Skip to Main Content

Selected Online Reading on Populism and World Politics

Find a list of selected books, electronic books and articles, online databases, newswires and training sessions to enhance your knowledge from home.

Selected e-articles

Abstract by the author:This article is about two ideologies. Welfare‐consequentialism holds that government should adopt the policies that can rationally be expected to maximise aggregate welfare. Populism holds that society is divided into a pure people and a corrupt elite, and asserts that public policy should express the general will of the people. The responses of world governments to the coronavirus pandemic have clearly illustrated the contrast between these ideologies, and the danger that populist government poses to human wellbeing. The article argues that welfare‐consequentialism offers a vaccine for populism. First, it rebuts populism’s claims about who government is for and what it should do. Second, the pessimism and distrust that make people crave populism can be satiated by successful welfare‐consequentialist government. Finally, welfare‐consequentialism’s sunny narrative of progress can be just as compelling to people as populism’s dark story has proven to be.

Abstract by the author: Over the past decade, we have seen the rise of populist nationalist heads of state across a number of important electoral democracies—all of whom have made some version of the promise to make their countries 'great again'. However, scholars are divided over whether these leaders' sometimes bombastic rhetoric has consistent or predictable effects on state foreign policy. This article introduces a framework for mapping the effects of populism and nationalism in foreign policy. In doing so, it draws on Essex School discourse analysis and sociological frame analysis to argue that representational crises at the sub-state level increase the popular resonance of 'sovereigntist frames' that diagnose the causes of perceived gaps in representation of the 'authentic' sovereign community at the international level and enjoin chief executives to resolve these gaps through revisionist foreign policy practices. The ethno-nationalist master frame prescribes policies and practices of lateral revisionism (conflict with neighbours or rival states), the populist frame prescribes systemic revisionism (conflict with allies and the international 'establishment'), while the ethno-populist frame prescribes omni-revisionism (conflict with both). The article illustrates the effects of these disparate sovereigntist movements across three paired case-studies drawn from Europe, Latin America and the United States. It concludes that nationalism has greater destructive effects for the international system when combined with populism, demonstrating the importance of distinguishing nationalism and populism conceptually in order to isolate their separate and combined effects on foreign policy.

Abstract by the author: Like other transnational threats such as climate change, the extinction of biological species, SARS or Ebola, the current COVID-19 confronts the modern utopia of rigid borders between nations and contemporary finance-led neoliberal economic models. Acknowledging the complexity of COVID-19’s root causes, this paper builds on the contradictions between science, expertise and policy in the definition of global human security, and sketches five possible future international scenarios. I argue that in the aftermath of the pandemic any sort of future global, regional and state regulation will need to consider transnational threats not only to ensure the security of individuals, but also to guarantee the long-standing durability of the biosphere as a life-supporting system. To uphold this argument, I develop three sections: (i) the nature of the threat; (ii) the geopolitical tensions that COVID-19 heightens; and (iii) possible future scenarios.

Abstract by the author: Using the persecution of Muslims in India that is currently taking place against the backdrop of the COVID-19 global pandemic as an illustrative case, this essay identifies the dynamics of the organization of ideological discourse by populist leaders in times of unexpected crisis. The organization of ideological discourse represents strategic, discursive acts committed by populist leaders aimed at foregrounding social conditions that would function in the advancement of various political ends—whether those ends may be the consolidation of power, the undermining of institutional systems of checks and balances, the implementation of exclusionary or injurious policies against disenfranchised constituents, the suspension of civil liberties, or a combination thereof. It is engendered through a three-stage process. In the first stage, surface-level validation by legitimate institutional actors confirms preconceived ideas about a constructed enemy. In the second stage, inflammatory rhetoric is deployed by populist leaders, which scapegoat that constructed enemy. These two stages culminate to create widespread moral panic in society. With moral panic firmly established, in the third stage an environment of fear and paranoia becomes susceptible to the enactment of symbolic and physical violence against the constructed enemy. The essay concludes with some words on the pressing need to deconstruct ideologically motivated discourses related to COVID-19.

Abstract by the author: Contemporary discussions of populism elide important distinctions between the ways in which populist leaders and movements respond to the failures of elites to follow through on the promises associated with international social welfare constitutionalism. After laying out the political economy of populisms’ origins, the article describes the relation between populisms and varieties of liberalism, and specifically the relation between populisms and judicial independence understood as a “veto point” occupied by the elites that populists challenge. It then distinguishes left-wing populisms’ acceptance of the social welfare commitments of late twentieth century liberalism and its rejection of some settled constitutional arrangements that, in populists’ views, obstruct the accomplishment of those commitments. It concludes with a description of the core ethnonationalism of right-wing populism, which sometimes contingently appears in left-wing populisms but is not one the latter’s core components.

Abstract by the author: Populism is Janus-faced; simultaneously facing different directions. There is not a single form of populism, but rather a variety of different forms, each with profoundly different political consequences. Despite the current hegemony of authoritarian populism, a much different sort of populism is also possible: Democratic and anti-establishment populism, which combines elements of liberal and democratic convictions. Without understanding the political economy of the populist revolt, it is difficult to understand the true roots of populism, and consequently, to devise an appropriate democratic alternative to populism.

Abstract by the author: Populists are on the rise across the globe and claim to speak on behalf of ‘the people’ that are set against the establishment in the name of popular sovereignty. This article examines how populist discourses represent ‘the people’ as a referent object that is threatened and the form and implications of this populist securitisation process. Drawing on securitisation theory and poststructuralism, the article understands populist securitisation as a discursive practice that propagates a politics of fear, urgency, and exceptionality in order to mobilise ‘the people’ against a ‘dangerous’ elite and normalise this antagonistic divide of the social space. While the proposed theoretical framework aims to clarify the relationship between poststructuralist and securitisation theory and capture the nexus between populism and security, the case of populism broadens the scope of potential subjects of security and poses important challenges to existing theoretical assumptions about security as something designated by states’ representatives and ‘security experts’. The article develops and illustrates its arguments with a case study on the (de)securitisation moves in the populist discourse of Donald Trump.

Abstract by the authors: Sovereignist claims are on the rise – in Europe, the USA, and beyond. In dealing with processes such as globalization and supranational integration, which have progressively shifted powers and competencies away from nation states, these transformations have created a fertile terrain for reactions against the sources of such insecurity, which find full expression in the sovereignist claims to 'take back control', that is to say to return to the traditional understanding of sovereignty being based upon mutually exclusive territories. These sources of insecurity and social unrest have also provided structures of political opportunity for the electoral success of populist parties. Despite its relevance for the understanding of the populist discourse, however, sovereignty has been largely under-theorised by scholars dealing with populism. Accordingly, we propose a new research agenda to study populist mobilization that focuses on the linkage between populism and sovereignism, while also encouraging further theoretical and empirical studies, focusing on both the demand side and the supply side. In particular, we suggest some crucial aspects with which the Special Issue seeks to engage, before pointing to some substantial implications that are likely to emerge from the findings of this research agenda.

Abstract by the authors: Sovereignist claims are on the rise – in Europe, the USA, and beyond. In dealing with processes such as globalization and supranational integration, which have progressively shifted powers and competencies away from nation states, these transformations have created a fertile terrain for reactions against the sources of such insecurity, which find full expression in the sovereignist claims to 'take back control', that is to say to return to the traditional understanding of sovereignty being based upon mutually exclusive territories. These sources of insecurity and social unrest have also provided structures of political opportunity for the electoral success of populist parties. Despite its relevance for the understanding of the populist discourse, however, sovereignty has been largely under-theorised by scholars dealing with populism. Accordingly, we propose a new research agenda to study populist mobilization that focuses on the linkage between populism and sovereignism, while also encouraging further theoretical and empirical studies, focusing on both the demand side and the supply side. In particular, we suggest some crucial aspects with which the Special Issue seeks to engage, before pointing to some substantial implications that are likely to emerge from the findings of this research agenda.

Abstract by the authors: This article conceptualizes populism as a discourse of international relations that arises as response to state transformation, a phenomenon that encompasses changes in both state-society relations and the norms defining the appropriate practice of statehood. The current surge of populism is a response to one such transformation: the internationalization of state elites and their insulation from popular scrutiny. Populism does not simply address material and cultural dislocations that internationalization entails. Crucially, its distinct discursive logic allows these partial social demands to adopt the moral claim to representation of the 'real people' and so counter the universality of the international norms that underpin state transformation. Beyond the current conjuncture of state internationalization, this conceptualization accommodates iterations of populism in various regional and historical contexts of state transformation, making it a promising basis for the further comparative study of populism.

Abstract by the authors: This article is focused on the appeal of far-right populist politics in the everyday and how this appeal is related to continuity and change in the global order. Contemporary societies have witnessed an upsurge of populist movements and groups set on filling a political space by appealing to a population in search of solutions to an ever-changing political and economic landscape. Here, we specifically highlight the role of ontological insecurity, fantasy narratives, and emotional governance as critical for understanding far-right populist politics. The analysis consequently attends to the centrality of gendered and racialised narratives and to how these are fuelled by feelings of pride, shame, vulnerability, and insecurity. The aim is to show how structures and emotions work in tandem to create far-right support and how these developments are similar across Western and non-Western contexts. Particular attention is paid to far-right narratives that pertain to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Abstract by the author: This article adds to the emergent body of constitutional-theoretical research on populist government. It argues that constitutional analysis has specific importance in explaining the hostility to global legal norms that characterizes many populist or neo-nationalist polities. However, it argues that more classical perspectives in constitutional theory have not provided adequate explanations for this phenomenon. This is because constitutionalism itself misunderstands the sociological foundations of constitutional democracy and it promotes normative models of democracy, based in theories of popular sovereignty and constituent power, which create a legitimational space in which populism can flourish. In contrast, this article sets out a historical-sociological account of national democracy, explaining how democracy has been formed through processes of global norm construction. As a result, the basic subjects imputed to democracy by both constitutionalism and populism only became real on global normative foundations. In advancing these claims, this article presents a global-sociological critique of populism, explaining that populism evolves where the realities of democratic formation enter conflict with the norms of constitutional theory. In so doing, it offers a sociological theory of constitutional democracy that might help to avert democratic self-subversion.

Abstract by the author:This article explores the relationship between antisemitism and international politics, specifically the potent role that antisemitism plays in the development and maintenance of the global populist international. After briefly sketching the history of modern transnational antisemitism, I make two principal arguments for why antisemitism should be of more direct concern for the scholarship of International Relations. First, antisemitism serves as a powerful interpretive framework for contemporary far-right populist movements that are challenging the current international order. Second, antisemitism is shaping the formation of new international alliances. The strategic use of antisemitism in far-right populist foreign policy has changed, as evidenced in the increasing decoupling of attitudes towards Israel from antisemitism against diaspora Jews and a rise in pro-Israel policies of far-right antisemitic parties and movements. I conclude by reasserting that International Relations should understand antisemitism as one of the interpretive foundations of the global illiberal resurgence.

Abstract by the author:The publication of Ernesto Laclau’s On Populist Reason in 2005 inspired a generation of left populist scholars who were convinced that populist articulation could secure a democratic politics of equality against neoliberal capital. There is good reason for this. Laclau and Mouffe recognized, two decades prior to 2005, the political failures of the class-centric, revolutionary politics of twentieth-century Marxism. For feminist, queer, green, indigenous, decolonial, antiwar, and other social movements, Marxist theoretical and political arrogance could not account for the specificity of struggle that each demanded. Laclau’s account of populism recognized the necessity of political unity against a common enemy. Yet it simultaneously recognized the multiplicity of political struggles, and insisted that even in unity differences should not, and could not, be erased.

Abstract by the author: Most studies analyze right-wing populism in the framework of the nation state, while its impact on foreign policy is understudied. This article focuses on the German Alternative for Germany (AfD) to highlight its foreign policy stance. How is the AfD deliberately operating not only nationally but also on the European level? What are their aims and goals? How has the surge in right-wing populism impacted international issues and what does the rise of the right mean for Germany's role in Europe and in world politics? In the first part of the paper, I contextualize the rise and significance of right-wing populism in Germany within the framework of social and political theory. Second, I address the AfD's position to European affairs more specifically, including its stance in the European Parliament elections in 2019. Third, I highlight key topoi of the AfD' s position regarding the eu, the United States and nato by drawing on critical discourse analysis. The analysis shows that the AfD is aiming to redefine Germany's foreign policy consensus based on the special responsibility paradigm that has characterized Germany's foreign policy after World War II. The party is not only nationalistic in outlook but moreover aiming to revise key paradigms of Germany's foreign and European policies.

Abstract by the authors: This article examines the ideational and performative dimensions of the divide between populism and anti-populism in the Czech Republic. We analyse how this new divide emerged, structured political competition, and influenced the 2021 general election. Despite the contested nature of the term, we follow the consensus about the minimal definition of populism (Canovan, 1999; Rooduijn, 2014; Stanley, 2008) as ‘a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite”, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people’ (Mudde, 2004, p. 543). As such, populism is seen as a Manichean discourse constituted around three interrelated elements: (1) the virtuous people that are (2) betrayed by the essentially bad/corrupt elites, and (3) the restoration of the people's sovereignty by populists themselves. Anti-populism, by contrast, constitutes a combination of strategic stances presented in opposition to populism (Moffitt, 2018). It refers to an antagonism that portrays populism as a fatal threat to democracy or economic development (Hamdaoui, 2022). Consequently, the anti-populist actors present themselves as the only viable alternative to the omnipresent danger of populism (Kim, 2018).

Further sources

Data Protection Notice   Cookie Policy & Inventory
Library Catalogue
Journals on all devices
Books, articles, EPRS publications & more
Newspapers on all devices