Populism as a thin ideology consisting of two dimensions

The valid measurement of a concept presupposes a distinction between the so-called background concept (i.e. the many different meanings of a concept) and the systematized concept (i.e. a clear operational definition) (see Adcock and Collier 2001). There are three basic ways in which populism is systematically conceptualized in the literature: (1) populism as an organizational form; (2) populism as a style; and (3) populism as a thin ideology (Jagers 2006).

According to Taggart, populism refers to a particular type of party organization which is highly centralized and which is led by a personalized and charismatic leader (Taggart 1995: 41).^[66] This centralized structure enables populists to reduce the institutional complexity within populist parties and to contrast themselves with the bureaucratic model of the mass political party (Taggart 2000: 102). Nevertheless, Taggart admits that charismatic leadership and a centralized structure are not characteristics limited to populist parties only. Also Jagers (2006: 47) points out that there are examples of populist organizations without authoritarian or strong leadership. We therefore conclude that there does not exist a particular populist form of organization.

Other scholars define populism as a political style in which politicians make use of a simplistic, direct language that is almost similar to demagogy (Taguieff 2007). While the populist style tends to be varied, there is generally an emphasis on “agitation, spectacular acts, exaggeration, calculated provocations, and the intended breech of political and socio-cultural taboos” (Heinisch 2003: 94). Often it denounces the shady compromises and complicated procedures of professional politicians (Canovan 1999: 5). The populist style is “democratic” in the sense of being aimed at “the people”, a catch-all concept that can be used strategically by politicians ranging from the left to the right, to appeal to the electorate at large (Jagers & Walgrave 2007). We argue that the conceptualization of populism as a political style underestimates the substantive character of the populist message. We agree with Jagers (2006: 56) that the definition of populism as a style is not necessarily “wrong”, but that it is incomplete.

According to Canovan (2002), populism should be conceptualized as a thin ideology (Canovan 2002). “Thin” means that populism has not the same level of refinement as “full” ideologies such as liberalism, socialism or conservatism (Freeden 1998). Full ideologies offer an all-inclusive view of the political world, while thin ideologies focus on a confined range of concepts (e.g. feminism, ecologism). A conceptually clear definition of populism as a thin ideology has been provided by Mudde who defines 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 volonté générale (general will) of the people” (Mudde 2004: 543). The conceptualization of populism as an ideology has recently won ground because of its substantive approach and its denotative clarity (Albertazzi & McDonnell 2008b; Jagers 2006; Stanley 2008; Ruzza and Fella 2009). In this paper populism is therefore conceptualized as a thin ideology as well. In our opinion, the populist organization form and style should be seen as manifestations of this underlying populist ideology (see Abts and Rummens 2007).^[67] When we talk about populism in the remainder of this paper, we refer to the thin ideology of populism.

The thin ideology of populism consists of two inseparable dimensions: people-centrism and anti-elitism. The point of departure of every populist is the fundamental importance of “the people”. Populists worship the people (Ionescu and Gellner 1969: 4), and emphasize the people’s fundamental position in the centre of politics (Meny and Surel 2002b: 12). Unfortunately for empirical researchers, however, “the people” is one of the most slippery concepts in political science. It can mean many different things to many different people in many different circumstances (Canovan 1981; Mudde 2004). It can refer, for instance, to peasants, the working class, the electorate, the nation, or no fixed group at all (see Canovan 1981; Taggart 2000; Pasquino 2008). To overcome this slipperiness, Taggart (2000, 2002, 2004) proposes to use the term “heartland”. A heartland is an idealized conception of the people, located in an idealized landscape. It is a mythical and constructed ideal of the population (Mudde 2004; Taggart 2000; Taggart 2004), and can be used as a tool to better understand what populists mean when they emphasize “the people”. Populists are anti-elitist because elites stand in the way of the centrality of the people. Elites are portrayed as corrupt and are contrasted against the general will of ordinary people (Mudde 2004). The interests of elites are, according to populists, completely different from those of the people. This is problematic because elites have much more power than “ordinary folk”.

Дата добавления: 2015-07-10