Populism's Friends Or Foes Of Constitutionalism: Muddled Waters

Cas Mudde of the University of Georgia defines populism and argues that populism is theoretically opposed to constitutionalism. Populism is essentially democratic, but by adopting a form of extreme majoritarianism, it goes against the limits placed on popular sovereignty and majority rule, which are integral to constitutional principles. Populists challenge liberal constitutionalism on democratic grounds, invoking popular sovereignty and claiming to empower the ordinary citizen. However, populism is a thin-centred ideology, which bases its meaning on an opposition between the real people and the corrupted elites. This results in a distorted view of representation, where populists see democratic institutions as a megaphone for the general will of the people.

Explore related products

Common Good Constitutionalism

$19.95 $19.95

CONSTITUTIONALISM:PAST, PRESENT, & FUTURE OCON PAPER: Past, Present, and Future (Oxford Classical Texts)

$51 $51

Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution

$24.01 $28.99

Against Constitutionalism

$41 $41

The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Bibliographies in the History of)

$20.95 $30

Keeping the Republic: A Defense of American Constitutionalism (American Political Thought)

$36.09 $37.99

Populism is theoretically opposed to constitutionalism

Mudde describes populists as taking an opportunistic approach toward constitutions, clinging to the constitutional protection of their minority rights while rejecting those of other minorities based on the democratic argument of majority rule. Populism, while essentially democratic, is theoretically opposed to constitutionalism. It is a form of 'pseudo' or 'para' democracy characterised by 'hyper' or 'radical' majoritarianism that confuses the social, political, ethnic or religious majoritarian groups.

Populism is a notoriously vague term, and scholars have struggled to define it. For example, while populism in Europe is often associated with the extreme right, in South America, it has been linked to the political left, with leaders such as Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez. Despite its democratic nature, populism's emphasis on majoritarianism and its opportunistic approach to constitutions make it theoretically opposed to constitutionalism.

However, it is important to distinguish between democratic and authoritarian populism. While authoritarian populism poses a threat to constitutional democracy, democratic populism can be compatible with and even beneficial to it. Democratic populism endorses a constitutional critique that challenges constitutional orthodoxy for its lack of democratic responsiveness.

In conclusion, populism is theoretically opposed to constitutionalism due to its extreme majoritarianism and opportunistic approach to constitutions. However, democratic populism, which aims to increase democratic responsiveness, can be distinguished from its authoritarian counterpart and may even be beneficial to constitutionalism.

Populism is essentially democratic

Populism is a notoriously vague and slippery concept, with many different guises. For example, while populism in Europe is associated with the extreme right, in South America, it has been linked to the political left, as seen with figures like Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez. Despite these differences, populism is essentially democratic.

Populism is a form of political theorizing that stimulates an analysis of the relationship between the elite and the people, with the former viewed as the most radical form of the latter. It also tends to be suspicious of liberalism. Populism can be seen as a form of 'pseudo' or 'para' democracy characterized by 'hyper' or 'radical' majoritarianism that blurs the lines between social, political, ethnic, or religious majoritarian groups.

Populists challenge liberal constitutionalism on democratic grounds, invoking popular sovereignty and claiming to empower ordinary citizens. They do not reject the idea of representation but endorse a distorted version that reflects their biased view of the people. In other words, populists use democratic institutions as a megaphone for the people's will, with the right representatives making the right judgments and doing the right thing.

Left-wing populists, for example, justify their fight against financial and economic elites by denouncing social inequalities and advocating for the redistribution of resources and wealth. They defend weaker or minoritarian groups against large concentrations of power and wealth, prioritizing fundamental human rights.

However, it is important to note that populism can take on different forms, including democratic and authoritarian variants. While democratic populism can be compatible with constitutionalism, authoritarian populism poses a threat to constitutional democracy.

Populists take an opportunistic approach towards constitutions

Populism is a notoriously vague term with many different guises. It is often associated with the extreme right in Europe, but in South America, it has been linked to the political left, with leaders such as Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez. Populism is essentially democratic and adopts a form of extreme majoritarianism, which is contrary to the limits placed on popular sovereignty and majority rule that are integral to constitutional principles.

The driving principle behind populist democracy is to disregard legal boundaries and constitutional constraints. Populist constitutionalism critiques the prevailing legalistic understanding of liberal constitutionalism and the processes of depoliticization, anti-majoritarianism, and judicial empowerment associated with it. It emphasizes the need for democratic responsiveness in constitutional theory.

However, populist constitutionalism also has critics. Some argue that populist leaders use democratic institutions as a megaphone for the people's will, reflecting a distorted view of the people. This can lead to a form of "pseudo-democracy" or "para-democracy," characterized by radical majoritarianism that blurs social, political, ethnic, or religious lines.

While democratic populism may be compatible with constitutionalism, authoritarian populism poses a threat to constitutional democracy and can deviate from or pervert democratic principles.

Explore related products

American Constitutionalism: Volume I: Structures of Government

$107.99 $114

American Constitutionalism: Volume II: Rights and Liberties

$148.78

Constitutionalism in Context (Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy)

$53 $53

The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review

$45.51 $48.99

Common Law and Liberal Theory: Coke, Hobbes, and the Origins of American Constitutionalism

$29.99

Conservative Thought and American Constitutionalism since the New Deal

$32.83 $64.95

Populists challenge liberal constitutionalism on democratic grounds

Populism is a notoriously vague term, and scholars have long struggled to define the phenomenon. Cas Mudde, for instance, describes it as a "notoriously slippery concept". However, one of the driving principles behind the contemporary populist vision of democracy is to no longer respect legal boundaries and constitutional constraints. Populists challenge liberal constitutionalism on democratic grounds by invoking popular sovereignty and claiming to put the ordinary citizen first. They embrace majoritarianism and popular sovereignty while showing little commitment to constitutionalism.

Populism is essentially democratic, but by adopting a form of extreme majoritarianism, it goes against the limits placed on both popular sovereignty and majority rule, which are integral to constitutional principles. Populists take an opportunistic approach towards constitutions, clinging to the constitutional protection of their minority rights while rejecting those of other minorities based on the democratic argument of majority rule.

Populists argue that the understanding of the rule of law as a neutral, universalistic framework undermines a polity's potential to promote the "national interest" and thrive in international competition. They see the law as an expression of the political will of the community rather than as a basis for it. Populism, therefore, criticizes liberal or legal constitutionalism on similar grounds as democratic constitutionalism, but its alternative constitutional solution, or "counter-constitution," is highly different from a democratic or democratizing approach.

Populist constitutionalism rejects the existing order because of its perceived inequalities and injustices, aiming to restore a preceding, historical order or a future-oriented, pure, and uncorrupted polity. It understands liberal democracy and the rule of law as a historical interruption and aberration. Populism thus poses a real challenge to liberal, representative democracy, claiming to preserve or deepen the democratic nature of institutions while simultaneously revolutionizing them.

Populists aim to defend weaker or minoritarian groups against large concentrations of power and wealth like the elites

Populism is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has been studied extensively by scholars. While it is often associated with the political right in Europe, it has also taken on left-wing forms in South America, as exemplified by the late Hugo Chávez. Populism is essentially democratic and involves an intrinsic and irreducible opposition between the elite and the "real" people.

Left-wing populists aim to defend weaker or minoritarian groups against large concentrations of power and wealth, such as financial and economic elites. They do not find enemies in these weaker groups but instead denounce social inequalities and advocate for the redistribution of resources and wealth. They give significant weight to fundamental human rights and frame the conflict in terms of social and economic inequalities rather than racial differences. An example of left-wing populism in action was Bernie Sanders' 2016 primary US presidential campaign, where he protested against austerity, lack of solidarity, imperialism, and lobby power.

Populists view democratic institutions as a megaphone for the general will of the people, and they challenge liberal constitutionalism by invoking popular sovereignty and claiming to represent the interests of ordinary citizens. However, populism is also characterized by extreme majoritarianism, which can lead to the rejection of minority rights and the limits placed on popular sovereignty and majority rule that are integral to constitutional principles. This opportunistic approach to constitutions can result in the protection of the rights of some minorities while denying the rights of others based on democratic arguments.

While populist constitutionalism is not inherently incompatible with constitutionalism, it does pose a challenge to the prevailing legalistic understanding of liberal constitutionalism and the processes of depoliticization, anti-majoritarianism, and judicial empowerment associated with it. Democratic populism can be compatible with and even beneficial to constitutionalism, but authoritarian populism deviates from this and poses a threat to constitutional democracy.

Frequently asked questions