The People in Plebeian Populism: Second-Class Citizens and the Logic of Refoundation

Mainstream definitions of populism in the specialized literature have emer-ged from a predominantly European academic framework and tend towards abstraction, separating the concept from the historical and material condi-tions in which it has been used. Formal theories that try to explain popu-lism have led to a “conceptual stretch” that has decreased the explanatory capacity of the concept. Although Ernesto Laclau’s populist theory has its roots in the Argentine populist experience, it does not escape the abstrac-tions that have deepened the ambiguity of the concept. In this essay I will highlight two problems with the discursive conception of populism set forth in Populist Reason (2005): that it does not allow us to distinguish between populism and ethnonationalism, nor to determine whether populist politics are emancipatory or oppressive. These distinctions are not only semantic, but are of central importance to fully understand the contemporary popu-list phenomenon in its different variations. Through a radical republican approach, I provide a theoretical foundation to effectively separate the po-pular subject of populism from conceptions of the people based on ethnici-ty. Relying on Jacques Rancière’s theory of politics as emancipatory disa-greement and Jeffrey Green’s theory of the plebeian subject as second-class citizen, I argue that, seen from a historical and material perspective, the people of populism are constructed from a class-based plebeian identity, which is egalitarian and inclusive, formed from a position of non-rule, in resistance to the oppressive oligarchic order. This plebeian conception of he people contrasts with the ethnonationalist conception articulated by far-right movements and parties, focused on restoring traditional values, assigning membership and defending borders, and excluding “others,” who do not belong to the people-nation, from their rights.