As support for populist movements surges around the world, the term has become something of a buzzword. It is used to describe very different movements and public figures in very different political contexts. These range from rightwing figures like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Narendra Modi in India, to leftists like the US’ Bernie Sanders, Spain’s Pablo Iglesias and South Africa’s Julius Malema.

To further complicate this issue, scholars tend to work with different definitions of populism. Some see it as an ideology, others a type of discourse, or even a form of government. Despite these differences, most definitions agree on one core idea. Populism divides society into two opposing groups: the “pure people”, and the “corrupt elites”.

The concept of “the people” is the bedrock of populism, but we still know relatively little about what it actually means for supporters to see themselves as part of this group. A great deal of research has focused on populist parties and leaders themselves, including how they present their version of “the people” as morally superior to the corrupt elites. My own research looks at the other side, to find out what it means to the supporters who vote them into power.

An endlessly flexible concept

Some authors have argued that the vagueness of who “the people” are is actually a key element of populism’s strong appeal. Because the idea is broad and flexible, it can travel across countries and political ideologies, allowing different groups of voters to identify with it and imagine themselves as part of the same broader community.

This is not only the case for “the people” – terms like “establishment” or “elites” are used to........

© The Conversation