The Two Faces of Populism: How the Populist Performance Challenges Liberal Democracy

This article deals with populism’s complex relation to democracy, in particular liberal democracy. Is populism a danger to democracy (as Müller and others claim), or is it part of democracy’s modus operandi (Laclau), or is it a shadow that is bound to follow democracy forever (Canovan)? First, a characterization of populism is given, which builds on Moffitt’s conception of populism as a specific kind of political style or performance. Second, rhetorical devices often used in populist discourse will be described. Third, the relationship between populism and democracy is addressed. According to Laclau, populism is not a specific political ideology or strategy, but the general political logic through which a people is constituted. As such, populism is not a threat to democracy; it is essential to its functioning. Žižek criticizes Laclau’s formal conception of populism, because it fails to distinguish democracy from populism: whereas populism is opposed to antagonism in society and seeks to destroy it by excluding the enemy, democracy thrives on antagonism, invites and institutionalizes it. In Van Klink’s view, populism endangers democracy, when it tries to occupy the empty place of power (Lefort) by claiming that the populist leader fully and exclusively embodies ‘the People’. Finally, some lessons from a performative perspective are drawn how liberal democracy could and should defend itself against the ‘populist temptation’.