Political regimes and regime changes in the foam of the populist wave

The article studies populist regimes, their relationship with authoritarianism and democracy and modes of their transformation. First, the approaches to conceptualizing populism are critically analyzed; second, the concepts are systematized through the maneuvering on the ladder of abstraction; third, the ways of classifying populist regimes are studied, and fourth, the influence of populism on political regime change is assessed. The authors made an attempt of radial categorization of populism having distinguished its central and peripheral features. On the basis of the minimalist definition of populism by C. Mudde “the idea” revealing itself in the antiestablishment and will of the people discourse, was taken as a central category. Such approach allowed to distinguish three species of populism including ideational, personalist and charismatic, thus making the categorization applicable for comparative research. The conceptualization of populist regimes was reviewed. It is noted that populist regime is rarely conceptualized as a separate type of political regime and is more often associated with personalist regime or as a sub-type of democratic regime. The further development of the B.G. Peters and J. Pierre’s approach led to conclude that populism is a regime modification, inherent in all types if political regimes. Democratic and hybrid regimes are more inclined to such regime modification, that is why the populist regimes evolve multidirectionally.
The study concludes that the establishment of populist regime in polities at different levels of political development – from consolidated democracies to premobilized authoritarian and democratic systems – leads to differentiation of functions. In the former cases populist regimes foster the redetermination of the effectiveness criteria for ruling elites and democratic governance in general, and in the latter – populist regimes support the general framework of the in-country political process by filling the institutional gaps. 

1. Acemoglu D., Egorov G., Sonin K. A political theory of populism. The quarterly journal of economics. 2013, Vol. 128, N 2, P. 771–805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs077

2. Akkerman A., Zaslove A., Spruyt B. ‘We the People’ or ‘We the Peoples’? A comparison of support for populist radical left and populist radical right parties in the Netherlands. Swiss political science review. 2017, Vol. 23, N 4, P. 377–403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12275

3. Bonikowski B. Ethno-nationalist populism and the mobilization of collective resentment. The British journal of sociology. 2017, Vol. 68, N 1, Р. 181–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12325

4. Bugaric B. The two faces of populism: Between authoritarian and democratic populism. German law journal. 2019, Vol. 20, P. 390–400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.20

5. Canovan M. Two strategies for the study of populism. Political studies. 1982, Vol. 30, N 4, P. 544–552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1982.tb00559.x

6. Collier D., Mahon J.E. Jr. Conceptual “stretching” revisited: adapting categories in comparative analysis. The American political science review. 1993, Vol. 87, N 4, P. 845–855. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2938818

7. Fishman L.G. ‘Empty signifier’: The concept of ‘populism’ in the contemporary mainstream political science. Moscow University bulletin of world politics. 2021, Vol. 13, N 2, P. 13–32. https://doi.org/10.48015/2076-7404-2021-13-2-13-32 (In Russ.)

8. Gárdos-Orosz F., Szente Z. (eds). Populist challenges to constitutional interpretation in Europe and beyond. Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 2021, 346 p.

9. Kenny P.D. The strategic approach to populism. In: Subedi D.B., Scott A., Brasted H., Von Strokirch K. (eds). Routledge handbook of populism in the Asia Pacific. 2021. London: Routledge. Mode of access: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352573494_THE_STRATEGIC_APPROACH_TO_POPULISM (accessed 22.08.2021)

10. Krastev I. Is East-Central Europe backsliding? “The strange death of the liberal consensus”. Journal of democracy. 2007, Vol. 18, N 4, P. 56–63. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2007.0072

11. Levine K.J., Muenchen R.A., Brooks A.M. Measuring transformational and charismatic leadership: Why isn't charisma measured? Communication monographs. 2010, Vol. 77, N 4, P. 576–591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.499368

12. Levitsky S., Loxton J. Populism and competitive authoritarianism in the Andes. Democratization. 2013, Vol. 20, N 1, P. 107–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738864

13. Martinico G. Filtering populist claims to fight populism: The Italian case in a comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press, 2021, 280 p.

14. Moffitt B. The global rise of populism: performance, political style, and representation. Stanford: Stanford univ. press, 2016, 240 p.

15. Mouffe C. The populist moment. 2016 a. November 21. Mode of access: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/populist-moment/ (accessed 10.08.2021)

16. Mouffe C. The populist challenge. 2016 b. Dec. 2016. Mode of access: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/populist-challenge/ (accessed 12.08.2021)

17. Mudde C. The populist Zeitgeist. Government and opposition. 2004, Vol. 39, N 4, P. 542–563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x

18. Mudde C., Rovira Kaltwasser C. Studying populism in comparative perspective: Reflections on the contemporary and future research agenda. Comparative political studies. 2018, Vol. 51, N 13, P. 1667–1693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018789490

19. Norris P., Garnett H.A., Grömping M. The paranoid style of American elections: explaining perceptions of electoral integrity in an age of populism. Journal of elections, public opinion and parties. 2020, Vol. 30, N 1, P. 105–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1593181

20. O’Donnell G. Delegative democracy. Journal of democracy. 1994, Vol. 5, N 1, P. 55– 69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1994.0010

21. Ostiguy P. The high and the low in politics: a two-dimensional political space for comparative analysis and electoral studies. Working paper N 360. July 2009. Mode of access: https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/360_0.pdf (accessed 2.08.2021)

22. Pappas T.S. Modern populism: Research advances, conceptual and methodological pitfalls, and the minimal definition. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.17

23. Peters B.G., Pierre J. A typology of populism: understanding the different forms of populism and their implications. Democratization. 2020, Vol. 27, N 6, P. 928–946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1751615

24. Rhodes-Purdy M., Madrid R.L. The perils of personalism. Democratization. 2020, Vol. 27, N 2, P. 321–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1696310

25. Roberts K.M. Latin America’s populist revival. The SAIS review of international affairs. 2007, Vol. 27, N 1, P. 3–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2007.0018

26. Rueda D. Is populism a political strategy? A critique of an enduring approach. Political studies. 2021, Vol. 69, N 2, P. 167–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720962355

27. Sartori G. Concept misformation in comparative politics. American political science review. 1970, Vol. 64, N 4, P. 1033–1053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356

28. Urbinati N. Political theory of populism. Annual review of political science. 2019, Vol. 22, P. 111–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-070753

29. Varentsova O.V. Three waves of populism in Latin America. MGIMO review of international relations. 2014, N 6 (39), P. 153–160. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2014-6-39-153-160 (In Russ.)

30. Volodin A.G. The phenomenon of “new populism”: the American dimension. Outlines of global transformation: politics, economics, law. 2020, Vol. 13, N 4, P. 253–277. https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2020-13-4-12 (In Russ.)

31. Weyland K. Populism as a political strategy: an approach’s enduring – and increasing – advantages. Political studies. 2021, Vol. 69, N 2, P. 185–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217211002669

32. Weyland K. Populism’s threat to democracy. Comparative lessons for the United States. Perspectives on populism. 2020, Vol. 18, N 2, P. 389–406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592719003955

33. Wivel A., Grøn C.H. Charismatic leadership in foreign policy. International affairs. 2021, Vol. 97, N 2, P. 365–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa223