One hat, too many heads: On the history and theory of populism

In recent times, populism not only is on everyone’s lips, but it has also been contested as scientific term. While some consider recent political developments as a repolitization and response to postdemocracy, others interpret populism as authoritarian and antipluralistic form of politics. However, a closer look reveals that the common term is very often rather obscuring. Scrutinizing the three mayor historic references of the debates on Populism – the Russian Narodniki, the US People´s Party, and the national-popular governments in the 1930-50s in Latin America –, the article reveals that quite contrasting movements have been labeled as populists. Furthermore, different theoretical strands, which described them as such discerned very different aspects as their populist core. After laying out these differences, the articles asks for the explanatory potential of these approaches and discusses the question if there is an intrinsic authoritarianism to populism.In recent times, populism not only is on everyone’s lips, but it has also been contested as scientific term. While some consider recent political developments as a repolitization and response to postdemocracy, others interpret populism as authoritarian and antipluralistic form of politics. However, a closer look reveals that the common term is very often rather obscuring. Scrutinizing the three mayor historic references of the debates on Populism – the Russian Narodniki, the US People´s Party, and the national-popular governments in the 1930-50s in Latin America –, the article reveals that quite contrasting movements have been labeled as populists. Furthermore, different theoretical strands, which described them as such discerned very different aspects as their populist core. After laying out these differences, the articles asks for the explanatory potential of these approaches and discusses the question if there is an intrinsic authoritarianism to populism