Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:25:44.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Populists and Demagogues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2019

Haig Patapan Open the ORCID record for Haig Patapan [Opens in a new window]
Haig Patapan*
Affiliation:
Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith Business School and School of Government and International Relations, Nathan campus, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, QLD 4111, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article seeks to understand what is specifically modern about populists, why we have difficulty in agreeing on who and what they are, and—importantly—how we can address the formidable challenge they present to contemporary democratic politics. It does so by detailing the classical conception of the demagogue and by showing how modernity, in its liberal and counter-liberal aspects, sought to solve conclusively the problem of the demagogue. It argues that modern populists face significant obstacles to their ambitions in the form of modern constitutionalism, yet are also armed with new weapons, including new concepts or “ideologies” for manipulation (such as “the people,” nation, race and class) and new rhetorical techniques (such as propaganda that exploits modern technology and mass media).

Résumé

L'article cherche à comprendre ce qui est spécifiquement moderne chez les populistes, pourquoi nous avons du mal à nous accorder sur qui et ce qu'ils sont, et surtout comment nous pouvons relever le formidable défi qu'ils représentent pour la politique démocratique contemporaine. Il le fait en détaillant la conception classique du démagogue et comment la modernité dans ses aspects libéraux et antilibéraux a cherché à résoudre de manière concluante le problème du démagogue. Il soutient que les populistes modernes font face à des obstacles importants à leurs ambitions sous la forme d'un constitutionnalisme moderne, mais qu'ils disposent également de nouvelles armes, y compris de nouveaux concepts ou « idéologies » de manipulation (invoquant "le peuple", la nation, la race, la classe sociale) et de nouveaux artifices rhétoriques comme la propagande qui exploite la technologie moderne et les médias de masse.

Keywords

populistpopulismdemagogueliberalismrhetoricideology
Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 743 - 759
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abts, Koen and Rummens, Stefan. 2007. “Populism Versus Democracy.” Political Studies 55 (2): 405–24.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00657.xGoogle Scholar
Albertazzi, Daniele and McDonnell, Duncan. 2015. Populists in Power. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315725789Google Scholar
Althusser, Louis. 1969. For Marx. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1984. Politics, trans. Lord, Carnes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bensman, Joseph and Givant, Michael. 1975. “Charisma and Modernity: The Use and Abuse of a Concept.” Social Research 42 (4): 570–614.Google Scholar
Berlet, Chip and Lyons, Matthew N.. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Betz, Hans-Georg. 1994. Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-23547-6Google Scholar
Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. London: Junction Books.Google Scholar
Canovan, Margaret. 1982. “Two Strategies for the Study of Populism.” Political Studies 30 (4): 544–52.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1982.tb00559.xGoogle Scholar
Canovan, Margaret. 2005. The People. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Capoccia, Giovanni. 2001. “Defending Democracy: Reactions to Political Extremism in Inter-war Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 39 (4): 431–60.10.1111/1475-6765.00584Google Scholar
Ceasar, James. 2007. “Demagoguery, Statesmanship and the American Presidency.” Critical Review 19 (2–3): 257–98.Google Scholar
Delsol, Chantal. 2013. “The Common Idiot of Populism.” In Contemporary Populism: A Controversial Concept and Its Diverse Forms, ed. Gherghina, Sergiu, Mişcoiu, Sergiu and Soare, Sorina. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Dorey, T. A. 1956. “Aristophanes and Cleon.” Greece and Rome 3 (2) 132–39.10.1017/S0017383500015151Google Scholar
Epstein, David F. 1984. The Political Theory of the Federalist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Finley, Moses I. 1962. “Athenian Demagogues.” Past & Present 21 (1): 3–24.10.1093/past/21.1.3Google Scholar
Flinders, Matthew. 2012. Defending Politics: Why Democracy Matters in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199644421.001.0001Google Scholar
Forbes, Ian. 2015. Marx and the New Individual. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315715179Google Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2006. Saving Persuasion: A Defence of Rhetoric and Judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674037519Google Scholar
Helms, Ludger. 2012. “Democratic Political Leadership in the New Media Age: A Farewell to Excellence?” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 14 (4): 651–70.10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00495.xGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1968. Leviathan, ed. Macpherson, C. B.. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1987. Essays, moral, political, and literary. Indianapolis: LibertyClassics, 42.Google Scholar
Ionescu, Ghita and Gellner, Ernest, eds. 1969. Populism: Its Meanings and National Characteristics. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Jaros, Dean and Mason, Gene. 1969. “Party Choice and Support for Demagogues: An Experimental Examination.” The American Political Science Review 63 (1): 100–110.10.1017/S0003055400261509Google Scholar
Krause, Sharon R. 2002. Liberalism with Honor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctv10crdfhGoogle Scholar
Laclau, Ernest. 2007. On Populist Reason. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Lane, Melissa. 2012. “The Origins of the Statesman-Demagogue Distinction in and after Ancient Athens.” Journal of the History of Ideas 73 (2): 179–200.10.1353/jhi.2012.0020Google Scholar
Lang, Mabel. 1972. “Cleon as the Anti-Pericles.” Classical Philology 67 (3): 159–69.Google Scholar
Logue, Cal M. and Dorgan, Howard, eds. 1981. The Oratory of Southern Demagogues. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Lomas, Charles W. 1968. The Agitator in American Society. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Luthin, Reinhard H. 1959. American Demagogues: Twentieth Century. Gloucester: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
McDonnell, Duncan. 2016. “Populist Leaders and Coterie Charisma.” Political Studies 64 (3): 719–33.10.1111/1467-9248.12195Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1985. The Prince, trans. Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1996. Discourses on Livy, trans. Mansfield, Harvey C. and Tarcov, Nathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226500331.001.0001Google Scholar
Marzouki, Nadia, McDonnell, Duncan and Roy, Olivier, eds. 2016. Saving the People: How Populists Hijack Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mény, Yves and Surel, Yves. 2002. “The Constitutive Ambiguity of Populism.” In Democracies and the Populist Challenge, ed. Mény, Yves and Surel, Yves. New York: Palgrave.10.1057/9781403920072Google Scholar
Moffitt, Benjamin and Tormey, Simon. 2014. “Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation and Political Style.” Political Studies 62 (2): 381–97.10.1111/1467-9248.12032Google Scholar
Mudde, Cas. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511492037Google Scholar
Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal R.. 2014. “Populism and Political Leadership.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership, ed. Rhodes, R. A. W. and Hart, Paul 't. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Sigmund. 1938. “The Rule of the Demagogue.” American Sociological Review 3 (4): 487–98.10.2307/2083896Google Scholar
Ober, Josiah. 1989. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400820511Google Scholar
Pangle, Thomas. 2003. Political Philosophy and the God of Abraham. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Patapan, Haig. 2016. “Magnanimous Leadership: Edmund Barton and the Australian Founding.” Leadership and Humanities 4 (1): 1–20.10.4337/lath.2016.01.01Google Scholar
Plato, . 1991. Republic, trans. Bloom, Allan. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Plekhanov, G. V. 1961. On the Role of the Individual in History. Vol. 2 of Selected Works of G. V. Plekhanov. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
Plutarch, . 1975. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, trans. John Dryden, revised Arthur Hugh Clough. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Riesebrodt, Martin. 1999. “Charisma in Max Weber's Sociology of Religion.” Religion 29 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Roberts-Miller, Patricia. 2005. “Democracy, Demagoguery and Critical Rhetoric.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 8 (3): 459–76.10.1353/rap.2005.0069Google Scholar
Signer, Michael. 2009. Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stanley, Ben. 2008. “The Thin Ideology of Populism.” Journal of Political Ideologies 13 (1): 95–110.Google Scholar
Taggart, Paul A. 2000. Populism. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Taguieff, Pierre-André. 1995. “Political Science Confronts Populism: From a Conceptual Mirage to a Real Problem.” Telos no. 103 (Spring): 9–43.10.3817/0395103009Google Scholar
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Warner, Rex. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Tulis, Jeffrey. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Stephen. 2003. “Charisma Reconsidered.” Journal of Classical Sociology 3 (1): 5–26.10.1177/1468795X03003001692Google Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2001. “Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics.” Comparative Politics 34 (1): 1–22.10.2307/422412Google Scholar
Willner, Ann Ruth. 1984. The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Arthur G. 1960. “Thucydides’ Portrait of Cleon.” Mnemosyne 13 (Fasc. 4): 289–317.10.1163/156852560X00219Google Scholar
Yunis, Harvey. 1996. Taming Democracy: Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501711374Google Scholar
Zaslove, Andrej. 2008. “Here to Stay? Populism as a New Party Type.” European Review 16 (30): 319–36.Google Scholar