This is a visual explainer based on the Wikipedia article on Populism. Read the full source article here. (opens in new tab)

The People's Voice: Deconstructing Populism's Complexities

An in-depth exploration of populism as a multifaceted political phenomenon, examining its historical roots, theoretical frameworks, and contemporary manifestations.

What is Populism? 👇 Explore Theories 📚

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!


When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

What is Populism?

A Contested Political Concept

Populism is widely recognized as an essentially contested concept, referring to a diverse array of political stances that fundamentally emphasize the notion of the "common people." This emphasis is often articulated in direct opposition to a perceived "elite."[1] It frequently intertwines with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiments, challenging conventional political structures and actors.[4]

Global Reach and Pejorative Use

Emerging in the late 19th century, the term "populism" has since been applied to a broad spectrum of politicians, parties, and movements across continents. Its usage often carries a pejorative connotation, implying a simplistic or manipulative approach to politics.[3] Within political and social sciences, various definitions have been proposed, reflecting the concept's inherent complexity and the diverse contexts in which it manifests.[5]

Core Dichotomy: People vs. Elite

At its heart, populism constructs a binary opposition: a virtuous, unified "people" whose will should be paramount, and a corrupt, self-serving "elite" that obstructs this will. This fundamental division shapes populist rhetoric and policy proposals, aiming to mobilize the perceived majority against entrenched power structures. Understanding this core dichotomy is crucial for analyzing populist phenomena.

Etymology & Evolution

Historical Origins and Semantic Shifts

The term "populism" has a complex etymology, marked by mistranslations and a broad, often contradictory, application to various movements and beliefs. Scholars frequently describe it as a vague or overstretched concept, widely used in political discourse but inconsistently defined.[6] Its meaning has evolved significantly through reciprocal influences among media, politics, and academia.[7]

  • 1858 English Usage: First appeared as an antonym for "aristocratic" in a translation of Alphonse de Lamartine's work.[9]
  • Russian Narodniki (1860s-1870s): Associated with a left-leaning agrarian movement, often translated as "populists," aiming to transfer political power to peasant communes through radical agrarian reform.[10]
  • U.S. People's Party (1880s-early 1900s): Championed small-scale farmers, advocating for expansionist monetary policies and accessible credit, and was progressive on women's and minority rights for its era.[13]
  • Literary Shift (Early 20th Century France): The term designated a genre of novel sympathetically portraying the lives of the lower classes, with manifestos and literary prizes established.[15]
  • Latin American Political Lexicon (Post-War): Became a defining feature, associated with charismatic leaders mobilizing recently urbanized populations, often carrying a positive connotation despite suspicions of demagoguery.[18]

Academic Adoption and Conceptual Ambiguity

Academic interest in populism surged in the 1950s. Edward Shils applied it to anti-elite trends in U.S. society, while Hélio Jaguaribe framed Latin American populism as a form of class conciliation.[20] However, scholarly consensus remained elusive, with a 1967 London School of Economics conference failing to produce a unified framework.[26]

  • Critical Reinterpretation: Richard Hofstadter and Daniel Bell reinterpreted the U.S. People's Party as an expression of status anxiety and irrationalism.[24]
  • Marxist Influence: Latin American scholars, influenced by Marxist frameworks, investigated populism as a phenomenon tied to modernization, mass mobilization, and developmentalist ideologies.
  • Negative Connotation: The term increasingly acquired a negative connotation, conflated with demagoguery and often applied to movements perceived as outside the political mainstream or a threat to democracy.[30]
  • "Populist Hype" (Post-2016): Events like the election of Donald Trump and Brexit led to unprecedented global prominence and a massive surge in academic publications on populism.[35]
  • Ongoing Debate: This ambiguity has sparked debate, with some scholars advocating to abandon the term due to its vagueness and potential for misrepresentation, while others argue for its continued value as an analytical tool if clearly defined.[42]

Theoretical Lenses

Ideational Approaches

The ideational framework defines populism as a "thin-centred ideology" that posits a society divided into "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite." Politics, from this view, expresses the general will of the people.[50] It is not a comprehensive ideology but rather attaches to broader political movements like socialism or conservatism.[53] Scholars like Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser highlight its moralistic, rather than programmatic, nature, promoting a binary worldview resistant to compromise.[56]

  • Construction of "The People": Portrayed as a virtuous, unified, and sovereign group, whose common sense surpasses elite expertise.[51]
  • Construction of "The Elite": Depicted as a homogeneous, corrupt force undermining the popular will, defined economically, politically, culturally, or ethnically.[51]
  • Ambivalent Democracy: While populism can mobilize excluded groups and highlight grievances, it is often seen as detrimental to pluralism once in power, potentially leading to a "tyranny of the majority" by undermining institutions like the judiciary and media.[60]
  • Critiques: Criticized for its deductive nature, imposing rigid assumptions, and risking over-vagueness if applied too broadly.[67]

Class-Based Approaches

This perspective interprets populism as a phenomenon deeply rooted in social class dynamics, particularly in societies undergoing rapid modernization. Early Latin American scholars like Hélio Jaguaribe and Gino Germani saw it as mass political mobilization characterized by personalist leadership, the incorporation of previously excluded social sectors, and institutional fragility.[22] Seymour Martin Lipset argued that populism unites various social classes around a charismatic leader, with its primary base among the poor, distinguishing it from fascism's middle-class appeal.[76]

  • Marxist Interpretation: Influential in Latin America, this view sees populism arising when the bourgeoisie loses hegemony and the proletariat has not yet seized power. Political power becomes an arbiter, drawing support from a disorganized "mass" lacking class consciousness.[81]
  • Integration vs. Demobilization: While acknowledging populism's role in integrating popular masses and fostering development, Marxist critics argued this integration was limited, often demobilizing collective organization by substituting social benefits for class struggle.[82]
  • Historical Challenges: Historians have challenged the demobilization argument, suggesting that the "populist period" in Latin America saw a growing politicization of workers that could challenge established interests.[82]

Discursive Approaches

Associated primarily with Ernesto Laclau and the Essex School, this approach views populism as a discursive logic. It suggests that unmet demands coalesce around a symbol, often a charismatic leader, to form a popular movement in opposition to an elite.[83] Unlike ideational approaches, it doesn't necessarily see the "bottom vs. top" opposition as moralistic, and it critiques the idealization of autonomous social classes found in Marxist views.[81]

  • Constructivist Perspective: Political subjects, including "the people," are radically contingent discursive constructions capable of various forms.[84]
  • Normative Neutrality: Laclau's definition refrains from judging populism as inherently positive or negative, allowing for some populist experiences in power to be genuinely democratizing.[85]
  • Emancipatory Potential: Some scholars influenced by Laclau argue that populism can be inherently emancipatory and pluralistic, suggesting that authoritarian movements often labeled populist might be more accurately described as fascist.[86]

Performative & Strategic Approaches

The performative (or socio-cultural/stylistic) approach views populism as a political style, a repertoire of symbolically mediated performances through which leaders construct and navigate power. It focuses on *how* populists communicate, including rhetoric, gestures, body language, and imagery, rather than solely on their beliefs.[87] The strategic approach, conversely, defines populism as a political strategy where a charismatic leader seeks direct, unmediated support from largely unorganized followers, often in tension with democratic values.[92]

Performative/Socio-cultural:

  • Theatrical & Transgressive: Populist actors often break traditional political norms, embracing irreverent, culturally popular, and emotionally charged styles, challenging "respectable" discourse.[91]
  • Mobilization of Marginalized: Emphasizes the capacity of populist transgression to mobilize sectors traditionally excluded from political life, whose sudden entry into the public sphere can be disruptive.
  • Emancipatory Potential: Like the discursive approach, it acknowledges that populism can, in certain contexts, express emancipatory potential.

Strategic:

  • Personalist Leadership: Focuses on a charismatic leader governing through direct, uninstitutionalized support from a mass of followers.[93]
  • Tension with Democracy: This strategy is often seen as being in tension with democratic values of pluralism, open debate, and fair competition.[94]
  • Critiques: Criticized for overlooking populist parties or social movements (e.g., US People's Party) and for potentially reinforcing perceptions of populism as simplistic or demagogic.[96]

Economic Approaches

This socioeconomic definition of populism refers to a pattern of irresponsible economic policymaking. It typically involves expansive public spending, often financed by foreign loans, leading to inflationary crises and subsequent austerity measures.[99] This understanding gained prominence in the 1980s and 1990s through economists like Rudiger Dornbusch, Jeffrey Sachs, and Sebastián Edwards, particularly in studies of Latin American economies.[100]

  • Cyclical Swings: Builds on Marcelo Diamand's critique of cyclical swings between unsustainable populist spending and excessive austerity, though later economists often framed austerity as a necessary corrective.[101]
  • Limited Scope: While still invoked by some economists and journalists, this definition is less common in broader social sciences.[104]
  • Critiques: Critics argue it reduces populism to left-wing economic mismanagement, overlooks political and ideological dimensions, and fails to account for populist leaders who implement neoliberal policies.[105] It can also stigmatize heterodox economic policies, narrowing debate.

Driving Forces

Economic Grievance

The economic grievance thesis posits that economic factors contribute to the formation of a "left-behind" precariat, characterized by low job security, high inequality, and wage stagnation. This group is theorized to be more inclined to support populist movements.[106] In the Global North, this is often linked to deindustrialization and economic liberalization, while in the Global South, it follows truncated upward mobility, leaving workers in unstable, low-quality employment.[109]

  • Crises and Inequality: Some theories specifically focus on the effects of economic crises or persistent inequality as drivers of populism.[110]
  • Globalization's Role: Globalization is also implicated for disrupting established labor markets and fueling economic dislocation.
  • Out-group Resentment: Macro-level evidence suggests resentment toward out-groups tends to rise during economic hardship.[5]
  • Mixed Evidence: However, micro-level studies have found only limited direct evidence linking individual economic grievances to support for populist candidates.[107]

Modernization & Cultural Backlash

The modernization losers theory argues that transitions to modernity generate demand for populism. Early scholars like Hofstadter interpreted populism as a response to deep-seated cultural anxieties stemming from modern economic and social transformations, manifesting as a partial rejection of modern capitalism and urbanization.[24] More recently, the concept of anomie, dissolution of civil society, and increased individualization following industrialization are cited.[116]

Modernization:

  • Anomie and Fragmentation: Modernization can lead to a weakening of traditional social ties, fragmented identities, and weak collective structures, creating conditions ripe for populist appeals.[117]
  • Appeal to *Déclassé* Elements: Populism offers a broad identity that grants sovereignty to previously marginalized masses as "the people."[118]

Cultural Backlash:

  • Postmaterialism Reaction: Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart argue that far-right populism is a reaction to the rise of postmaterialism (feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism) in developed countries.[119]
  • Identity Threats: Individuals who perceive their social group as threatened are more likely to support political actors promising to protect their status and identity, often seen in white identity politics but also among other marginalized groups.[121]
  • Mixed Empirical Results: While individual-level research shows links between sociocultural attitudes and support for right-wing populists, macro-level analyses have not consistently found aggregate correlations.[5]

Post-Democracy & Media Transformation

Populism is often presented as a response to "post-democracy," a condition where formal democratic institutions persist but are increasingly dominated by elites, technocratic decision-making, and market forces. This leads to a narrowing of political choice and a decline in responsive governance.[125] Concurrently, transformations in media and communication dynamics have significantly favored populist discourse.[131]

Post-Democracy:

  • Elite Dominance: Explanations include weak civil society, globalization limiting national elites' power, and the convergence of mainstream parties avoiding contentious issues.[5]
  • Political System Design: Low political efficacy, high proportions of wasted votes, gerrymandering, lobbying, and opaque campaign financing contribute to perceptions of unresponsive government.[129]
  • Supranational Bodies: In the EU, the transfer of authority to technocratic bodies like the European Central Bank can distance decision-making from voters, fueling disaffection.[130]
  • Corruption: Widespread corruption scandals deepen the sense that political elites are self-serving, increasing support for populist movements.[111]

Media Transformation:

  • Personalization of Politics: The spread of television since the late 1960s fostered charismatic leadership over party-centered politics.[131]
  • Sensationalism & Cynicism: Private media's competition for audiences often prioritizes sensationalism and scandal, fostering anti-establishment sentiment and public cynicism.[133]
  • Social Media's Role: Digital platforms have "elective affinities" with populism, bypassing traditional gatekeeping, fostering direct connection, and amplifying conflict-driven narratives.[135]

Mobilization Dynamics

Populist Leaders

Populism is frequently associated with charismatic leadership, where individuals build support through personal appeal and claim to embody "the people" (vox populi).[143] These leaders often employ undiplomatic rhetoric and a "tabloid style," contrasting with institutional norms to perform authenticity and distinguish themselves as "outsiders" from "suited elites."[147]

  • Interactional Transgressions: Violating conventional norms of interpersonal conduct through personal insults, provocative gestures, or suggestive innuendos to create a confrontational political presence.[152]
  • Rhetorical Transgressions: Rejecting polished, technocratic language in favor of simplicity, directness, or even vulgarity, aligning with an emphasis on authenticity. This can include adopting a "common man" persona or mobilizing ethnic/indigenous identities.[154]
  • Theatrical Transgressions: Refusing to conceal the performative nature of political life, often foregrounding staged aspects of public appearances and mocking conventional rhetorical norms.[159]
  • Gendered Performances: Male populists may emphasize virility or dominance, while female populists often present themselves as protective maternal figures or project aspirational ideals through glamorous fashion.[156]

Political Parties

Populism does not entirely reject party-based parliamentary representation but seeks to redefine it by prioritizing figures who claim to speak authentically for "the people."[161] Populist parties often form around charismatic leaders, adopting top-down structures that centralize decision-making and symbolic authority. Leadership transitions can be critical, with some parties maintaining cohesion (e.g., Argentina’s Justicialist Party) while others fracture.[162]

  • Overtaking Existing Parties: Populists may take over established parties, as seen with the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) or the Swiss People's Party (SVP).[163]
  • Gradual Transformation: Established parties can undergo a populist transformation, exemplified by Greece's SYRIZA, which evolved from a radical left-wing party to one claiming to represent "the people" through transgressive performances.[164]
  • Emergence from Movements: Many populist parties emerge directly from mass movements, channeling grassroots discontent into formal politics, such as Spain's Podemos from the Indignados movement or India's Aam Aadmi Party from the India Against Corruption campaign.[166]

Social Movements

Mass protests, particularly those following the 2008 financial crisis, are often characterized as populist phenomena. Movements like Occupy in the U.S., Indignados in Spain, and the Gilets jaunes in France shared anti-elite rhetoric, emphasized the moral authority of "the people," and advocated for more inclusive democratic forms.[167] Slogans such as "We are the 99%" captured the populist framing of these protests, portraying a voiceless majority against a privileged elite.

  • Diverse Mobilization: While earlier protests often concentrated in urban centers, movements like the Gilets jaunes mobilized rural and peri-urban populations, voicing grievances of "forgotten France."[169]
  • Influence on Electoral Politics: These grassroots mobilizations profoundly influenced electoral politics and public discourse, reshaping agendas and introducing new rhetorical styles. Examples include Occupy Wall Street's influence on Bernie Sanders' campaign and the Tea Party movement's shift of the Republican Party.[171]
  • Reciprocal Relationship with Leaders: The discursive tradition highlights a complex, reciprocal relationship where leaders politicize civil society, and movements, in turn, shape leadership. Historical examples include Juan Perón and Getúlio Vargas organizing labor unions, and Hugo Chávez promoting participatory structures.[172]

Responding to Populism

Mainstream Approaches

Debates on how to respond to populism often divide between those who see it as a threat to be contained and those who view it as a symptom of deeper democratic failures. Liberal scholars prioritize preserving institutional safeguards, arguing that populist figures with authoritarian leanings gain viability when traditional elites accommodate them.[176] This aligns with elite theory, emphasizing the responsibility of established power-holders to act as gatekeepers for democratic norms.[177]

  • Cordon Sanitaire: Several European countries have adopted this strategy, where mainstream parties refuse to cooperate or form coalitions with populist or extremist actors to prevent their institutional legitimation.[178]
  • Media's Role: Media institutions can either reinforce populist narratives through favorable coverage or attempt to marginalize such movements. However, mainstream actors adopting populist rhetoric may inadvertently normalize it.[179]
  • Militant Democracy: This concept, articulated by Karl Loewenstein, suggests that liberal democracies may need to take exceptional restrictive measures to defend themselves against actors who exploit democratic procedures to undermine democratic substance, echoing Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance.[180]
  • Caution Against Moralizing: Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser advise against disqualifying populists as "irrational" or "foolish," as this can reinforce the "pure people" vs. "corrupt elite" binary. They advocate for sustained engagement and a principled defense of liberal democratic values.[185]

Left Populist Responses

From a left populist perspective, the rise of reactionary populist movements is often interpreted as a response to a broader anti-political sentiment, including a rejection of technocratic consensus and elite detachment. Thinkers like Chantal Mouffe argue that this dissatisfaction should be reappropriated through a left populist project that mobilizes passion for democratic and egalitarian ends.[187]

  • Strategic Disagreements: Some scholars suggest left movements should engage with national identity and reduce emphasis on minority-focused policies to reconnect with disaffected working-class constituencies, as seen in Sahra Wagenknecht's critiques.[188]
  • Intersectional Alliances: Conversely, others warn that such strategies risk reproducing far-right framings and advocate for intersectional alliances rooted in solidarity among marginalized groups, grounded in inclusive democratic values.[190]
  • Contextual Variation: These debates are heavily influenced by national contexts, electoral systems, and the specific forms populism takes in different settings.[191]

Historical Trajectories

From Ancient Echoes to Modern Manifestations

While some scholars, like Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser, argue that populism is a distinctly modern phenomenon,[193] others identify its echoes in classical Athens or the Roman Republic's Populares.[197] Political historian Roger Eatwell notes that while the term "populist" parallels ancient concepts, truly populist ideologies, as we understand them, emerged in the late 19th century with movements like Boulangism in France and the American People's Party.[192]

Europe:

  • 19th-20th Centuries:
    • Russian Narodnichestvo (late 19th C): Championed peasantry against elites, inspiring agrarian movements across Eastern Europe.[201]
    • Völkisch Movement (German-speaking Europe): Characterized as populist for its exultation of the German people and anti-elitist attacks.[16]
    • Boulangist Movement (France): Employed populist rhetoric and themes.[203]
    • Post-1945 Absence & Resurgence: Largely absent due to Marxism-Leninism and moderation, but right-wing agrarian populist parties emerged later (e.g., Common Man's Front in Italy, Progress Party in Denmark).[204]
    • New Left Critique: Between the late 1960s and early 1980s, Europe's New Left and Green parties offered a concerted populist critique.[207]
    • Post-Soviet Rise (1990s): A surge in populism across Central and Eastern Europe, with parties campaigning as "the people" against the "elite" (e.g., Czech Civic Forum).[208]
    • Left-Wing Populism: Collapse of Marxism-Leninism led to growth of left-wing populism (e.g., Dutch Socialist Party, Germany's Left Party).[211]
  • 21st Century:
    • Western Europe: Populist rhetoric became increasingly apparent, often used by opposition parties (e.g., UK Conservative Party's "condescending liberal elite" critique).[214]
    • Right-Wing Dominance: European populism largely associated with the political right, combining populism with authoritarianism and nativism (e.g., Jörg Haider's FPÖ, Jean-Marie Le Pen's FN).[218]
    • Great Recession & Left-Wing Populism: Emergence of left-wing populist groups like Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, displaying Eurosceptic sentiment from an anti-austerity perspective.[210]
    • Brexit: The 2016 UK referendum was widely seen as a victory for populism, encouraging similar calls across Europe.[227]

North America:

  • Late 19th - Early 20th Centuries:
    • Prairie Populism: Widespread in western Canada and the U.S. Great Plains, combining populism with agrarianism, where "the people" were small farmers and "the elite" were bankers and politicians.[228]
    • U.S. People's Party: A defining populist movement, advocating for nationalization of railways, banning strikebreakers, and referendums.[205]
    • Other Early Parties: Included the Greenback Party, Progressive Party of 1924, and Huey P. Long's Share Our Wealth movement.[235]
  • Mid-20th Century:
    • Shift to Reactionary Stance: US populism moved from progressive to reactionary, intertwined with anti-communism (e.g., McCarthyism).[238]
    • Mainstream Adoption: Republican politicians like Richard Nixon adopted populist tactics, popularizing terms like "silent majority."[238]
    • Third-Party Campaigns: George C. Wallace (1968) and Ross Perot (1992) ran successful third-party campaigns on right-wing populist rhetoric.[3]
  • 21st Century:
    • Great Recession Movements: The Occupy movement ("the 99%") and the Tea Party movement (challenging the Obama administration) emerged.[241]
    • 2016 U.S. Presidential Election: Saw a wave of populist sentiment in the campaigns of Bernie Sanders (left-wing) and Donald Trump (right-wing), both running on anti-establishment platforms.[243]

Latin America:

  • Dominant Tradition: Populism has been dominant since the 1930s and 1940s, more prevalent than in Europe, attributed to high socio-economic inequality and a tradition of democratic governance.[251]
  • First Wave (1929-1960s): Politicians like Getúlio Vargas (Brazil), Juan Perón (Argentina), and José María Velasco Ibarra (Ecuador) took power emphasizing "the people."[255]

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio
Click here to open the "Populism" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about populism while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.
Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

chetnik war crimes in world war ii
    
1997–98 uefa champions league
    
motive power depot
    
pbs news hour
    
geometer moth
    
george watson's college
    
v jump
    
yazdegerd i
    
knockout mouse
    
richard fitzjames
    

References

References

  1.  Allcock 1971, p. 372; Canovan 1981, pp. 5–6.
  2.  Allcock 1971, p. 372; Canovan 1981, p. 5; Akkerman 2003, p. 148.
  3.  Allcock 1971, p. 372; Canovan 1981, p. 14.
  4.  Allcock 1971, p. 371; Hawkins & Rovira Kaltwasser 2019, p. 2.
  5.  Albertazzi & McDonnell 2008, p. 3; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, p. 2.
  6.  Stanley 2008, p. 101; Hawkins & Rovira Kaltwasser 2019, p. 1.
  7.  Canovan 2004, p. 244; Tormey 2018, p. 260; Mény & Surel 2002, p. 3.
  8.  Stanley 2008, p. 101; March 2007, pp. 68–69.
  9.  Canovan 1981, pp. 5–6; Albertazzi & McDonnell 2008, p. 3; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, p. 5.
  10.  March 2007, p. 72–73; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 83, 84.
  11.  Ostiguy 2009, p. 7; Ostiguy 2017, p. 73.
  12.  Aiolfi 2022, p. 6; Aiolfi 2025, p. 138.
  13.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 3–4; Hawkins & Rovira Kaltwasser 2019, p. 6.
  14.  Mudde 2004, p. 553; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 103–104.
  15.  Ostiguy 2017, pp. 78–81; Moffitt 2016, p. 59.
  16.  Aiolfi 2022, pp. 7–9; Aiolfi 2025, p. 140.
  17.  Moffitt 2016, p. 66; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 64.
  18.  Casullo 2021, pp. 78, 80; Moffitt 2016, pp. 65–66.
  19.  Casullo 2021, pp. 85–86; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 70.
  20.  Aiolfi 2022, pp. 8–9; Aiolfi 2025, pp. 159–163.
  21.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 56–57; Tormey 2018, pp. 266–67.
  22.  Germani 2008, p. 68; Reis 2001, p. 319.
  23.  Eatwell 2017, p. 365; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, p. 21.
  24.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 33–34.
  25.  Mudde 2004, p. 548; March 2007, p. 66.
  26.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 34–35.
  27.  Mudde 2004, p. 550; Albertazzi & McDonnell 2008, p. 2.
  28.  Canovan 1981, pp. 17–18, 44–46; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, p. 23.
  29.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 23–24.
  30.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 26–27.
  31.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 27–28.
  32.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 28–29; de la Torre 2017, p. 196.
  33.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, p. 29; de la Torre 2017, p. 198.
  34.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 29–30; de la Torre 2017, p. 199.
  35.  March 2007, p. 71; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, p. 31; de la Torre 2017, p. 199.
  36.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, p. 32; de la Torre 2017, p. 200.
  37.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 39–40.
  38.  Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, pp. 38–39.
A full list of references for this article are available at the Populism Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page was generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on a snapshot of publicly available data from Wikipedia and may not be entirely accurate, complete, or up-to-date. As such, it should be used as a starting point for further academic inquiry, not as a definitive source.

This is not professional political or sociological advice. The information provided on this website is not a substitute for in-depth academic research, expert analysis, or consultation with qualified political scientists or social theorists. Always refer to primary sources, peer-reviewed literature, and consult with academic professionals for specific research or analytical needs. Never disregard established scholarly consensus or delay in seeking expert opinion because of something you have read on this website.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any interpretations or actions taken based on the information provided herein.