Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser’s research while affiliated with Universidad Católica del Norte (Chile) and other places

Pundits and academics alike are increasingly concerned about the health of democracy worldwide. Much of this concern is tied to the rise of populism, a global phenomenon presenting challenges to both long-established and relatively young democracies. Political science has been at the forefront of this debate, and thanks to a growing—but not universal—consensus on the ideational definition of populism, our understanding of the subject has deepened considerably. This symposium maps key debates on the complex and often ambivalent relationship between populism and democracy. In this concluding piece, we build on the arguments presented throughout the symposium and related academic discussions to outline two paths for future research on the populism and democracy nexus: a top-down and a bottom-up perspective.

The rise of populism as a global phenomenon has captured the attention of scholars and raised concerns about its impact on democracy. Thanks to a growing academic consensus around an ideational definition of populism, one can observe the generation of important cumulative knowledge on the relationship between populism and democracy. Political science has been at the forefront of this development, and this symposium seeks to both offer state-of-the art information on this topic and discuss blind spots that future studies should try to address.

The purpose of the Exchange feature is to publish discussions that engage, advance and initiate new debates in the study of nations and nationalism. This Exchange article is on the subject of the global far right. In the first part, Léonie de Jonge and Talita Tanscheit briefly introduce the topic, emphasising the need for such a dialogue. In the remainder of the exchange, Vasiliki Georgiadou, Daphne Halikiopoulou and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser address the following four questions: (1) Is the far right a global phenomenon? (2) What is causing it? (3) What are the implications of the rise of the far right for democracy? (4) What can we learn from comparing Europe and Latin America? By attempting to deprovincialise scholarship on the far right, our goal is to foster cross‐regional dialogue and highlight the importance of comparative research between these two regions.

Although the populist radical right (PRR) has become a global phenomenon, most studies of it focus on Europe. Moreover, extant research has centred on analysing those who support rather than reject the PRR. To address this twofold research gap, we rely on novel public opinion data to examine those who both ‘love’ and ‘hate’ the PRR in contemporary Chile. We demonstrate not only that those in favour of the Chilean PRR are a homogeneous constituency with similar characteristics to their European brethren (e.g., xenophobic attitudes) but also that those at odds with the Chilean PRR make up a relatively large and heterogeneous constituency. In summary, this contribution seeks to broaden comparative studies on the PRR and to show the relevance of studying support as well as rejection of the PRR, particularly in countries with runoff elections; since then, large segments of the electorate vote for the lesser evil.

Although the populist radical right (PRR) has become a global phenomenon, research about it focuses much more on Europe than on other regions. To counter this imbalance, this special issue provides comparative evidence on the discourse elaborated by the PRR on six non-European countries: Australia, Brazil, Chile, India, Turkey, and the United States. As we will show, non-European PRR forces articulate authoritarian, nativist, and populist ideas in different ways than their European brethren and they employ specific ideological elements (e.g., neoliberalism and religion) to advance discourses that resonate with the social grievances that are preponderant in the context wherein they operate. This reveals that part of the success of the PRR is related to its discursive flexibility and capacity to adapt itself with the aim of constructing frames that connect with the anxieties experimented by segments of the voting public across different national and regional settings.

Despite the increasing influence of populist radical right (PRR) forces at the global level, they have been absent in Chile until very recently. Today, however, the conditions seem to be ripe for the consolidation of the PRR in the country. As we show in this contribution, José Antonio Kast and the Partido Republicano advance a programmatic agenda that emphasizes authoritarian, nativist, and populist ideas. We also demonstrate certain peculiarities of this political project, which differentiates it from its European brethren. In fact, the party has adopted very clear neoliberal positions and puts much more emphasis on outgroup distinctions within rather than outside the nation. Moreover, given that José Antonio Kast and the Partido Republicano maintain a very fluid relationship with the mainstream right, collaboration between the two seems much simpler and more feasible than in most European cases.

Although scholars emphasise the contentious relationship of populist forces to (liberal) democracy, less attention has been paid to whether this extends to those who support or oppose populist parties. This article utilises a public opinion dataset from ten Western European countries to analyse how citizens’ conceptions of democracy relate to the behavioural intention to vote for or against populist parties. The empirical analysis shows that positive and negative identification with populist parties is driven by different understandings of democracy: While individuals who are less inclined to liberal democracy but more to direct democracy and authoritarian forms of rule are more likely to sympathise with populist parties, the opposite understanding of democracy predicts opposition to both left-wing and right-wing populists. These findings demonstrate that citizens with positive and negative partisanship towards populist parties are divided in their interpretations about both the conceptual meaning and the normative functioning of democracy.

Les universitaires utilisent de plus en plus le concept de populisme pour donner un sens à des événements actuels tels que le référendum sur le Brexit et la présidence de Trump. Il s’agit certainement d’une évolution positive, mais on notera deux lacunes dans le débat actuel. D’une part, les nouveaux spécialistes du populisme partent souvent de zéro et ne s’appuient pas sur les études existantes. D’autre part, ceux qui ont mené des recherches comparatives internationales sur le populisme restent dans leur zone de confort, car ils n’essaient donc pas de relier leurs travaux à d’autres domaines universitaires. Dans cet article, nous abordons ces deux lacunes en discutant de certains des avantages de l’approche dite « idéationnelle » pour l’étude comparative du populisme et en indiquant quatre pistes de recherche future, à savoir (I) l’anxiété économique, (II) le contrecoup culturel, (III) la tension entre réactivité et responsabilité, et (IV) l’esprit de parti (négatif) et la polarisation.