Populism, populism, populism. It’s a buzzword. Here is why we still need it.

Are you tired of hearing the word populism? Because I am! But I tell you why we should keep using it in political discourse, even though it is contested broadly. It helps to identify a very particular kind of narrative and political action in liberal democracies, which is (unfortunately) our reality today.

As the Google Search Statistic illustrates, populism has indeed become a popular topic since 2016 (Figure 1). In accordance with the statistics, I claim that populism has become a trend word to broadly describe every kind of institution, person, and behavior that opposes the liberal democratic mainstream. Let me tell you why populism is still a useful term.

Figure 1: Statics to the Google Search "populism" since 2004 (Source: Google Trends, 04/27/24)

Admittedly, an unambiguous definition of the term populism does not exist. However, this is not a reason to abandon the concept entirely. Most concepts and ideas used in political sciences have no clear definition, in stark contrast to concepts in natural sciences. Can you tell me the perfect, in every respect, accepted and applied definition of democracy? Or autocracy? Or society? These terms are also used frequently and have different meanings to different speakers. Likewise, populism falls into this group of social and political processes that cannot be defined with cutting-edge boundaries.

We must also discuss who defines populism. Even though the concept itself touches many people, including citizens and politicians, it is a scientific concept. Definitions of political phenomena should first and foremost serve and originate from political scientists. Therefore, the definition of populism should serve scientific needs.

The scientists’ definition is self-evidently closely tied to the social and political sphere and the observations they make in politics and society. However, a scientific definition should never be discarded because of political statements originating from the object of observation. Thus, if politicians who fall under the definition of populism oppose this definition, their opposition should not incentivize political scientists to fundamentally change their definition in order to please those they define as populists or, even worse, reject the concept entirely.

A similar argument must be made for the civic society. When it comes to populism, the civic society is part of the research objective but does not have a say in its scientific definition. Compared to a natural scientific example, physicists do not start doubting their observations about the Earth’s shape only because there is an increasing number of flat-earthers in society claiming that the Earth is flat.

Ultimately, politics and society are connected to populism as a research object but not as an entity to participate in and evaluate the scientific definition.

Focusing on the term itself, political scientists have worked on scientific definitions that capture the core of populism. Of course, there are debates about the details. For example, Bonikowski takes the view that populism is a “thin-centered ideology,” a “frame,” and rather a strategic tool than a thick political agenda with political substance (Bonikowski, 2017). On a similarly detailed note, Rodrik focuses in his populism analysis on the political spectrum (Rodrik, 2018). He argues that populism can occur among the entire political spectrum, but that right-wing politics are significantly more prone to populism than their left-wing opponents.

Despite these differences, the above-mentioned and other political scientists can agree on the core definition of populism: a narrative that divides society into two groups, namely the real people and the corrupt elite (Jones, 2019; Mounk, 2018; Müller, 2016, 2022). Thus, populism is still a well-captured concept in political science and, hence, useful for describing and analyzing political processes and dynamics, while the details are debatable.

Digging into the linguistic sphere, I totally recognize why the term “populism” can be seen as a buzzword today. On every corner, people speak about populism, every non-democrat is a populist, and in general, we live in the populist age – you have heard it all before. Nonetheless, I appreciate the usefulness of this word. It captures a reality of life we currently experience, and I dislike the idea of boycotting a word only because it occurs so often. If we find ourselves in a reality surrounded by what we scientifically define as populists and shaped by what we scientifically define as populism, the answer is not to avoid the word. In this case, we would not fulfill scientific requirements but adapt our scientific objectives to what people like to hear (or not to hear, in this case). It would undermine the scientific fundament of objective observation and analysis.

Alternatively, re-naming the concept of populism in a modern marketing manner is equally distorting the objective reality. To give an example, the term “discrimination” was also used less frequently a hundred years ago. This is partly because its subject matter, discrimination, might have occurred less or because there was less awareness among societies for it and thus less scientific interest in it. Notwithstanding, discrimination occurred, just like populism did before it was “trendy.” Over the years, the term “discrimination” has evolved and adapted according to our awareness of it. Today, the term “discrimination” is an analytical framework for a social reality but also a term charged with a long history of contestation. Thus, the term does not only describe a current phenomenon but also carries a history of improvement and change. Re-naming the concept would neglect the historical roots, separate the new term from its historical determinants, and, therefore, not capture the full phenomenon in its history extent any longer.

On a more general note, I want to underline the importance of contestation. As someone who has worked on scientific definitions of political and social phenomena for many years now, contestation is not an indicator of a definition’s weakness but its importance. It illustrates the concept’s current relevance as a phenomenon that is still ongoing, dynamically evolving, and worth analyzing from diverse angles. Therefore, the contestation of a definition should not incentivize us to abandon the concept completely but should motivate the scientific landscape to dig a little deeper and eventually find a definition that captures the phenomenon’s core and blurred edges a little better.

Finally, the term’s contestation requires particular linguistic precision by political scientists. So, before starting a debate or an analytical discourse about populism, it is necessary to clearly define what populism means in the present context. This is a general rule for scientific discourse but even more true for blurry concepts like populism.

Therefore, populism should not be abandoned as a term but further defined and updated to reflect real political developments and appreciated by all of us who talk about it.

_________________________________________________________________________

Bonikowski, B. (2017). Three Lessons of Contemporary Populism in Europe and the United States. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 23(1), 9–24.

Jones, E. (2019). Populism in Europe: What Scholarship Tells Us. Survival, 61(4), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2019.1637125

Mounk, Y. (2018). The People Vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press; eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=1680153&site=ehost-live&scope=site&authtype=ip,shib&custid=s3555202

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What Is Populism? University of Pennsylvania Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/jhu/detail.action?docID=4674419

Müller, J.-W. (2022). Democracy rules. Penguin Books.

Rodrik, D. (2018). Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(1–2), 12–33. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0001-4