ABSTRACT
For the purposes of conceptual precision, it is necessary to consider the term ‘populism’ separately from ‘culture’, at least initially, in order to reflect upon the varied meanings of their actual and potential combination. ‘Populism’ is much more commonly used in political discourse than in cultural discoursehowever, not with any great precision, but nearly always with negative connotations, usually meaning something like ‘the mobilisation of political majorities around a set of simple and probably disingenuous slogans’, perhaps appealing to ‘the lowest common denominator’. For instance, Margaret Thatcher was called a populist by her opponents and so is Boris Yeltsin. Such politicians are not called populist by their own supporters. The accusation of ‘populism’ implies reckless and unscrupulous demagogy. Direct popular appeal, over the heads of other politicians, is often commented upon as disreputable: making
promises that cannot be kept, offering solutions that are unrealistic. Politicians, as practical intellectuals in the power game, it might therefore be assumed, should know better: they know what is possible; ordinary people do not.
