Suchergebnisse

Klappentext: This ground-breaking textbook describes and explains the global manifestations of populism. It reviews controversies about its relationships with democracy in the distinct and interrelated histories of the Americas, Asia, and Europe. The volume surveys the similarities and differences between populism, nationalism, fascism, and populist uses of religion and the media. Global Populisms invites students and the general public to move beyond simplistic conceptualizations of populism as an external virus and as an irrational threat to democracy, or, alternatively, as the path to return power to the people. The book differentiates populists' correct critiques to inequalities, the loss of national sovereignty, and unresponsive politicians from its solutions. In the name of giving power to the people, populists in power from Hugo Chavez to Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, and Viktor Orban entered in war with the media, made rivals into existential enemies, and attempted to concentrate power in the hands of the president. Written in a clear and accessible style, this interdisciplinary volume will appeal to undergraduate students as well as to non-academic audiences with an interest in political science, sociology, history, and communication studies.

'In all matters of importance, style and not content
is the
important thing': Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest.Populism is a concept which, despite repeated critiques, refuses to

disappear from Latin American studies. This article reviews some of the

literature, suggesting that populism is best defined in terms of a
particular
political style, characteristically involving a proclaimed
rapport with 'the people',
a 'them-and-us' mentality, and (often, though not necessarily)
a period of crisis
and mobilisation; none of which makes it exceptional, abnormal, 'unmediated'

or irrational. Mexican – among other – examples are invoked.
The article
questions some received opinions: that populism is typically urban, relates
to
particular historical stages of development, or distinctively derives from
either
multi-class alliances or elite manipulation. It also queries the fashionable
notion
of 'economic populism'. Finally, the article notes the recent
phenomenon of
'neo-populism', embodied by Salinas, Menem, Fujimori, etc.,
which a suitably
loose ('stylistic') definition can usefully accommodate,
thus suggesting the
continued, if limited, utility of the concept.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Introduction: Is Everyone a Populist? -- 1. What Populists Say -- 2. What Populists Do, or Populism in Power -- 3. How to Deal with Populists -- Conclusion: Seven Theses on Populism -- Notes -- Acknowledgments.

We aim to explain petro populism - the excessive use of oil revenues to buy political support. To reap the full gains of natural resource income politicians need to remain in office over time. Hence, even a purely rent-seeking incumbent who only cares about his own welfare, will want to provide voters with goods and services if it promotes his probability of remaining in office. While this incentive benefits citizens under the rule of rent-seekers, it also has the adverse effect of motivating benevolent policymakers to short-term overprovision of goods and services. In equilibrium politicians of all types indulge in excessive resource extraction, while voters reward policies they realize cannot be sustained over time. Our model explains how resource wealth may generate political competition that reduces the tenability of equilibrium policies.

We aim to explain petro populism - the excessive use of oil revenues to buy political support. To reap the full gains of natural resource income politicians need to remain in office over time. Hence, even a purely rent-seeking incumbent who only cares about his own welfare, will want to provide voters with goods and services if it promotes his probability of remaining in office. While this incentive benefits citizens under the rule of rent-seekers, it also has the adverse effect of motivating benevolent policymakers to short-term overprovision of goods and services. In equilibrium politicians of all types indulge in excessive resource extraction, while voters reward policies they realize cannot be sustained over time. Our model explains how resource wealth may generate political competition that reduces the tenability of equilibrium policies. ; publishedVersion

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.

This article provides a comparative conceptual analysis of the logic of populism and the logic of (constitutional) democracy. Populism is defined as a thin-centered ideology which advocates the sovereign rule of the people as a homogeneous body. The logic of this ideology is further developed in reference to the work of Carl Schmitt and is shown to generate all the characteristics typically ascribed to populism. The logic of democracy is analyzed on the basis of the work of Claude Lefort and defined as a regime in which the locus of power remains an empty place. This analysis replaces the widespread model of constitutional democracy as a paradoxical combination of a constitutional and a democratic pillar. This two-pillar model fails to appreciate the internal coherence and some of the main features of the (constitutional) democratic logic. Thereby, the two-pillar approach gives rise to an understanding of populism as continuous with the democratic promise of constitutional democracy. In contrast, our analysis explains populism as the closure of the empty place of democracy. This highlights the antagonistic discontinuity between the logic of populism and the logic of democracy.