The shared logic of populism

Populism tends to be a vertical politics of the bottom and middle positioned against the top, often taking the form of a reaction or revolt against established structures of power and associated elites. It is not bound to ideological boundaries or party politics, with recent examples of the ‘noble’ people vs the ‘self-serving elite’ coming from both the right and left of the political spectrum. However, right-wing variants of political populism tend to also look downward upon an outgroup and thus often champion the people against an elite that they accuse of coddling a third group (for example immigrants).

Populism may also be understood by the essence of the conflict and the subject matter of policies pursued, as well as the extreme nature of the demands that populists tend to make. For instance, the conflict is often broader than a single issue but about a larger pursuit such as going back to better times. Likewise, different political decisions will cause varying levels of conflict over issues. The proposal for a more stringent vetting process of immigrants compared to an out-right ban on individuals coming from certain countries is an example. The former policy decision is less likely to open a chasm between the people and the elite the same way that a call for an out-right ban would.

Much of this shared political logic is evident in penal populism which, conceptually, describes a standing temptation for contemporary political actors to treat crime and its control in a populist or popular mode (see Pratt, 2007). Dominant criminological perspectives exploring penal populism tell us something of political motivations and pressures to get tough on crime; particularly, that penal populists are embracing democracy at work by responding to public opinion, and they are actively taking into account – for personal purposes – what they might gauge to be a public punitive stance. Penal populism represents an attack on reason, and by proxy on the experts (see Judis, 2016), elites and ‘soft-on-crime’ politicians who advance penal moderation, in the name of a more ‘common sense’ and democratized approach to crime and punishment.