Populism is everywhere—and nowhere at the same time. Chávez, Iglesias, Le Pen, and Trump, are just some examples of the politicians considered to be populist by the general public. Yet, it seems rather complicated to find a connection between all these characters. Nowadays, populism has undergone what might be called a semantic democratization as everyone uses it—the press, the citizens, the politicians—giving the impression that they have a clear idea of what they are talking about. However, it does not seem that there is an agreement on what populism truly means, and who can be called a populist.
The general critique towards the use of this concept is that it is too vague, almost like a “joker” term that one can use for situations with no apparent connection. The current context shows that there are several cases with highly different characteristics that are labeled as populist. In fact, while in the European continent, the populist phenomenon is usually associated with right wing parties, there is one case that proved to be different. The case of Spain’s Podemos far left wing party, shows that populism is both a democratic tool and a concept at risk of losing meaning.
Following the 2008 financial crisis, widespread discontent in Spain emerged due to austerity measures, high unemployment and political corruption. This discontent gave rise to the Indignados movement, in which citizens demanded broader political representation and economic solutions to the crisis. A new political figure, Pablo Iglesias, tapped into these grievances by calling the political elites la casta—a term symbolizing corruption, self-interest, and detachment from the struggles of the citizens. Unidas Podemos, Pablo Iglesia’s party, emerged as a far-left party that wanted to represent the interest of “the people” that were suffering the austerity measures and were not represented in the parliament.
This rhetoric transformed fragmented grievances into a shared identity, “the people,” who stood in opposition to la casta. This approach demonstrated how the concept of populism leverages existing discontent to create powerful and cohesive political identities. Nonetheless, can we consider Pablo Iglesias bolstering of the Indignados movement in Spain a case of populism in Europe? Some Spanish speaking philosophers that have studied this social phenomenon would say yes.
Although it is complicated to find similarities between populist movements, Ernesto Laclau’s theory defends that there is a common aspect: a dichotomous presentation of society between “the people” and “the elites.”1 Laclau emphasizes that populism transforms diverse and fragmented demands into a unified collective identity by linking them through “equivalential chains.” These chains generate a shared framework of opposition that positions “the elite” as the common adversary.
As previously mentioned, Iglesias gained popularity by labeling the Spanish political elite as la casta. This term has a high negative connotation to it in Spanish and has been used also by other politicians recently such as Javier Miley in Argentina. Indeed, context helped Podemos to gain national and international awareness, it is during this process of popularization inside Spain and internationally that “the people” that Podemos is referring to become an inclusive and plural identity.
However, portraying “the people” as a single, unified entity with a common will tends to obscure the internal tensions and ideological diversity present within society.2 As a result, the binary division proposed by many theorists of populism risks oversimplifying the complex sociological realities of modern democracies.
In the case of the Podemos, Iglesias and Errejón represent some of the internal tensions within the party itself. On one hand, Iglesias embraced the dichotomous political discourse between the casta and “the people,” seeking tension between both and pursuing antagonism rather than agonism. On the other hand, Errejón advocated for a more agonistic vision and less division of society to reach a greater number of voters. These contrasting approaches reflect a deep ideological split within Podemos.
Indeed, judging the entirety of Podemos as populist poses a risk, as it does not allow for the same depth of understanding of the party’s internal dynamics as well as the unique characteristics of its members. Precision is what allows analysts to better understand decisions made by politicians and analyze political movements in greater depth. Therefore, the concept of populism loses utility due to its lack of understanding of the internal divisions within the same political movement or party.
Moreover, Chantal Mouffe’s theory of agonistic pluralism, which offers another lens to understand how populism functions in fragmented democracies, argues that politics is inherently conflictual and thrives on the articulation of opposing visions of society, hence, the role of democracy is to create spaces where diverse voices can engage in meaningful contestation.3 Populism, when inclusive, can foster agonistic spaces by mobilizing diverse social groups around shared struggles, while still recognizing their differences.
However, Pablo Iglesias was not known in Spain for promoting an inclusive and positive type of populism. In 2021, Iglesias had to leave the party he had founded ten years earlier, and a new leader had to occupy the vacant position. Íñigo Errejón, one of the co-founders and strategists of Podemos, applied Mouffe’s principles by promoting an inclusive vision of “the people.” In fact, Errejón sought to appeal to a wider demographic beyond the traditional left, targeting citizens alienated by the failure of mainstream parties like PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party) and PP (People’s Party).4 He also targeted younger generations that were facing precarious employment and systemic inequality. Unlike Pablo Iglesias’s confrontational approach, Íñigo Errejón sought to broaden Podemos’s appeal by framing it as a unifying force. Errejón’s strategy highlights how populism, understood through Mouffe’s lens, can act as a tool for building broad-based democratic coalitions.
Populism lacks a fully developed ideology, which allows it to attach itself to different “host ideologies” depending on the sociopolitical context. Cas Mudde argues that applying the same signifier to label ideologically opposing actors’ risks confusing their distinct political projects and obscuring the nuances of their actions.
For instance, in Europe, two parties labeled as populist demonstrate this issue. The left-wing Podemos advocates for social justice and defines “the people” broadly, including working class and minorities. In contrast, Marine Le Pen’s party in France promotes nationalism, defining “the people” narrowly based on nationality. What do these two political agents have in common to both be considered populist? Where is the utility in calling them by the same name? These stark ideological differences question the utility of grouping such distinct movements under the same term.
Considering what has been mentioned until now, the term populism does not seem to define Podemos’ ideology farther than explaining its dichotomic representation of society. Jan-Werner Müller argues that populism is increasingly used as a vague and pejorative label—one that replaces older terms like “demagogic” or “destabilizing.”5 This framing suggests that the term populism is no longer used as something with clear substance and definition, but rather as a multi-purpose argument against our political enemies to discredit their ideas. According to Müller, populism is not necessarily bad, as it can also act as a corrective that highlights the disconnection between elites and people and how all interests must be represented in a democracy.
In Spain, both far-right and far-left parties are often labeled populist. When Podemos gained parliamentary power in 2015, PSOE used this label to discredit them and protect their voter base. Rather than engaging with Podemos’s policy positions (which were similar to PSOE’s), critics focused on attacking their leaders as populists. This dismissive framing reduced serious policy discussions about economic inequality, housing, and corruption to mere rhetorical disputes. Conversely, in later elections both parties have formed coalitions to govern the country, proving that populism nowadays is used as an insult rather than an adjective carefully selected to define a political figure.
Hence, the assumption that everything defined as populist is bad limits its democratic capacity for action. In other words, instead of trying to understand the ideas defended by “populist” leaders, people focus on the populist label and whether or not they agree with its use depending on whether the politician or party aligns with their ideals.
The case of Podemos shows that populism is neither inherently dangerous nor inherently democratic—it is a mirror of political discontent. In Spain, populist rhetoric gave voice to real grievances and helped channel frustration into participation. Yet as the label spread to movements of opposing ideologies, it lost the clarity that once made it useful.
To understand contemporary politics, we should treat populism not as a fixed ideology but as a logic of representation: a way of defining “the people” against perceived elites. Whether that logic strengthens or undermines democracy depends on the values it carries. The challenge is not to abandon the term but to use it with precision—to recognize when it mobilizes citizens for inclusion, and when it merely fuels division.
- Laclau, Ernesto. On Populist Reason. Verso. London/New York, 2005. ↩︎
- Linden, Felipe Rafael. “How ‘Empty’ Is the Signifier ‘the People’? Impasses of the Poststructuralist Approach in Ernesto Laclau’s Political Ontology.” Journal of Political Ideologies 30 (2): 327–51, 2023. doi:10.1080/13569317.2023.2230449. ↩︎
- Mouffe, Chantale. For a Left Populism. Verso. London/New York, 2018. ↩︎
- ERREJON, Inigo y Chantal [intro by Owen Jones] MOUFFE. Podemos: In the Name of the People. Lawrence & Wishart, Limited, 2016. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: Podemos, Image sourced from Flickr | CC License, no changes made