What Is Populism? Definition, Types and Debates

What populism means

Populism is one of the most used and least agreed upon words in politics. Journalists apply it to movements on the far left, the far right and sometimes the center. The word is used as praise and as an insult.

Britannica describes populism as a political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually in favorable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. It notes that populism can combine elements of the left and the right, and that the term can describe either democratic or authoritarian movements.

At its heart is a simple story with two characters:

• The people. Ordinary, hardworking, honest citizens whose common sense and interests are being ignored.
• The elite. A small group, defined differently by different populists, that has captured power and uses it for itself.

What the people want, populists argue, should be what government does.

How scholars define populism

Researchers broadly use three approaches. They overlap, and each highlights something different.

The ideational approach

The most widely cited definition comes from Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde. In a 2004 article in Government and Opposition, he defined populism as an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, "the pure people" versus "the corrupt elite," and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people.

Mudde called populism a thin-centred ideology. Unlike socialism or liberalism, it does not offer a full program for the economy, rights or foreign policy. It has a small core and borrows the rest from a host ideology. That is why there can be socialist populists, nationalist populists and even market-friendly populists.

Two features stand out in this view. First, the divide is moral, not just economic: the people are pure, the elite is corrupt. Second, populism has two opposites: elitism, which holds that the elite should rule, and pluralism, which holds that society contains many legitimate groups with different interests.

The strategic approach

Other scholars see populism less as a set of ideas and more as a way of winning and holding power. Political scientist Kurt Weyland, writing in Comparative Politics in 2001, offered a definition centered on political strategy: a personal leader seeks or exercises power based on direct, unmediated support from large numbers of followers, rather than through strong parties or organized interest groups. This approach grew out of the study of Latin America, where populist leaders often built movements around themselves.

The discursive approach

A third school treats populism as a way of speaking or framing politics. The Argentine theorist Ernesto Laclau argued that populism is the process by which many separate grievances are linked together and given a common name, "the people," set against a common opponent. On this view, populism is a logic present to some degree in all democratic politics, not a fringe phenomenon.

Left populism vs right populism

Because the core is thin, populism takes very different forms depending on who is cast as the people and who as the elite.

For a fuller side-by-side comparison, see left populism vs right populism, or the ideology pages for left populism and right populism. We also compare democratic socialism vs left populism and national conservatism vs right populism.

Some researchers note that populists on opposite ends sometimes share a hostility to the same institutions, which feeds the debate over the horseshoe theory. Others reply that their visions of "the people" are so different that the resemblance is shallow.

A short history of populism

Russia: the Narodniks

One of the earliest movements called populist was Russian. Britannica describes the Narodniks as a 19th-century socialist movement among the Russian intelligentsia, which took shape in the 1860s and grew in the 1870s. Its members believed that propaganda among the peasantry could awaken the masses. The name comes from narod, "the people," since peasants made up most of the population.

The United States: the People's Party

In English, the word took off with the American People's Party, or Populists, a movement of farmers and workers squeezed by debt, falling crop prices and railroad rates. Its platform, adopted at Omaha on July 4, 1892, declared the aim of restoring the government of the Republic to the hands of "the plain people." It called for a graduated income tax, government ownership of railroads, telegraphs and telephones, and an expanded money supply including the free coinage of silver.

In 1896, the Populists endorsed the Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan, famous for his "Cross of Gold" speech against the gold standard. After his defeat the party faded. Britannica notes, however, that many of the movement's demands were later enacted, including a progressive income tax. Historians often see it as a forerunner of the progressive era and of later agrarian politics.

Latin America: Perón and Vargas

In the mid 20th century, Latin America produced what scholars call "classic populism." In Argentina, Juan Perón built a mass movement among the descamisados, the "shirtless" industrial workers, combining labor rights and welfare with economic nationalism and a strong personal leadership. Critics, then and now, describe his rule as authoritarian. In Brazil, Getúlio Vargas similarly courted urban workers through labor laws and a direct appeal to the masses. These cases shaped the strategic approach that focuses on leaders and followers.

The modern wave

Since the 1990s, populist parties and leaders have grown across Europe, the Americas and Asia, on both left and right. A Pew Research Center survey of eight Western European countries in 2018 found that anti-establishment sentiment existed on the left, center and right. People with populist views were more likely to distrust parliament and the news media. But Pew also found that traditional left-right ideology still shaped party support more than populist attitudes did.

To measure populism systematically, the Team Populism network created the Global Populism Database. Its researchers read and score speeches by presidents and prime ministers for populist rhetoric; the second version covers 241 chief executives from 74 countries, with most speeches from 2000 to 2022.

Populism and democracy: the debate

Few topics divide political scientists more sharply. Here are the main positions in their own best terms.

Populism as a democratic corrective

Defenders, including many on the left and the right, argue that populism is a response to real failures. When mainstream parties converge on similar policies, they say, large groups feel unrepresented. Populism gives those voters a voice and forces neglected issues, from trade and inequality to immigration and corruption, onto the agenda.

On this view, populism is a reminder that in a democracy the people are meant to be in charge. Laclau and his collaborator Chantal Mouffe argued that a left populism could revitalize democracy by mobilizing citizens against concentrated power. Conservatives who sympathize with right populism make a parallel case: that unelected bureaucracies, courts and international bodies have taken decisions away from voters.

Populism as a threat to liberal democracy

Critics argue that populism becomes dangerous when the claim to speak for the people turns exclusive. Princeton political theorist Jan-Werner Müller, in What Is Populism? (2016), argued that the core of populism is a rejection of pluralism: populists claim that they, and only they, represent the real people, which makes all opponents illegitimate by definition.

From this angle, critics on the center-left and the center-right warn that populists in power may weaken checks and balances, attack the independence of courts and the press, and treat minorities as outside "the people." Liberal and conservative critics alike also argue that populist economic promises can be unsustainable.

A middle position

Mudde and his co-author Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser argue that populism can be both a corrective and a threat to democracy, depending on the situation. It tends to look more like a corrective in opposition, when it challenges an unresponsive establishment, and more like a threat in power, especially where institutions are weak.

How to spot populist rhetoric

Whether or not you approve of populism, a few signs recur:

• Appeals to "the people," "ordinary citizens" or "the silent majority" as a single group with one will
• Attacks on a named elite: bankers, the establishment, experts, the media, global bodies
• A moral framing of politics as honest people versus corrupt insiders
• Impatience with procedures, courts or compromise that slow down the popular will
• A leader presented as the authentic voice of the people

These signals can appear in any ideology. A speech can be strongly populist and left-wing, strongly populist and right-wing, or not populist at all.

Find where you fit

You may lean populist if you feel that ordinary people are ignored and that those in power mostly serve themselves. Whether that leads you left or right depends on who you see as the elite and what you want government to do.

Take the Political Compass Test to see where you land on the economic and authority axes. For a fast check, try the Left or Right Quiz. The 12 Axes Political Test goes deeper and matches you with specific ideologies. To understand the bigger picture, read our guides to left vs right politics and democracy vs republic.