Laclaus’s Theory of Populism and Democracy

The paper supports Laclau’s conception of populism. The charges from many quarters, against him and against populism in general is unwarranted, but certain elements need further development. The paper focus on normative aspects. Even though there is no necessary link between populism and authoritarianism, neither is there any necessary contradiction between them. We therefore need to specify criteria to evaluate whether actual populists movements are democratic or not. The criteria, or dimensions of democracy, I analyse are. 1) Lefort’s concept of the empty place of power and the concomitant idea of incarnation in political representation. Respect for keeping the place of power empty is not guaranteed in populism, neither in its left- or rightwing forms. 2) Inclusion, a strong democratic logic which is not necessarily present, as is witnessed in the recent right-wing populist movements. 3) Participation which may or may not be part of actual populist movements. Here the relation to right wing populism is less unequivocal, since these may take the form of actual active movements, but mostly they depend on strong leadership and passive support. On the other hand there are plenty examples of left wing populisms depending less on actual mobilisation, and more on leadership and representation. 4) Lastly the question of pluralism. Laclau consistently argued that populism is a relation of equivalence in which the ‘internal’ pluralism was guaranteed, the populist logic of constructing A people in oppostion to ‘the elite’, is actually an anti-pluralist logic. Pluralism must consciously recognised by democratic populisms. Analysis of actual populisms’ democratic character should address all 4. Political strategies for a radical and plural democracy taking on populist forms, should also commit themselves to all of the four democratic dimensions (even if actual political contexts might pose limits on short term tactics).