How to Recognize Populism

Populism is a term frequently used in politics, most often to describe people, opinions, or actions we disagree with. This reckless name-calling of anything and everything stems from the fact that everyone interprets populism in their own way. Disagreement exists not only over who qualifies as a populist but also whether populism itself is inherently negative.

The term populism first appeared in a very different context than today. The American Populist or People's Party emerged in the late 19th century as a left-leaning agrarian movement advocating for economic and political reforms in favor of farmers, particularly in the western United States.

A more positive (and romantic) view of populism was developed by Argentine political theorist Ernesto Laclau and his partner Chantal Mouffe. They saw populism as a radical, emancipatory response to stagnant and unjust liberal democracy. Their perspective resonated with parts of the Slovenian left, which viewed left-wing populism as a counterforce to the rise of neoliberalism and the far right in Slovenia's political space.

Perhaps the most common—and least precise—interpretation describes populism as a simplistic politics that aims to please everyone at all costs. According to that standard, there would be no doubt who the biggest populist in Slovenia is. I’m skeptical of this view. While I don’t deny that someone who treats politics as an ego trip can be a populist, I’d argue that trying desperately to please everyone is not populism per se—it’s more accurately described as popularism. Still, this pursuit of likability, built on deliberate ethical non-commitment and a “both-sides” approach to values, objectively benefits those who disdain the principles of liberal democracy.

These are the very actors described as populists by German-American political scientist Jan-Werner Müller. He defines a populist as someone who arbitrarily claims the exclusive right to represent “the people.” Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde offers a similar explanation, arguing that populism, in all its forms, always involves invoking “the people” while stigmatizing “the elites.” This strategy can be deployed from either the left or the right. Mudde sees populism not as an ideology but as a political strategy used by powerful, charismatic leaders to seize and consolidate power.

Johns Hopkins political scientist Yascha Mounk, in his book The People vs. Democracy, describes illiberal democracy—characteristic of populism in power—as “democracy without rights.” In such a system, elections are held regularly, but without effective safeguards to ensure they are also free and fair, to protect political freedoms, guarantee minority rights, or enable independent media and courts to carry out oversight. The power of the people becomes the tyranny of the majority, personified, interpreted, and executed by the “people’s leader”—or in other words, the populist.

Populism, then, should not be recognized based on name-calling among political opponents, but rather by examining its relationship with checks and balances—the institutions that ensure democratic oversight. In liberal democracy, these institutions are vital for upholding pluralism, political freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law. In the populist view of power, they are seen as obstacles to executing “the will of the people”—which, let us repeat, is unilaterally defined and enforced by the populist himself.

How does this manifest in practice? Let’s start with the judiciary. Courts are the most common and effective barrier to populists trying to implement the “people’s will” in unlawful or unconstitutional ways. Populism attacks this barrier in two ways: first, by seeking control over the judiciary through the appointment of judges who are willing to cooperate, cover for, and legitimize dubious populist decisions. Everyone knows how important judicial appointments were to former U.S. President Donald Trump. Over four years—and thanks to some maneuvering by the Republican majority in Congress—he managed to appoint three Supreme Court justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. He also appointed over 250 judges to lower federal courts. While judicial appointments are routine and necessary, the fact that Trump appointed as many judges in one term as many of his predecessors did in two is striking. Populists often rush to take control of the judiciary. In countries with weaker democratic traditions and oversight mechanisms, we often see attempts to accelerate judicial takeovers through selective purges, orchestrated disciplinary actions, and similar tricks.

Populists also fight independent judges and prosecutors they can’t control through smears. Terms like “traitors of the people” and “crooked judiciary” are common populist rhetoric when the courts are doing their job.

The media face similar treatment. Since illiberal democracies are (still) not fully authoritarian, they are forced to coexist with media outlets critical of their policies. Populists try to gain control through financial takeovers of private media and, in public media, by reshuffling leadership and exerting pressure. A public media outlet that is independent—and thus capable of criticizing those in power—is, for the populist, an unacceptable anomaly. Populists often can’t or won’t distinguish between what is public and what is state-owned, and thus, in their view, theirs to control.

Media that resist are attacked. Labels like "MSM" (mainstream media) and "fake news" are go-to insults—used not just by Trump. Populists also discredit facts and truth itself. The phrase “alternative facts,” coined by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway to justify blatantly false claims about inauguration crowd sizes, encapsulates this mindset. In a world where everyone gets their own facts, truth no longer exists. Media are evaluated not by professionalism, independence, or adherence to journalistic ethics, but by their loyalty—or lack thereof—to the leader and his ideology. This logic also underpins the idea of “media balance,” where the goal is not fairness or objectivity, but an alignment with political power.

The third pillar of democratic oversight that populists particularly despise is civil society. Trump’s expression after ordering police to violently disperse anti-racism protesters outside the White House—so he could walk to St. John’s Church and pose with a Bible held upside down—says it all. In Europe, civil society is protected by Articles 11 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 11 guarantees freedom of association; Article 12 protects the right to peaceful protest, without requiring prior approval or permits. In populist-run states, both rights are under serious threat. In a system where the “people’s will” is embodied solely by the populist, all other expressions of citizen will—especially critical ones—are by default suspicious and unacceptable. Some countries have even legally adopted terms like “foreign agent” to more easily restrict these European Convention–guaranteed freedoms.

The fundamental problem for populists is that even successfully capturing all oversight mechanisms and societal subsystems doesn’t guarantee long-term immunity from public dissatisfaction—including from former supporters. The reason is simple. Populism exploits often legitimate grievances to delegitimize political competition and seize power—but it has neither the interest nor the ability to fix the problems it campaigned on. Without independent courts, free media, and active civil society, there’s no protection against government incompetence and corruption. Staffing institutions based on loyalty rather than expertise leaves a society ill-equipped to tackle economic, social, environmental, technological, developmental, or health challenges.

Even scapegoating, fearmongering, culture wars, nationalism, and minority-bashing can’t provide lasting relief from public anger once people realize they’ve been conned. At that point, all populism has left is repression—and the already-blurred line between illiberal democracy and full-blown authoritarianism fades even further.