Populism = “The Pure People” vs “The Corrupt Elite”

Yet, despite the definitional chaos, one perspective has gained significant traction: the ideational approach. This framework defines populism as a set of ideas centered on the dichotomy between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite,” with politics as the vehicle to express the volonté générale (general will) of the people. Recent research reinforces this approach, demonstrating its utility across geographic and temporal contexts.

In this exploration of the ideational approach, we define populism, analyze its core components, and discuss its strengths—distinguishability, categorizability, travelability, and versatility. Finally, we compare this approach with alternative frameworks, emphasizing its value in understanding contemporary politics.

---

Defining Populism Through the Ideational Lens

Populism, as defined by the ideational approach, is “an ideology that considers society to be ultimately divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite,’ and argues that politics should express the general will of the people”. This definition highlights four key concepts:

1. Ideology: Populism is a “thin-centered” ideology—narrow in scope and adaptable to host ideologies like socialism or nationalism (Freeden, 1998). Unlike comprehensive ideologies, populism does not offer a full spectrum of solutions but focuses on the moral conflict between people and elite.
2. The People: Central to populism is the idealized notion of “the people” as pure, authentic, and morally superior. This concept, while socially constructed, resonates because it aligns with cultural self-perceptions . For instance, American populists may emphasize “hard-working Americans” while excluding urban elites or immigrants.
3. The Elite: The “elite” represents the antithesis of the people—corrupt, self-serving, and out of touch. Notably, the elite is not defined by class or ethnicity but by moral failure, allowing figures like Donald Trump or Narendra Modi to position themselves as “of the people” despite their wealth or privilege.
4. General Will: Populists claim to embody the general will, dismissing pluralism and compromise. This Rousseauian notion frames opposition as inherently illegitimate—common sense is pitted against “special interests” .

---

The Evolution of the Ideational Approach

The ideational approach traces its roots to early studies of Russian Narodniks and American Populists (Pipes, 1960; Kazin, 1995). While early definitions varied, modern scholarship increasingly embraces the ideational lens, particularly in comparative politics. Recent studies extend its application to Latin America, Europe, and Asia, demonstrating its versatility.

---

Strengths of the Ideational Approach

1. Distinguishability

The ideational approach provides clear boundaries between populist and non-populist actors. For example, populism contrasts sharply with elitism (which valorizes the elite) and pluralism (which celebrates diversity and compromise). Research by Rooduijn and Pauwels shows how this framework differentiates parties like France’s National Rally (populist) from traditional conservative parties (non-populist).

2. Categorizability

This approach facilitates logical taxonomies of populism. Scholars can distinguish between left-wing populism (e.g., Evo Morales) and right-wing populism (e.g., Viktor Orbán) based on their host ideologies. Similarly, the framework allows for the differentiation of inclusionary populism, which seeks to expand political participation (e.g., Andrés Manuel López Obrador), and exclusionary populism, which emphasizes nativism and exclusion (e.g., Marine Le Pen).

3. Travelability

Unlike geographically or temporally specific definitions, the ideational approach has global applicability. From Modi’s Hindu nationalism in India to López Obrador’s anti-elite rhetoric in Mexico, the framework transcends borders, enabling comparative studies across regions (Hawkins & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2019).

4. Versatility

This approach applies at both the elite and mass levels, allowing researchers to study populist attitudes among voters as well as populist strategies among leaders. For instance, recent surveys reveal a correlation between populist attitudes and skepticism of institutions like the media and judiciary (Akkerman et al., 2014).

---

Comparing Alternative Approaches

1. Discursive Approach

Ernesto Laclau’s discursive approach views populism as a rhetorical strategy centered on the construction of “the people” as an empty signifier. While theoretically rich, this framework lacks the empirical clarity of the ideational approach.

2. Organizational Approach

Kurt Weyland defines populism as a form of political mobilization characterized by unmediated leader-follower relationships. While valuable for understanding Latin American politics, this approach neglects populism’s ideological dimensions.

3. Performative Approach

Pierre Ostiguy’s performative framework emphasizes populism’s “low” cultural appeal—informal language, personalistic leadership, and rejection of elite norms. While insightful, it risks conflating style with substance (Ostiguy, 2017).

---

Conclusion

The ideational approach offers a robust framework for understanding populism. Its clarity, adaptability, and empirical utility make it invaluable for analyzing a phenomenon that continues to reshape global politics. By focusing on populism as a moral conflict between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite,” this approach transcends regional and disciplinary boundaries, fostering cumulative knowledge and deeper insights into the populist zeitgeist.