic dichotomies are addressed as historical endosymbioses. Finally, consideration is given to what should be done about the populist impasse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature maintains that not all populisms are equal. Some are seen as projects of regeneration or democratisation because they would incorporate an excluded people; others are movements that would weaken democracy by promoting exclusion (xenophobia and racism). The former is "left-wing populism" while the latter is "right-wing populism". This paper shows that what is central to populism is its model of democracy, not whether it is situated on the right or the left. To do this, an evaluation is made of the democratic balance of populisms in three countries in Europe (Austria, France and Hungary) and three in Latin America (Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela). As will be shown, those of the right have no more contributed to the destruction of democracy than those on the left may be presented as democratising successes; but all represent a profound challenge to liberal democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]