‘Empty signifier’: The concept of ‘populism’ in the contemporary mainstream political science

The paper aims to clarify the origins of contemporary populism, as well as to outline the prospects for further research on this matter. The author examines this phenomenon within the framework of the dominant mainstream in political science. The latter imply the totality of approaches to conceptualization of the key modern social, economic, political and cultural issues. The author advances a hypothesis that both the extreme diversity of the views regarding the nature of populism and the impossibility to develop an all-encompassing defi nition of this paradoxical phenomenon directly stem from the characteristic features of this dominant discourse. The paper shows that this discourse emerged from the overlapping narratives of transition, modernization, free market, unlimited economic growth and ‘the end of history’ and establishes an hierarchy of global knowledge based on three principles: Western dominance, capitalism and liberalism. The author emphasizes that within this theoretical framework non-Western populism is portrayed as a relatively progressive phenomenon, as a means and an indicator of progress towards capitalism and democracy. In this case populism is interpreted as an element of transition to a ‘proper’ Modernity. However, identical political movements, practices and rhetoric of the Western populists are usually portrayed as a deviation from the norm, from Modernity in general and the ideals of liberal democracy in particular. Meanwhile, the paper argues that as Western liberal democracies transform into ‘conciliatory democracies’ (‘oligarchies’) and increasingly resemble ‘defective democracies’, they themselves start to deviate from the normative ideal, just as any regime they label ‘populist’. Therefore, the existing concepts of populism signify not only a certain deviation from the ideal but also the birth of a new reality which cannot be conceptualized within the framework of the contemporary mainstream political science. The concept of populism appears as an ‘empty signifier’ and as a collective term for all inconvenient and troubling social-political phenomena that mainstream political scientists are unable or unwilling to explain.

1. Acemoglu D. 2012. Why nations fail. Random House [Russ. ed.: Adzhemoglu D., Robinson Dzh.A. 2015. Pochemu odni strany bogatye, a drugie bednye. Proiskhozhdenie vlasti, protsvetaniya i nishchety. Moscow, AST Publ.].

2. Aleksander Dzh. 2002. Prochnye utopii i grazhdanskii remont [Robust utopias and civil repairs]. Sociological Studies, no. 10, pp. 3–11. (In Russ.)

3. Bauman Z. 2000. Liquid modernity. Cambridge, Polity [Russ. ed.: Bauman Z. 2008. Tekuchaya sovremennost’. Saint-Petersburg, Piter Publ.].

4. Vainshtein G.I. 2013. Populizm v sovremennoi Evrope: novye tendentsii [Populism in contemporary Europe: New trends]. World Economy and International Relations, no. 12, pp. 24–33. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2013-12-24-33. (In Russ.)

5. Decker F. 2004. Populizm kak vyzov liberal’nym demokratiyam [Populism as a challenge to liberal democracies]. Aktual’nye problemy Evropy, no. 2, pp. 56–73. (In Russ.)

6. Duverger M. 1967. Political parties. London, Methuen [Russ. ed.: Dyuverzhe M. 2002. Politicheskie partii. Moscow, Akademicheskii proekt Publ.].

7. Canfora L. 2008. Democracy in Europe: A history of an ideology. Malden, Blackwell Publishing [Russ. ed.: Kanfora L. 2012. Demokratiya. Istoriya odnoi ideologii. Saint-Petersburg, Aleksandriya Publ.].

8. Kuropyatnik G.P. 1971. Fermerskoe dvizhenie v SSHA ot greindzherov k Narodnoi partii. 1867–1896 [The farmer’s movement in the United States from Grangers to the People’s Party. 1867–1896]. Moscow, Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)

9. Mart’yanov V.S. 2020. Ponyatiinyi krizis zapadnogo meinstrima [The Western mainstream crisis]. Oikumena. Regionovedcheskie issledovaniya, no. 2, pp. 19–31. DOI: 10.24866/1998-6785/2020-2/19-31. (In Russ.)

10. Maryganova E.A. 2017. Razmyvanie srednego klassa — ugroza razvitiyu sotsial‘nogo gosudarstva [The erosion of the middle class — threat to the development of the welfare state]. Upravlenie, no. 2 (16), pp. 62–68. (In Russ.)

11. Musikhin G.I. 2009. Populizm: strukturnaya kharakteristika politiki ili ‘ushcherbnaya ideologiya‘? [Populism: Structural characteristics of politics or ‘flawed ideology’?]. Politiya, no. 4 (55), pp. 40–53. DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2009-55-4-40-53. (In Russ.)

12. Myuller Ya.-V. 2018. Chto takoe populizm? [What is populism?]. Moscow, Izdatel’skii dom Vysshei shkoly ehkonomiki Publ. DOI: 10.17323/978-5-75981710-9. (In Russ.)

13. North D.C., Wallis J.J., Weingast B.R. 2009. Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. New York, Cambridge University Press [Russ. ed.: Nort D., Vaingast B., Uollis D. 2011. Nasilie i sotsial’nye poryadki. Kontseptual’nye ramki dlya interpretatsii pis’mennoi istorii chelovechestva Moscow, Institut Gaidara Publ.].

14. Podrezov M.V. 2020. Istoriya izucheniya politicheskogo populizma i ego polozhenie v sovremennoi politicheskoi nauke [The history of the study of political populism and its current position in political science]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no. 451, pp. 96–101. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/451/13. (In Russ.)

15. Popova O.V. (ed.). 2018. ‘Politika postpravdy’ i populizm [‘Post-truth politics’ and populism]. Saint-Petersburg, Skifiya-print. (In Russ.)

16. Popper K. 1962. The open society and its enemies. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul [Russ. ed.: Popper K. 1992. Otkrytoe obshchestvo i ego vragi. Moscow, Feniks Publ., Kul’turnaya initsiativa Publ.].

17. Rudenko V.N. 2019. Populistskii kontsept zashchity prav cheloveka v usloviyakh krizisa soglasitel’nykh politicheskikh sistem [Populist concept for protecting human rights in the crisis of conciliatory political systems]. Antinomii, no. 4, pp. 138–155. DOI: 10.24411/2686-7206-2019-00012. (In Russ.)

18. Fishman L.G. 2019a. Bumerang vozvrashchaetsya? [Boomerang comes around]. Svobodnaya mysl’, no. 1, pp. 15–23. (In Russ.)

19. Fishman L.G. 2019b. Korruptsiya radi naroda [Corruption for the sake of people]. In: Aktual’nye problemy nauchnogo obespecheniya gosudarstvennoi politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii v oblasti protivodeistviya korruptsii: Sbornik trudov po itogam III Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem [Current issues of scientific support for the state anti-corruption policy in the Russian Federation. Collection of research papers of the III All-Russian Scientific Conference with international participation (26–27 October 2018, Ekaterinburg)]. Ekaterinburg, pp. 65–79. (In Russ.)

20. Fishman L.G. 2017. Populizm — ehto nadolgo [Populism will be long lasting]. Polis. Political Studies, no. 3, pp. 55–70. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2017.03.04. (In Russ.)

21. Andrain C.F. 1994. Comparative political systems: Policy performance and social change. New York, M.E. Sharpe [Russ. ed.: Ehndrein CH.F. 2000. Sravnitel’nyi analiz politicheskikh sistem. Ehffektivnost’ osushchestvleniya politicheskogo kursa i sotsial’nye preobrazovaniya. Moscow, Ves’ mir Publ.].

22. Albertazzi D., Mueller S. 2013. Populism and liberal democracy: Populists in government in Austria, Italy, Poland and Switzerland. Government and Opposition, vol. 48, iss. 03, pp. 343 –371. DOI:10.1017/gov.2013.12.

23. Buzalka J. 2008. Europeanisation and post-peasant populism in Eastern Europe. Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 757–771. DOI: 10.1080/09668130802085141.

24. Comaroff J. 2011. Populism and late liberalism: A special affinity? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 637, no. 1, pp. 99–111. DOI: 10.1177/0002716211406079.

25. Dominijanni I., Casarino C. 2014. The cricket’s leap: Post-Oedipal populism and neoliberal democracy in contemporary Italy. Cultural Critique, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 167–182. DOI: 10.5749/culturalcritique.87.2014.0167.

26. Spruyt B., Keppens G., Droogenbroeck F. van. 2016. Who supports populism and what attracts people to it? Political Research Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 335–346. DOI: 10.1177/1065912916639138.

27. Torre C. 2013. In the name of the people: Democratization, popular organizations, and populism in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe, no. 95, pp. 27–48. DOI:10.18352/erlacs.9229.