The double-edged sword: the political appropriation of the concept of populism

Abstract

The concept of populism has been in use in political debate for over a century. Because 'populist' is often used in a pejorative sense today, those to whom it is applied to tend to reject it. However, a closer look at the history of the concept reveals that while its meaning may fluctuate and even be dismissed as irrelevant, its use can become a political tool. This study of the use of 'populism' refrains from making value judgments on the actual populist nature of certain parties or political tendencies.Instead, it analyses uses of the concept from a historical perspective. Special emphasis is placed on politicians who chose to define themselves as populist, or accept the label imposed by others, with particular focus on the Finns Party of Finland. Such self-identified populists draw their conceptions of populism from the ever-growing field of populism research, striving to appropriate and realize what scholars have only hypothetically described as a professed ideal. A closer look at the uses of populism as a political self-identity forces us to rethink its uses as a pejorative, or as an analytical, concept.The concept of populism was originally imbued with a positive meaning, but its usage has become pejorative since the late 20th century. This semantic drift can be traced back to post-war debates within American historiography, as well as European reception in the 1980s. Populism scholar Margaret Canovan noted already in 1981 that scholars studying so-called populist parties in Europe have to balance between political self-definitions and pejoratives used by opponents 1 , but as historian Anton Jäger observes in 2016, many lack historical awareness of the concepts they employ. 2 The concept of populism has two geographically separate lineages based on divergent historical experiences in Europe and the Americas. According to Argentine political theorist Ernesto

‘You’re a populist! No, you are a populist!’: The rhetorical analysis of a popular insult in the United Kingdom, 1970–2018

“…On the contrary, following previous research (e.g. Elmgren, 2018), populist parties may answer to such accusation with two strategies. Either they recognise and acknowledge their populism, providing a positive characterization of this attitude, or alternatively, they reject the accusation, maintaining a negative approach towards populism and possibly revolting the attack against the political force that has initially produced it.…”

“…However, few scholars have systematically addressed the connection between populism and rhetoric, namely, how political actors employ the term populism in their discourses. Van Kessel (2014) highlights the rhetorical ambiguity of populism, a concept that can serve various political strategies, whereas Elmgren (2018) addresses the political appropriation of the concept of populism, analysing how the Finnish Rural Party created a positive interpretation. Moreover, Herkman (2017) shows how the media and politicians in Nordic countries refer to the various rhetorical manifestations of populism, and Bale et al (2011) compare the British media's employment of the term populism with scholarly usages.…”

“…For instance, the Brexit vote should generate many negative references that mention populism's nationalist, demagogic, and right-wing nature (Watts and Bale, 2019). On the contrary, the expectation is for parties accused of being populist to avoid debates on populism and resist accusations or to highlight its positive features (Elmgren, 2018). Thus, the Conservative Party may adopt similar strategies.…”

The antinomies of Ernesto Laclau: a reassessment

“…60 Bearing this in mind would imply retaining a focus on 'populism-in-discourse' rather than on populism itself, shedding a genealogical light on its contemporary usages. 61 As a signifier within discourse, populism then 'defines those who use it rather than those who are branded with it'. 62 Some authors, for instance, have focused on the ways in which populism is used to disqualify political opponents and to enforce an equation between radical left and radical right.…”

Populism in the eye of the beholder? A conjoint experiment on citizens’ identification of populists

“…Examples of these competing normative frames abound: Casiraghi and Bordignon (2023) showed how in European Parliaments left‐wing politicians are accused of populism more often when the political discussion centres on economic issues, whereas their right‐wing colleagues are attacked more frequently when the debate concerns immigration. Adopting a similar focus, Elmgren (2018) demonstrated how the Finnish Rural Party proudly claimed populism as one of its positive characteristics, whereas Casiraghi (2021) showed how the British Conservatives systematically refused to be defined as populist.…”