1. 'Populism' is not a genuine element of modern democratic politics, nor is it a distortion created by irrational citizens. Rather, it is a permanent shadow of representative politics. At any time, anyone can speak on behalf of the 'true people' to challenge the ruling elites—this very possibility sustains populism. There was no populism in ancient Athens; there may have been demagoguery, but not populism; because populism can only arise within a representative political system. Populists are not opposed to political representation; they merely claim that they are the only legitimate representatives of the people—no one else.
2. Not everyone who criticizes the elites is a populist. In addition to being anti-elite, populists are also opposed to pluralism—they claim that only they have the right to represent the people. All other political opponents are essentially illegitimate; and those who do not support them (the populists) are, in fact, not fully part of the people. When in opposition, populists inevitably insist that: the elites are immoral, and the people are a moral, homogeneous entity—whose will can never be wrong.
3. It may often seem that populists are claiming to represent the 'general welfare' determined by the will of the people. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that populists do not really engage with any sincere process of forming public opinion or any general welfare that can be understood through common knowledge. What is more important to them is constructing a symbolic representation of the 'true people'; then, based on that constructed image, they explain and derive the 'correct' policies. As a result, it becomes almost impossible to refute the political positions of populists with real evidence. They can always position the concepts of 'true people' or 'silent majority' against elected representatives and the official results of elections.
4. Although populists often call for referendums, this is not actually an initiative to start an open process of forming democratic intent among citizens. Populists only want to ensure that what they have already determined as the will of the 'common people' is validated again by the referendum. Populism is not a way to make politics more participatory.
5. Populists can govern. "The legitimate right to represent the people belongs only to us"— they generally govern in line with this fundamental belief. In practice, this means they will attempt to seize control of the state apparatus, engage in widespread clientelism (providing services and benefits in exchange for political support/votes), and suppress anything resembling a critical civil society. In the political imagination of populists, there is a clear moral justification for these activities— thus, they can openly acknowledge them. Populists can also write constitutions; however, that constitution will be partisan or 'monopolistic'— created in the name of perpetuating the alleged desires and intentions of the so-called original and true people to keep the populists in power. They can bring about a serious constitutional crisis at some point.
6. Populists are indeed dangerous for democracy (not just for 'liberalism'); and for this fundamental characteristic reason, they should be criticized. But this does not mean that one cannot engage in political debate with them. Talking to populists is not the same as speaking like populists. The issues they raise can be given importance in other ways, without accepting them according to their framing.
7. Populism is not a progressive amendment to liberal democracy. Populism does not bring politics "closer to the people" or reaffirm the sovereignty of the people—this is something that is sometimes claimed. However, populism helps clarify one thing: certain segments of society are indeed unrepresented (this lack of representation can be related to any interest, identity, or both). But this does not justify the populists' claim that their supporters are the "true people" and the only legitimate representatives.
Therefore, the defenders of liberal democracy should think more deeply about what the current failures of representation actually are due to populism. At the same time, they should confront larger moral questions: What are the criteria for inclusion in the state-society? Why is it crucial to preserve pluralism? And instead of viewing populist voters as 'disturbed cases' driven by frustration, anger, or feelings of humiliation, how can we address their concerns by considering them as free and equal citizens?
Note: This text titled 'Seven Theses on Populism' is taken from the conclusion of Jan-Werner Müller’s book What is Populism? (2017, University of Pennsylvania Press). The translation has been done by the Akhra team with the assistance of AI.