Search results

Examines the relationship between the principles of democracy & populism to argue that populism is contradictory to democracy. The development of populism is traced, highlighting significant political differences between Europe & the US & drawing on Plato, Alexander de Tocqueville, & Michael Kazin (1995). While US populism refers to both political participation & a political language, "good" populism disappeared in Europe with the appearance of constitutional democracies. Contemporary European populism emerged with the decline of the Left & the prominent role of intellectuals. It is contended that the nature & practice of populism stem from a vision of democracy hostile to political liberty in that it stalls the political dialectics among citizens & groups, prevents the mediation of political institutions, & replaces equality with unity, in opposition to social/political pluralism & without consideration of the nondomination inherent in democracy. While democracy encourages a broader range of political resources, populism faces the danger of becoming minoritarian or despotic. J. Lindroth

The core populist claim is that 'the people' have been unjustly neglected by government. This core claim, while unexceptionable on its face, tends to be associated with claims that would corrode liberal democratic institutions. It is important that political and legal theorists identify the claims made by citizens who may be attracted by populist political forms, lest they manifest themselves in political forms toxic to (broadly understood) liberal democratic norms and institutions. They must address these claims, even as they also consider ways in which to confront these political forms. An example of how this work might proceed can be gleaned from some recent democratic theory and practice, which has 'democratized' membership in political parties as well as the process of selection of the party leader. This apparent democratization both disserves the cause of democratic deliberation, and opens the door to the risk of populist takeover of traditional parties.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once argued, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society." Today, politics, as conventionally understood, illustrates the unspoken danger in Moynihan's point. Politics itself reflects larger trends that point not toward success but toward social failure. Superficial sloganeering, domination by marketplace modes of thought, and bitter sectarian divisions—cultural patterns also evident in politics—made "being political" an accusation of choice in the 2002 elections. These patterns are creating a civic illness that seems both all-pervasive and ineluctable.

This article explores various conceptualizations of populism and tests their heuristic virtues against a Romanian case, the Legion of the Archangel Michael. First, after reviewing several contemporary theoretical approaches on populism, a term whose ambiguity is constantly deplored, the study tries to clarify its content by examining it in relation with other fundamental notions like democracy, representation, or people. Second, while acknowledging the relative consensus of the historiography as to the fascist nature of the Legionary Movement, the article focuses on the debate around its populist character. The disagreement in interpreting the character of the Movement is arguably due to the variable criteria that define populism, fascism and their relation.

ANOTHER POLITICAL ERA HAS ARRIVED AND WITH IT A STYLE WHICH CAN BE DESCRBIED AS POPULISM. THIS ARTICLE STUDIES WHAT POPULISM IS AND WHY ITS VARIOUS MANIFESTATIONS DESTABILIZE EUROPEAN POLITICS JUST AT THE MOMENT WHEN THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION AND ITS EMPIRE IN EASTERN EUROPE SIGNALS AN END TO THE DANGER OF A MAJOR WAR. THERE ARE MANY FACTORS ENCOURAGING POPULIST POLITICS IN EUROPE TODAY WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE WHICH CONCLUDES THAT THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN POLITICS WILL REMAIN TURBULENT, UNTIL MOSCA'S POLITICAL CLASS REMEMBERS THAT IT MUST ADDRESS THE REAL PREOCCUPATIONS OF THE GOVERNED, AND THAT INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT MADE BY SUMMIT CONFERENCES ALONE, BUT ACCUMULATE AUTHORITY THROUGH HABIT AND USE OVER A LONG PERIOD.