Populism, Variants of Populism and Penal Populism

To advance comparative studies of populism beyond traditional single-dimensional categorizations, this paper redefines populism as discourse framing that enables systematic comparison across cases and contexts. By conceptualizing populism as anti-establishment, anti-pluralist, and moral-charged framing that pursues direct rule between leaders and people, the research develops an innovative comparative framework that analyzes populist variants through two critical dimensions: the level of social categorization and the scope of exclusivity. Through this two-dimensional matrix, the research reveals how different combinations of these factors generate distinct forms of populist governance, ranging from basic reform populism to extreme variants that pose severe threats to democratic institutions. The analysis identifies penal populism as the most dangerous manifestation, where maximum social categorization through criminalization combines with the broadest scope of exclusivity to create conditions for democratic backsliding. By examining how penal populist framing legitimizes both state violence and vigilante action through criminal justice policy, the research reveals specific mechanisms through which populist governance undermines democratic institutions. Drawing on case studies from the Global South, particularly the Philippines under Duterte, the study illustrates how penal populism manifests in contexts where institutional constraints may be weaker. This theoretical framework not only provides new analytical tools for comparing different forms of populism but also helps explain why certain populist movements evolve into more extreme forms while others remain contained within democratic bounds.