Il populismo come antitesi della democrazia

The aim of this essay is to clarify the theoretical relationship between populism and democracy. Two symmetrical and often discussed theses are examined: a) there is no populism without democracy; b) there is no democracy without populism. According to the first thesis, supported by Yves Meny and Yves Surel, populism —which is interpreted as a weak form of ideology— can only develop where the democratic ideals have appeared on the horizon. In this sense, populism may be considered as a parasite of democracy. The second thesis is more controversial. It may be found in the work of two scholars who could not be more distant in their style, background, and ideological orientation. The first is Mauro Calise, who theorises and supports a model of «leader democracy». The second is Ernesto Laclau, who advocates for a form of «radical» democracy. This apparent coincidence may be explained by the fact that democracy and populism have become extremely polysemic terms. Thus an exercise of «conceptual cleaning» is needed. The author proposes a redefinition of both notions, starting from the analysis of a classic Aristotelian text about the democracy of demagogues. On the basis of these redefinitions, it is argued that populism can be considered as the antithesis of the model of representative and constitutional democracy established after the Second World War in Europe. This model is based on the relativization of the democratic principle, the participation in the political process of citizens organized in parties (as opposed to the «people»), the «absence of bosses» (Kelsen), and the existence of many forms of institutional and social mediation of the «popular will». Populism, on the other hand, exalts the principle of rule of the people in opposition to rule of law, and is founded on an organicistic conception of the «people», a strong leadership, and a direct relationship between the leader and the masses.