Toward a Three-Dimensional Understanding of Populism: Discourse, Ideology, and Democratic Mediation

Abstract

The aim of this article is to contribute to the theoretical debate surrounding the concept of populism through an interpretation that considers three inseparable dimensions of politics: discourse, ideology, and democracy. Various theoretical efforts have sought to understand and explain populism through one-dimensional frameworks and, although fundamental to advancing the theoretical field, these approaches ultimately limit understanding by consistently privileging one dimension at the expense of others (strategy, political style, logic of action, etc.). It is from this gap that we propose an interpretation of populism capable of bringing together the theoretical formulations of Ernesto Laclau, Cas Mudde, and Pierre Rosanvallon. We advance the hypothesis that populism consists of a form of political articulation based on: (1) the discursive construction of social equivalences; (2) a moral division between the people and the elite; and (3) a plebiscitary simplification of democratic mediations. As a phenomenon of considerable complexity, populism can only be adequately understood by taking into account different dimensions of politics that interact, merge, and overlap with one another. The article is divided into four sections: first, we provide a brief introduction to the challenges involved in the study of populism; second, we present a brief overview of empirical cases in order to demonstrate how these three dimensions combine and complement one another; third, we outline the foundations of the three interpretative dimensions proposed; and finally, in the conclusion, we sketch possible causal relationships among these dimensions and raise questions that may be addressed in future research. Keywords: Populism, Discourse, Ideology, Democracy, Ernesto Laclau, Cas Mudde, Pierre Rosanvallon, Political Antagonism, Moral Polarization, Democratic Mediation, Popular Sovereignty, Plebiscitary Democracy