The concept of “populism ” (or adjective “populist”) has entered the current political scene in a rapid and almost forced way. This word, although it is regularly used by politicians, the media or even ordinary citizens, does not seem to have an agreed upon definition and, therefore, its use can lead to confusion.
The formulation and use of words with various meanings is a topic of interest for cultural and political psychology, and that is why we propose to investigate the depths of this ambiguous concept which has come to be used (not always correctly) both to designate a xenophobic movement such as Marine Le Pen’s “Front National” or the PODEMOS party led by Pablo Iglesias
“Populism”, understood as a political practice, derives from the Latin word populus which, as is easily deduced, means town Curiously, “democracy,” formed from the Greek root of give us It also means town. According to the sociologist Gérard Mauger(1), the concept of the people to which “democracy” refers It is the civic body as a whole of a nation-state On the contrary, the people that refers to “populism” can be interpreted in two different ways, both conceptions being based on different mental representations of reality. The first, the version corresponding to the conservative political prism, refers to ethnos before populus, where its main nuance lies in a logic of social Darwinism. Therefore, xenophobic and exclusive logic, as if culture were something closed, well delimiting and to a certain extent timeless; Furthermore, it seeks to criminalize a political class established in power.
On the contrary, the second version, more likely to be used by left-wing political sectors, does not focus on social Darwinism, but rather considers the people as a whole, without differences except those that intervene in the class division. That is, according to this conception The town is the living body in which culture develops, a confluence of singularities impossible to encompass by a single explanatory framework. Politically, it is the people dispossessed by over-powered elites who try to mold the people according to their interests.
Populism and Podemos (Pablo Iglesias)
To these last two conceptualizations proposed by the French sociologist, one could be added whose use has recently predominated in the speeches of certain political parties in the Kingdom of Spain. These characteristics could be added to the sociologist’s two proposals. “Populism”, predominantly used to designate the PODEMOS political formation (argument used by the Popular Party and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party), has a somewhat different connotation from the definitions proposed above and, therefore, certainly incorrect. The noun seems to name a political practice composed of fallacious arguments whose purpose is aimed at capturing an electorate in general (the people) and, ultimately, power This definition is closer to demagoguery, but the similarities with “populism” and the ease of mixing one with the other are obvious.
On the other hand, Ernesto Laclau, Argentine political scientist and philosopher, suggests a definition that brings together the division between the two aforementioned visions:
“Populism is not a pejorative term. But rather a neutral notion. Populism is a way of constructing politics. The base plays against the top, the people against the elites, the mobilized masses against the established official institutions.”
Differences between Populism and Demagogy
Understanding “populism” as a political practice that directs the interpretation of problems towards those from above, that is, against political-economic elites, does not inexorably lead to defining a political discourse as fallacious (a practice widespread in the anti-PODEMOS argument). ). In fact, if we take this definition, “populism” as a fallacious political practice, we could end up calling the vast majority of Spanish political parties populist, just for the fact of being subject to the logic of electoralism in a representative democracy. .
On the contrary, “Populism”, as a political practice aimed at appealing to the people against their elites, contributes to the political interventionism of citizens who are (or should be), in the first instance, those directly responsible for a democracy. The cases of corruption, the politics of cultural confrontation, the cuts in the public sector… no longer leave room to think about another representation of reality outside of the corruption of the current political system and those who perpetuate it.
Grades:
(1) Gérard Mauger is a French sociologist, research director at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France and deputy director of the Center for European Sociology (CSE).
