Populism, ‘the People’ and Popular Sovereignty

One of the main populist critiques of liberal democracy is that real political power does not truly reside in “the people,” but in the hands of “elites” and “unaccountable institutions,” which do not act for “the people,” but rather rule above them. In other words, the voice of the people disappears – or at least, is muted – through procedures, representation and institutions such as Parliament and the judiciary. The avowed aim of populism, therefore, is to “give government back to the people,” notably through a vigorous leader, but also through majoritarianism and means of direct democracy, including referendums and other plebiscitary instruments. Yet, there appears to be an important gap between the idea of popular sovereignty, understood as an aspirational ideal, and its realization in practice. This chapter discusses this divide and identifies, from a liberal constitutionalist perspective, the defining features of the “ideal-typical” populist discourse, particularly as they relate to popular sovereignty and the concept of “the people.” It argues that populism has two main characteristics that relate to these two key concepts. First, populism instrumentalizes the ambiguous nature of the notion of “the people.” Second, populism puts forward a conception of “the people” as an entity above the law, or populus legibus solutus est, which, as such, cannot ultimately be bound by legal, constitutional or institutional constraints.