'Populists in Power' and Intellectual Elites: A New Relationship?

Is populism really anti-intellectual? The anti-elitism of populist leaders, parties and movements usually includes the dimension of anti-intellectualism, whether it be against public intellectuals or experts involved in decision-making processes. Anti-intellectualism has always been categorized as a specific type of anti-elitism (Riesman, 1963; Canovan, 1982). A person who displays "anti-intellectual" qualities disparages the rational complexity associated with intellectual pursuits, therefore we could define “anti-intellectualism” as a rejection of advanced, specialized, complicated thought, which is described as antithetical to common sense (Levine, 2016). Despite these negative representations, anti-intellectual populists are not necessarily dismissive of experts and intellectuals. What happens, for example, to populists when they take power? The institutionalization of populist parties and leaders could shape a new relationship between “Populists in power” (Argesinger, 1987; Albertazzi and McDonnell, 2014) and “Men of ideas” (Coser, 1965). If we assume that contemporary populism actively engaged in a politics of regime transformation (de la Torre and Peruzzotti, 2018), we must also take into account that it could employ intellectuals and policy experts in order to reach its goals. The first in the function of legitimization of the system of ideas that supports the choices of parties and leaders who express the “popular will”, the latter with the goal of delivering policy proposals. The aim of this paper is to focus on some working hypotheses, both theoretical and empirical, on the relationship between populist political forces and intellectual