Book Review: “Populism - A Very Short Introduction”

Book: Populism: A Very Short Introduction

Authors: Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser

Year of Publication: 2017

Publisher: Oxford University Press

Number of Pages: 131

Book Review (Populism: A Very Short Introduction)

Over the years, populism has given rise to a vast body of literature that has provided either a historical overview or explored its connections to a wide range of related phenomena like democracy, social movements, elections, political discourse, and, more recently, social media. A significant example of the same is Populism: A Very Short Introduction by Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser (2017). The central claim made in this book is that populism is an ideology with a set of principles and values shared by its followers. As per the authors, populism is a versatile idea employed in a wide range of situations, leading to debates among scholars about the term’s validity. They highlight that, given populism’s broad applicability, some scholars argue that there might not be a necessity for assigning distinct labels to explain each of these diverse contexts. Moreover, the book offers not only a clear definition of the phrase ‘populism’ but also a complete explanation of its core ideas, helping readers understand the term better. 

According to the dominant scholarly perspectives, Mudde and Kaltwasser assert that all populist ideologies, in some way, serve “the people” and criticise “the elite.” They specifically state populism as:

“a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps, “the pure people” versus “the corrupt elite,” and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people.” (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 6)

This ideological definition preserves the primary characteristics of populism as a phenomenon while allowing the idea to be flexible. As I see it, this interpretation of populism captures the essence of this political ideology quite effectively. It simplifies complex societal dynamics into a binary division — “the pure people” versus “the corrupt elite”. In extension to this assertion, accentuating the three fundamental ideas of “the people,” “the elite,” and “the general will,” the authors make it clear that populism rarely exists in “pure forms”. Instead, it often merges with other ideologies, which can modify its core principles and objectives. For instance, in the second chapter of the book, the authors briefly outline the populist movements in North America, Latin America, and Europe, highlighting the intermingling nature of the populist trait (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 22). This underlines that populism merges into different forms to align with evolving notions of “the people” and “the elite” within diverse spatial and temporal settings.

Building on this argument, the authors contend that populism appears to be associated with a more comprehensive ideology. Currently, two dominant tendencies in this domain stand out: 

“Given that populism is a thin-centred ideology, addressing only a limited set of issues, almost all populist actors combine populism with one or more other ideologies, so-called host ideologies. Broadly-speaking, most left-wing populists combine populism with some form of socialism, while right-wing populists tend to combine it with some type of nationalism.” (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 21)

In my opinion, the claim that populism is often a thin-centred ideology emphasising a limited set of issues is valid. This narrow focus is what distinguishes populism as a “thin” ideology. Also, I contend that integrating populism with other ideologies makes it a more potent force in contemporary politics, as it attracts a broader spectrum of supporters. This mainly signifies the adaptability of populism, as it develops into an array of expressions depending on the host ideology it associates with. In Europe, for example, the authors mention populism evolves into a nationalist setting, as practised by leaders like Marine Le Pen in France or Jörg Haider in Austria (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 56). These politicians echo a sense of national identity and seek to protect their country from outside forces. In contrast, Latin America has witnessed a rise in socialist populism, with leaders like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia, as prominent examples. These politicians resonate with the working class and aim to redistribute wealth and power from the elite to the masses (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 31). Despite these differences, some core concepts of populism are shared across different cultural contexts. One is the idea that the people are oppressed by an elite group, the wealthy or the political establishment. Populist leaders often position themselves as outsiders who are not part of this elite group and who can, therefore, represent the interests of the people more effectively. Another aspect of populism is how politicians use cultural symbols to connect with the populace. As discussed in the book, this can manifest in various ways, such as the ownership of football clubs; for instance, the acquisition of AC Milan by Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and Manchester City by Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 71). By doing so, these politicians signal that they are part of the same cultural world as their constituents and understand their concerns and values. This creates a sense of shared identity between the populist leaders and their supporters, reinforcing the notion that they represent the viewpoints of the masses.

This trait of populism is particularly reflected in Professor Paul Taggart’s argument in his work Populism: Concepts in the Social Sciences,  where he mentions that “populism can be thought of as politics for ordinary people by extraordinary leaders who construct ordinary profiles” (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 78). In accordance with Paul, I think it is essential and worthwhile to investigate the connections between political actors and populism. 

As part of this discussion, the role of gender in populist mobilisation is a significant dimension in my understanding. Although this is not always the case, the authors note that populism is typically associated with a “male charismatic leader”, whose persona is more endearing than his ideals. By exploiting gender-related sexist stereotypes and by deliberately deploying coarse language, these men proclaim themselves as the “strong men” who appeal to the populace. The book provides an example of a former leader of the Italian right-wing populist Northern League (LN), Umberto Bossi, who would rile up crowds by asserting that “the League has a hard-on” while simultaneously making a derogatory gesture toward Rome, symbolising the elite (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 66). Similarly, female populist leaders promote themselves as the “virtuous women” who adhere to the stereotyped perception of women as loving and educated mother or wife figures and use their gender identity to build an “outsider status” (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 70). Pauline Hanson perfectly embodies this style of populist leadership, as demonstrated by her statement, “I care so passionately about this country, it is like I am its mother, Australia is my home and the Australian people are my children” (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 70). This approach is a powerful and emotionally resonant way for populist leaders to connect with their base and build a strong political following.

Talking along the lines of politics, the book consistently addresses the connection between populism and democracy, examining whether populism is a threat to or a corrective measure for democracy. The authors explicitly analyse both the positive and negative impacts of populism on liberal democracy in the fifth chapter (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 83). There are instances in the book where the authors take a somewhat defensive stance, such as when they argue that right-wing populists’ tendency to disregard the rights of minority ethnic groups is more a result of their nativism rather than their populism (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 83). However, the authors’ neutral approach often makes this claim more substantial. They assert that populism can indeed align with democratic principles. I do agree with the authors’ argument that populism can have a democratic dimension. Populism can act as a democratic force if it is used in a way that accurately represents the needs and opinions of the people. The ‘Podemos’ party in Spain is a relevant example, as it was established in response to public dissatisfaction with traditional politics and sought to address inequality and corruption while advocating for direct democracy (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 37). However, it is crucial to understand that the democratic nature of populism can vary widely based on the intentions and actions of populist leaders and movements. On the contrary, populism can also develop into authoritarianism. Leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines have used populist discourse to consolidate power, weaken democratic institutions, and suppress dissent (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017, p. 55). Consequently, populism’s democratic potential should be carefully evaluated in each specific context to determine whether it genuinely upholds democratic values or indicates a threat to them. 

In my view, the relationship between democracy and populism is intricate, and exploring this association is undeniably significant. However, I argue that the discussion on the relationship between these two could have been better situated at the end of the book. Sequencing the discussion toward the later part could have created a sense of anticipation and encouraged readers to reflect critically. Furthermore, the book primarily focuses on the political and social facets of populism. Delving deeper into the policy implications of populist governance could have been more helpful. While it provides insights into the actions and behaviours of populist leaders, it could have dedicated reasonable attention to understanding the motivations and origins of their supporters. Moreover, I also contend that the definition of populism is constantly changing due to the rapid globalisation. As a result, populism might eventually evolve beyond the current definition provided by authors in the future. 

Overall, the book thoroughly explores the multifaceted nature of populism. Even though populism is considered a complex phenomenon, the authors were able to decode each of its components in a comprehensive and structured manner. They present their arguments and claims with great care, substantiating them with compelling real-world examples, enriching the cohesiveness and precision of their writing. This book serves as a helpful resource for those looking to better understand the concept of populism.

Based on my review, I rate the book a four out of five stars. 

The author is a student at Ashoka University.

References

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, R. C. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.