My off-the-cuff take: The word 'populism' gets thrown around by a lot of people who mean very different things with it. There is probably an accepted 'correct' definition in political science...
My off-the-cuff take:
The word 'populism' gets thrown around by a lot of people who mean very different things with it. There is probably an accepted 'correct' definition in political science circles, but in public discourse, it's a rather woolly term used by some as an insult, while others treat being called a populist as a badge of honour.
There's nothing wrong with representing the majority and unpolitely and firmly calling out technocratic governments and politicians on their complete disconnect with what most or many people in their country actually want, need, and/or value. There are people and policies that get called populist that I support.
Populism as a bad thing, as I understand it, is when politicians claim to be the voice of 'the people' with no regard for either the rights or dignity of minorities and completely ignoring the rule of law and the institutions and mechanisms of democracy, making promises that sound nice but on reflection make no sense, are completely impossible, or both. The effect of this is actually super divisive. By ignoring and deligitimizing minorities they exclude large groups of people from consideration. Democracy should not just be "the majority rules" but take into account the other 10, 30, or 40 percent as well. And what these politicians mean by "the people" or "ordinary folks" is often uncomfortably closely linked to a specific ethnic group, which is is scary. Especially because many of the 'bad' populists in this sense, couple their no-nonsense, firmly-saying-what-you-believe style with explicit approvals of violence.
Bolsanaro and Trump would be examples of #3. I'm not so familiar with South Africa (and haven't read the linked article...).
there actually kinda isn't. even in political science, what constitutes populism is very broad and varies, with really the only commonality holding all of these different ideas of what populism is...
The word 'populism' gets thrown around by a lot of people who mean very different things with it. There is probably an accepted 'correct' definition in political science circles, but in public discourse, it's a rather woolly term used by some as an insult, while others treat being called a populist as a badge of honour.
there actually kinda isn't. even in political science, what constitutes populism is very broad and varies, with really the only commonality holding all of these different ideas of what populism is being the dichotomy of the "people" against an "elite".
My off-the-cuff take:
The word 'populism' gets thrown around by a lot of people who mean very different things with it. There is probably an accepted 'correct' definition in political science circles, but in public discourse, it's a rather woolly term used by some as an insult, while others treat being called a populist as a badge of honour.
There's nothing wrong with representing the majority and unpolitely and firmly calling out technocratic governments and politicians on their complete disconnect with what most or many people in their country actually want, need, and/or value. There are people and policies that get called populist that I support.
Populism as a bad thing, as I understand it, is when politicians claim to be the voice of 'the people' with no regard for either the rights or dignity of minorities and completely ignoring the rule of law and the institutions and mechanisms of democracy, making promises that sound nice but on reflection make no sense, are completely impossible, or both. The effect of this is actually super divisive. By ignoring and deligitimizing minorities they exclude large groups of people from consideration. Democracy should not just be "the majority rules" but take into account the other 10, 30, or 40 percent as well. And what these politicians mean by "the people" or "ordinary folks" is often uncomfortably closely linked to a specific ethnic group, which is is scary. Especially because many of the 'bad' populists in this sense, couple their no-nonsense, firmly-saying-what-you-believe style with explicit approvals of violence.
Bolsanaro and Trump would be examples of #3. I'm not so familiar with South Africa (and haven't read the linked article...).
there actually kinda isn't. even in political science, what constitutes populism is very broad and varies, with really the only commonality holding all of these different ideas of what populism is being the dichotomy of the "people" against an "elite".