Theoretically, populism prioritizes the “will of the people” above all the rules and rights that shape representative democracy. According to this view, “the people” are always right, and leaders are expected to do whatever they want, regardless of legal or rights-based obstacles.
If we look at the characteristic of so-called “populist” parties, they often use the idea of the people to their advantage during election campaigns, claiming to represent the masses. However, in the realm of meta-politics, it’s important to understand that this notion of the people is constructed and qualified through communication and action.
One common criticism of populist leaders is their lack of quality control. They tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator, even though many people in the less educated masses have limited knowledge of politics. The average citizen also has limited understanding of policy consequences and mechanisms. Often, people make important voting decisions based on just a few speeches, which hardly qualifies as thorough research.
The word “people” used to have a clear meaning when citizens gathered in city squares, but with the increasing population, it has become a confusing term. Its meaning now depends on the context in which it is used. Sometimes it refers to the general population, while other times it represents the majority, contrasting with the limited representation of the more privileged and educated individuals.
In the political arena, any statement that the speaker disagrees with is often labeled as populist. It seems that the term is thrown around today in a similar way to how ideology was used in the past. Whenever someone wants to discredit a statement, they simply call it populist, carrying all the negative associations that come with the term. For example, I once heard the head of a well-known polling institute describe the decision of Le Parisien journalists to stop conducting polls as populist due to concerns about their reliability regarding topics like Brexit or the American election.
Populism becomes a catchword and an insult when it doesn’t align with someone else’s thinking.
Admittedly, there is a contradiction here. How can we differentiate between intelligence and stupidity when it comes to representing the common good? Isn’t this a matter that should be debated? Isn’t democracy about including every member of the political body in collective expression and deliberation? It’s important to recognize the danger of denying democracy by stigmatizing a particular part of the population for years, subjecting them to excessive humiliation, and fueling hatred that may ultimately backfire on those who consider themselves intellectual and moral elites.
In principle, no one should be deemed unworthy of being heard, as if their perspective on the common good doesn’t deserve consideration. It is possible to defend national sovereignty, the need to define boundaries, or cultural identity without being labeled as morally wrong or pitiable. The arrogance displayed by some proponents of openness, nation-building, and multiculturalism in public discourse has always struck me as both dangerous and counterproductive.