by Ece Özbey
Trump’s re-election threatens a return to oversaturated and simplistic discussions on populism. Emphasizing nuanced, innovative, and globally informed research over reactionary trends is essential to fully grasp the evolved nature of this intricate concept amid contemporary societal and political complexities, thereby meaningfully strengthening democratic practices in the long term.
Ece Özbey is an editor at Review of Democracy and currently a Global Forum Fellow at the CEU Democracy Institute. She is a doctoral researcher and lecturer at the University of Cologne, where she is pursuing her PhD in Comparative Politics through the IMPRS-SPCE program.
As an aspiring scholar of populism navigating the sprawling field, I’m acutely aware – and slightly apprehensive – of how the re-election of Donald Trump, one of the most emblematic politicians of our time, will reignite fervent debates about this ever-contested concept. Conversations already feel like déjà vu: Social media platforms are ablaze with discussions about what Trump’s populism means for the future of democracy, with pundits and academics scrambling to dissect the electoral aftermath using the same conceptual and theoretical tools that flooded our discourse post-2016. Amidst this flurry of activity,
I cannot help but wonder: Will we simply be retracing our intellectual steps, or will we genuinely improve our understanding of populism?
2016 Elections and the Obsession with the Populist “Surge”
Donald Trump’s initial election in 2016 catalyzed an explosion of interest in populism. While populist movements had been gaining traction globally, Trump’s victory – together with the Brexit referendum – propelled populism to the forefront of both public consciousness and academic inquiry, culminating in the term being named the Word of the Year by the Cambridge Dictionary in 2017. In the years that followed, the number of publications on populism increased exponentially, not just in political science but across various disciplines. The field became so vibrant – or saturated, depending on whom you ask – that it even warranted the launch of a new academic journal, Populism, dedicated to studying this phenomenon.
Scholars eagerly staked their claims, offering various interpretations ranging from Ernesto Laclau’s structuralist takes to Cas Mudde’s minimalist definition of populism as a thin-centered ideology.[i] Conference panels proliferated, funding poured in, and publishing houses churned out a plethora of books at a pace that outstripped the reading capacity of even the most diligent graduate students.
This scholarly fervor was not without its merits. It facilitated significant advances in conceptual clarity and opened new research avenues, linking populism better to critical concepts like nationalism, authoritarianism, democracy, and more. Global networks, such as Team Populism and Populism Specialist Group, were formed or gained further prominence, fostering cross-regional collaborations, incorporating multidisciplinary perspectives, and building important resources and databases for comparative analyses.
However,
the sheer volume of publications rendered it challenging for any individual to identify truly innovative contributions. The field began to feel oversaturated and, at times, repetitive, with many analyses still tethered to limited contexts, particularly those of Western democracies.
Compounding this issue was the entry of scholars who, perhaps lacking a thorough grasp of the concept’s historical lineage, applied it in ways that lacked nuance or may even have been misguided. This not only overshadowed the multifaceted nature of populist movements globally but also highlighted the pressing need for a more expansive and historically informed approach.
Crucially, amidst this enthusiastic chorus, considerable effort was devoted to emphasizing what truly mattered: First, other ideological attributes of the actors in question – such as their radicalism, nativism, and partisan tribalism – held far greater importance than their populism. Second,
the forces propelling their rise were structural, rather than incidental, underscoring the mandate to investigate the underlying issues related to democratic governance in a wider context.
The Dangers of Reverting to Old Frameworks
Fast forward to 2024, the stage is eerily familiar: Trump’s return to the Oval Office in January will come on the heels of pivotal elections worldwide, including significant populist gains in Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Germany, India, Argentina, and El Salvador, among others. While we might face a similar temptation to react with a deluge of publications, new networks, and hastily organized academic events, it might be more prudent to approach this moment with careful reflection.
This is not an entirely original observation, of course; esteemed scholars, including some of my own academic role models, have repeatedly voiced similar concerns in more eloquent ways. My intention is neither to merely echo their sentiments nor to advocate for gatekeeping but to appeal for thoughtful progression. I speak from the vantage point of someone who has now been engaged in researching and teaching populism for several years, yet still vividly recalls the challenges that navigating the post-2016 landscape posed to a younger self.
A key concern is, as it was already back in 2016, the potential overstretching of the concept of populism. The re-election of Trump will undoubtedly inspire new, both emerging and established, scholars to delve into populism studies. However, it is imperative that this research remains a sustained and contemplative endeavor rather than a reactionary and ephemeral trend.
Overuse of the term risks diluting its analytical precision, particularly when it is applied indiscriminately to movements or leaders whose other characteristics – authoritarianism, xenophobia, Euroskepticism, nationalism – may warrant more specific labels.
The U.S. case offers a salient illustration of the need for such precision, as several academics have deliberated on the fascism discussions associated with Trump, making clear distinctions between fascism and populism, and urging restraint in employing the “F-word.”
Furthermore, Trump 2.0 will not be a mere redux of 2017-21; his second presidency unfolds within a transformed international arena, where populist leaders have evolved beyond charismatic figures rallying against the establishment. They have become adept at exploiting digital platforms, embedding disinformation into nominally democratic structures, and forging new transnational alliances. Their methods of communication and mass mobilization have evolved dramatically – they manipulate public opinion through social media algorithms, harness big data analytics for precise targeting, and strategically migrate or establish alternative platforms where their messages can proliferate without interference.
This evolution does not necessarily call for redefining populism but urges us to adopt an updated and nuanced understanding to avoid intellectual stagnation as these rapid changes should inform our explanations of the phenomenon – whether we conceptualize it as an ideology, rhetoric, strategy, or another form. Similarly, the intersection of populism with global challenges like the pandemic, artificial intelligence, deepfakes, and climate crisis presents new dimensions that call for refreshed analytical frameworks and methodological tools.
Finally, regressing to old discourses centered predominantly on Western experiences hampers the strides we have made in developing more comprehensive theories that reflect the diversity of populist phenomena worldwide. Over the past decade, significant contributions from scholars focusing on non-Western contexts have enriched our understanding of how populism manifests across varied socio-political and economic landscapes. Neglecting these insights would be a disservice to the field, potentially leading to a myopic and incomplete perspective.
A Cautious Optimism
Despite these challenges, there’s room for cautious optimism.
Trump’s return to power could be a catalyst for a more mature phase in populism research – one that isn’t swayed by headlines but grounded in empirical, cross-regional, interdisciplinary, and forward-looking research.
This moment presents an opportunity for the field to diversify and deepen, rather than devolving into an echo chamber of second-hand insights.
So, what steps might we consider undertaking?
First, capturing the dynamic and multifaceted nature of contemporary populism is essential. This entails moving beyond the leader-centric analyses that have dominated the field for some time post-2016. We should endeavor to provide swift yet profound insights into how populism operates within today’s intricate political landscapes, and there is an important wealth of knowledge that those who are starting to undertake comparative research on populism could, and should, build on.
Second, adopting a broader perspective is crucial. Populism isn’t confined to the Western world and certainly not to the United States. Insights from Latin America, a region marked by a layered history of populist waves, as well as Asia and Africa, have demonstrated that the global manifestations of populism defy simplistic understanding. Embracing comparative studies can help uncover common patterns and local specificities, enriching the theoretical frameworks we use.
Third, extending collaborative efforts beyond researching populism and into the realm of education, including civic education, promises to have lasting impacts. Developing well-structured, innovative curricula that reflect diverse voices in both traditional and contemporary scholarship can prepare the next generation of scholars and informed citizens to approach the subject with broader horizons and the skills of critical thinking. Incorporating interdisciplinary approaches and non-Western cases into teaching materials can foster a more holistic understanding among students as well as the public.
Lastly, being mindful of the hyper-commodification of populism studies is important. We have a responsibility as scholars to ensure that our work contributes meaningfully to understanding democracy’s key challenges – rather than merely capitalizes on a hot topic. Research that only skims the surface or reiterates familiar points without adding to the broader discourse risks rendering the field irrelevant. We should hence strive for depth over quantity, encouraging studies that offer novel insights and practical implications for policy and democratic resilience.
Looking Ahead
There’s an exhaustion that comes from hearing populism invoked in every conversation about global politics. In that sense, Trump’s victory is indeed a wake-up call but perhaps not in the way some might think: We need to wake up to the necessity of innovation and scientific progress, not repetition.
We should resist turning back to the once-urgent but increasingly stale debates and aim to revitalize the discussion by focusing on the nuances of populist governance and its intersections with broader societal and political transformations.
Most importantly, we need to remember that the care we invest in conceptual clarity is not just for the sake of robust research but to redirect our attention to and carefully address the core problems that populism often masks.
If we approach this moment thoughtfully, we can ensure that our research doesn’t just document populist victories of the most sensational kinds but also offers critical insights to safeguard and strengthen our democracies. Trump’s return to the global stage challenges us to be wary of “making populism great again” – not in our academic circles and certainly not as a mere buzzword. Instead, let’s build upon the substantial progress we have made since 2016 and embrace new challenges with depth and rigor, contributing to a more nuanced and effective study of populism – one that guides democratic practice, informs policy, and enriches academic discourse for years to come.
[i] While the field encompasses a multitude of definitions beyond those mentioned here, their comprehensive discussion exceeds the scope of this article.
