Why no populism in Portugal?

Why no populism in Po ugal? Filipe Ca ei a da Sil a Susana Salgado 10. 250 ci izenship in c isis in oduc ion Why s udy populism? Because populism, le and igh , has been on he ise. Talk o populism is all a ound us: coun less alk shows, columns, and op-eds ha e been de o ed o i and e e yone seems o ha e a s ong opinion abou i s dange s. Ye , bo h ou side and inside academia, wha populism means emains elusi e and how i wo ks is poo ly unde s ood. Hal a cen u y o populis esea ch has ailed o each a consensus abou a minimal de ini ion o populism. I has oday se e al di e en meanings, an implici no ma i e duplici y, and i s ope a ionaliza ion emains a he e y leas challenging. We p opose a esh app oach o populism and discuss how o es his app oach agains he Po uguese case (ha ing Spain as a e e ence poin o compa ison). Fo he pu poses o ou a gumen , we conside he pe iod be ween 2011 and 2015, he poli ical agen s a e poli ical pa ies, and he empi ical co pus includes he pa ies’ public discou ses. Theo e ically, ou app oach supe sedes bo h on ic and on ological app oaches, and ocuses ins ead on he wo k o a icula ion o con en s wi hin he logic o esen men by ce ain key poli ical agen s. Me hodologically, in ega d o populism, Po ugal is concei ed as a nega i e case. We hypo hesize ha he pe o ma i e a icula ion o he populis logic o esen men by Po uguese poli ical pa ies, u ning a pa o he Po uguese agains ano he pa in he name o he “people,” ailed o ansla e in o elec o al success. Ou aim is o shed ligh on he dis inc i e ea u es o he Po uguese case and on he easons behind he ela i e ailu e o populis s a egies by poli ical pa ies in Po ugal. To shed u he ligh on hese dimensions, we also conside a compa ison wi h Spain, whe e he Podemos pa y nea ly ipled i s sha e o he na ional o e be ween mid-2014 and la e 2015, and can hus be conside ed a case in which populism lou ished in he in e ening pe iod. In addi ion o he In oduc ion and he Conclusion, his chap e includes h ee sec ions. A i s whe e we desc ibe he a ionale behind ou idea and app oach o populism; a second whe e we u he explain he unde lying heo y and ou p oposed me hodological app oach o s udy he use o populis he o ic; and a hi d in which we discuss he empi ical implemen a ion o ou app oach based on ou cases o wel a e e enchmen : heal h ca e, e i emen pensions, unemploymen bene i , and sala y cu s. why no populism in po ugal? 251 he a ionale behind ou idea This essay se s ou o answe one cen al esea ch ques ion: why has populism been unsuccess ul in Po ugal? This is pa icula ly in iguing since populism, le and igh , is on he ise i ually e e ywhe e. Since 2011 a s eak o elec o al esul s has s unned he wo ld: Sy iza, Podemos, Fidesz, Law and Jus ice (PiS), B exi , T ump. Talk o populism is all a ound us. Ye , so a Po ugal is one o he ew Wes e n coun ies ha seem o ha e escaped his global pa e n. Salgado (2018) a icula es some o he easons behind his excep ion, which we p opose o u he analyse now wi h his new app oach o s udy populism and populis discou se. The signi icance o ou discussion is ha i combines heo e ical inno a ion wi h a p oposal o in-dep h empi ical esea ch o accoun o he seeming absence o populism in Po ugal. Fo his end we p opose and de elop a new esea ch agenda o populism. In doing so, we ake as ou s a ing poin and guiding idea he impo ance o social heo y o unde s anding cu en ideas o populism. Mo e speci ically, he main in ellec ual aim o he pape is o shi he e ms and ocus o schola ly and poli ical deba e o an al e na i e ision o populism ha is able o accoun o i s ela i e lack o success in Po ugal by pu suing i e ela ed objec i es. Theo e ically, i (i) o e s an al e na i e o he main app oaches o populism oday, as i ocuses nei he on con en s no on a gi en on ology pe se, bu on he wo k o a icula ion by poli ical agen s o ce ain speci ic con en s wi hin he on ology o esen men . Me hodologically, i (ii) s udies his wo k o a icula ion as a ma e o pe o mance by poli ical agen s (namely, poli ical pa ies), by (iii) e e ence o di e en opics (a eas o wel a e e enchmen ), agains he (i ) no ma i e backg ound o sha ed poli ical alues (legal consciousness) and emo ions ( esen men ), and ( ) in a compa a i e pe spec i e (wi h Spain, a “posi i e” case o populism). Fo his pu pose, we d aw upon in ellec ual sou ces om bo h social heo y and poli ical philosophy. This is an unusual mo e since populism is seen as a na u al emi o poli ical scien is s. Howe e , we belie e he e a e good easons o combine poli ical heo y wi h social heo y. Fi s , as any o he poli ical phenomenon, populism is deeply embedded in social expe ience ou side he poli ical domain. Social heo y, unde s ood as a gene al and sys ema ic e lec ion on mode n socie ies, is hus in an ideal posi ion o complemen poli ical heo y in analysing issues such as how cul u al meanings a e pe o med 252 ci izenship in c isis in poli ics and policy-making, he dynamics o leade ship and cha isma in poli ical mo emen s, he ole o poli ical ep esen a ion in e lec ing and cons i u ing social and poli ical clea ages, he long- e m p ocesses o s a e o ma ion and democ a iza ion, and he ela ionship be ween s a e, media, and socie y mo e gene ally. Second, li e a u e on populism since he 1950s has been ma kedly in e disciplina y, bene i ing om con ibu ions p oduced in disciplines such as philosophy o language (e. g. speech-ac heo y), as well as om b oade in ellec ual adi ions, such as s uc u alism (e. g. semio ics) and pos -s uc u alism (discou se heo y). As social heo y unc ions less as a disciplina y specialism han as a pla o m o specialis s om di e en backg ounds o hink abou ques ions o social o de and change, i is well posi ioned o d aw upon hese a ious insigh s and complemen poli ical heo ies on populism, mo e na owly ocused on he poli ical. Eminen social heo is s such as Zygmun Bauman, Ul ich Beck, Richa d Senne , and Manuel Cas ells ha e analysed he o igins and e ec s o he unchecked ise o global co po a e and inancial capi alism in inc easing economic and social inequali ies since he la e 1970s, he media iza ion o a heigh ened sense o insecu i y in he ace o global isks om en i onmen al haza ds o e o ism, he g owing dualiza ion o labou ma ke s wi h he ensuing s a e o p eca i y ha disp opo ionally a ec s younge gene a ions in bo h he Uni ed S a es and Eu ope, and he gen i ica ion o ci ies wi h hei e e -g owing ga ed communi ies and inwa d-looking poli ical cul u es a ound he wo ld. Poli ical heo is Wendy B own (2010) has been calling ou a en ion o a “p oli e a ion o walling” a ound and wi hin Wes e n coun ies o cope wi h hei waning so e eign y. Al hough B own does no e e o populism di ec ly, i is impossible no o no ice he ele ance o he diagnosis o he ecen ise o populis poli ics. Building walls has indeed become a adema k symbol o populis discou se in ou ime. The e is ha dly a mo e powe ul symbol han a wall o signal he p o ec ion o “ou people” om “ he o he people”. The mo al message is clea : he simple, ha d-wo king “people” a e o be kep sa ely apa om he “o he ”, embodied in his case by immig an s, Muslims, and o eigne s in gene al. In o he o ms o populism, he “o he ” is po ayed as he “co up eli e(s)” (e. g. an i-eli ism and in some cases an i-sys em as well). Bu is populism necessa ily associa ed wi h na ionalism, acism, sexism, and demagogue y? Sheldon Wolin, ano he poli ical heo is , disag ees. He inds democ acy oday o be no a cha ac e is ic o oday’s neolibe al modes why no populism in po ugal? 253 o powe , bu , a he , an “epheme al phenomenon” enac ed by hose “who ha e no means o ed ess o he han o isk collec i izing hei small bi s o powe ” (Wolin 2004, 601-602). Wolin loca es democ acy’s “ ugi i e” ene gies p ima ily in olun a y o ganiza ions, he “g ea ee schools o democ acy” ha Tocque ille p aised o b ea hing ci ic li e in o o mally democ a ic ins i u ions, bu also in b oade social mo emen s, such as nine een h-cen u y Ame ican Populism (Wolin 2004, 603-604). I Wolin is igh , and we hink he is, hen he ask o e hinking populism is no me ely an in ellec ual exe cise – i is, i s and o emos , an e hical ask. heo y and me hods Populism is no o iously di icul o de ine. Few poli ical ac o s call hemsel es “populis ”. The “canon” o populis case s udies is o med o an eclec ic asso men o mo emen s, pa ies, and poli ical leade s, anging om he Russian na odniches o and he Ame ican Populis s o he nine een h-cen u y o he La in Ame ican cha isma ic populisms o Juan Pé on and Ge úlio Va gas o he 1950s, on o he neo-populis wa e o he 1990s in Eu ope, exempli ied by Jo g Haide ’s F eedom Pa y o Aus ia, and mo e ecen ly o he le -wing opposi ion o he Eu opean Union’s decisions on how o ackle he Eu o C isis (mainly Sy iza and Podemos). As a ied as hese case s udies a e, so oo a e he app oaches ha ha e been employed o s udy hem. These app oaches a y in se e al ega ds, such as hei deg ee o abs ac ion o gene ali y, hei p ima y aim o unc ion, and hei p e e ed me hodology. These di e ences can be aced back o he epis emological ounda ions o hese app oaches. On he one hand, he e a e on ic app oaches. By his we mean app oaches ha concei e o physical, ac ual, and ma e ial eali y as exis ing independen ly o ou knowledge abou i . On ic app oaches comp ise empi ical-deduc i e app oaches, which a e o ien ed owa d explaining populism h ough he disco e y o causal ela ionships be ween s uc u al de e minan s and i s populis consequences, and also he meneu ical app oaches, whose aim is o p o ide a hick desc ip ion o populism h ough his o ically de ailed case s udies. Despi e hei di e ences, bo h empi ical-deduc i e and he meneu ical app oaches a e i s ocused on he con en s (no on he logic) o populism. Howe e , he e is no consensus on wha hese con en s a e. Populism is a iously de ined as a hin ideology (Cano an 2002, 2004; Mudde 2004), a s a egy o 254 ci izenship in c isis o m o o ganiza ion (Weyland 2001, 14; Be z 2002, 198); a p ac ice o poli ical mobiliza ion (Jansen 2011); a di ec s yle o poli ical communica ion (Jage s and Walg a e 2007); a discou se o o m o pe suasion (Kazin 1995). Bu i is impossible o be all o hese hings and emain some hing dis inc i e. As a esul , on ic app oaches a e unable o accoun o he coexis ence o “populis ” mo emen s wi h undamen ally di e en social bases, o ms o o ganiza ion, discou ses, and ideologies. On he o he hand, he e a e app oaches aimed no a desc ibing he con en s ha cha ac e ize populism, bu a iden i ying he logic acco ding o which hose con en s a e o ganized. Illus a ions include some o Cano an’s la e wo k (1999) and E nes o Laclau’s On Populis Reason (2005). In he case o Cano an, we can see he mo ing away om he meneu ics owa d s uc u alism. He posi ion now is ha : “we shi ou a en ion om he ideology and policy con en o populis mo emen s and concen a e ins ead on s uc u al conside a ions” (Cano an 1999, 3). By his Cano an e e s o he h ee undamen al cha ac e is ics ha all populis poli ics sha e: an i- eli ism; a e e ence o “ he people”; and a simple and di ec s yle. Laclau, unde he gaze o semio ics, goes e en u he and dispenses wi h con en s al oge he . Wi h Laclau, populism ceases o be an on ic ca ego y o become pu e logic: “I s meaning is no o be ound in any poli ical o ideological con en en e ing in o he desc ip ion o he p ac ices o any pa icula g oup”, Laclau obse es, “bu in a pa icula mode o a icula ion o wha e e social, poli ical o ideological con en s” (Laclau 2005, 34). As a esul , populism is unde s ood o be immanen in poli ics, a logic ha inhe es in social and poli ical expe ience. Ye his is no jus any logic. Unlike classic heo ies o poli ical ep esen a ion, Laclau a gues ha he will o he people, a he han being cons i u ed be o e ep esen a ion, is ins ead cons i u ed h ough i – i is, he s esses, he pa adigma ic case o poli ical ep esen a ion (Laclau 2005, 163). This means ha “ he people” becomes he logic ha s uc u es he poli ical, i. e. ha all poli ics is populism (Laclau 2005, 47), and ha “ he people” becomes an emp y, loa ing signi ie : when he plebs sees i sel as he populus, he pa as he whole, i cons uc s a “people” – qui e independen ly o any pa icula con en s. O cou se, iden i ying all poli ics wi h populis poli ics, as Laclau sugges s, isks ende ing he concep o populism no jus emp y, bu edundan . This is because, we belie e, his Schmi ian-G amscian on ology o hegemony eplaces a one-sided emphasis on con en s wi h an equally one-sided emphasis on logic. His on ology ails o ully accoun o why no populism in po ugal? 255 he on ic, and he eby isks eplica ing in new e ms he p oblems i sough o supe sede in he i s place. Gi en he di icul ies aced by mainly on ic o logic-o ien ed app oaches, se e al au ho s ha e ied o ead a middle g ound and in eg a e bo h dimensions in hei wo k (A di i 2007). In pa icula , i has led he so-called “new populis s udies” o shi he ocus “ om he social con en o populism and he ends owa d which i is di ec ed o he means by which i is done” (Jansen 2011, 82); o s udy why economic c ises need o be “pe o med” by social agen s as o become e ec i e causes o populis poli ics (Mo i 2016); o examine how he con en s o populism seem o be o ganized by “discu si e ames” (Aslanidis 2015), and o analyse how populis claims-making by Ame ican P esiden ial candida es be ween 1952 and 1996 ollows ce ain sc ip s and in ol e speci ic he o ical opes (Bonikowski and Gid on 2016). This chap e joins his collec i e e o by de eloping a new unde s anding o wha populism is and how i should be s udied. Populism is he e unde s ood as nei he a hing, no as pu ely discu si e logic. D awing upon p agma ic sociology, democ a ic heo y, and he analysis o poli ical discou se, we a gue ha wha makes one a populis is he p agma ic a icula ion o ce ain con en s (ideas, hings) wi hin he logic o esen men . This means ha esen men is he e unde s ood no as an on ic ca ego y (Shils 1956; Ba bale 1992; Mudde 2004, 547; Mülle 2016, 88) – a eeling, a ec , o emo ion – bu as he logic acco ding o which ha pa icula sen imen is socially and poli ically o ganized (Deme zis 2006; U e 2014; Engels 2015). Why esen men ? Fi s , because populism is os ensibly abou he con lic opposing he many o he ew, he ha e-no s o he ha es, he people o he eli e, he ou -g oups o he in-g oup. I is no abou one people agains ano he people; ins ead, i is abou one pa o he people agains ano he pa o he same people. Second, he logic o esen men seems o be pa icula ly adequa e o cap u e his phenomenon because ei he mobilizing eelings o igh eous indigna ion o down igh en y, esen men supposes a ela ion o iden i ica ion be ween he wo pa ies, which does no exis in he case o he alien O he o he Schmi ian logic o enmi y. I his is ob iously ue in he case o indigna ion (I ha e a mo ally inged disapp o al o he ac ha you ha e enjoyed some undese ed good o une), i is also he case, A is o le says, in he case o en y, which comple ely lacks he quasi-mo al dimension o indigna ion: “en y is a ce ain dis ess caused by he ac ha some o he people like onesel seem o ha e done well wi h espec o he a o emen ioned goods. The subjec 256 ci izenship in c isis en ies hese o he s no because he wan s he goods in ques ion o himsel , bu because hey ha e hem” (A is o le 174-5, ci ed in Geuss 2016, 176). A is o le is clea in s essing ha we en y only hose we pe cei e o be “like” us. In o he wo ds, en y makes sense only among equal compe i o s in he same game. One can ha e almos anyone, bu one en ies only hose who a e su icien ly like us o be some kind o i als o compe i o s. We ha e enemies, bu a compe i o is no pe se ou enemy (Geuss 2016, 176). This is why, o Schmi and Laclau, he logic o populism is no enmi y, bu esen men . P e ious s udies ha e ela ed a poli ics o esen men wi h social class and o he di isions wi hin a coun y (C ame 2016), wi h bo h symbolic and explici iolence (Engels 2015), and he cons uc ion o iden i y, na ionalism, and speci ic o ms o sub-s a e na ionalism and o igh -wing populism (Mann and Fen on 2017). Bu so a esen men has no been deemed an inhe en cha ac e is ic o populism in i s di e en mani es a ions, as we a e now p oposing. Conside o ins ance he example o us P esiden Donald J. T ump’s “wall wi h Mexico” a cen al elemen o his campaign in 2016 and an endu ing elemen o his poli ical he o ic. T ump’s wall wi h Mexico can be designa ed as a populis symbol as opposed o, say, a na ionalis symbol. The eason why he wall wi h Mexico came o ep esen T ump’s populism is because i was abou jobs: he jobs he “many” in Ame ica we e losing because o he decision by Ame ica’s “ ew” o open ac o ies in Mexico and elsewhe e, as well as abou he jobs Mexican emig an s we e aking away om he Ame ican “many”. Hence T ump’s p essu e on he ceos o companies such as Fo d o b ing jobs back om Mexico. I was no amed in na ionalis e ms, as one people agains ano he people. In con as , he wall sepa a ing Is ael om he Wes Bank is amed in such e ms: his wall has been he o ically jus i ied, legi imized, and cul u ally cons ued by he Is aeli igh as a o m o p o ec ion o Jewish people om he a acks o he Pales inian people. This shows ha compe ing agen s can cons ue he exac same objec in mu ually con adic o y ways o di e en pu poses. Fo Obama, ha ing he wall associa ed wi h na ionalism would ha e been poli ically oxic: hence he Obama adminis a ion’s a emp o keep i s unding and cons uc ion unde aken i no in sec ecy, as o a ac as li le media a en ion as possible. T ump spec acula ly e e sed his. He picked he exac same in as uc u e and cons uc ed i as a symbol o his poli ics. T ump’s poli ics, inso a as i uses ha objec in o de o mobilize he esen men o one pa o he Ame ican people agains ano he pa , cons ues i as a populis symbol. why no populism in po ugal? 257 Ou second me hodological aim is o sugges how o s udy he ways in which his logic has been employed by poli ical agen s, wi h a ying deg ees o success, o pi one pa o he people agains ano he pa in he name o “ he people” o c i icize (o legi imize), p oposing as example he poli ics o wel a e e enchmen in Po ugal be ween 2011 and 2015. Wel a e e enchmen , which has uelled he “dualiza ion” o Eu opean socie ies be ween labou ma ke inside s and ou side s, is pa icula ly ele an o his pu pose. We he e o e ques ion why i is ha wel a e e enchmen ailed o p o ide a e ile g ound o populis poli ics in Po ugal bu no in neighbou ing Spain? We add ess his ques ion by analysing ou cen al policies o wel a e e enchmen : (i) heal h ca e; (ii) e i emen pensions; (iii) unemploymen bene i ; and (i ) public se an s’ sala y cu s. Me hodologically, ou app oach adop s he ex eme case me hod o case selec ion because o i s ex eme alue on he dependen (Y) a iable o in e es : populism. An ex eme alue is unde s ood he e as an obse a ion ha lies a away om he mean o a gi en dis ibu ion; ha is o say, i is unusual. Fo case s udy analysis, i is p ecisely he a eness o he alue ha makes a case aluable, no i s posi i e o nega i e alue (Emigh 1997; Mahoney and Goe z 2004). This does no pose p oblems o sample bias because i e e s back o a la ge sample o cases lying in he backg ound o he analysis. The aim is o maximize a iance on he dimension o in e es , no o minimize i . The case o Po ugal be ween 2011 and 2015 looks unusual in ha i does no seem o i he in e na ional pa e n o ise in populis poli ics since he 1990s, and mo e p ominen ly in he a e ma h o he inancial c isis o 2008, when he condi ions we e me o he eme gence o populism. Po ugal is a “nega i e case” because i seems con a y o his gene al pa e n. Hence he esea ch ques ion: why has populism been unsuccess ul in Po ugal? Following wha has been said abo e, populism is he e unde s ood o e e o he p agma ic a icula ion o he logic o esen men by poli ical and social agen s o ma e ial/symbolic gain. By p agma ic a icula ion we e e o he poli ical pe o ma i i y o ce ain agen s h ough, and by e e ence o, bo h linguis ic claims and ma e ial hings. Logics o ganize con en s o di e en so s, including a ional claims o anspa ency and in elligibili y, as well as emo ions. We belie e his o be he case o he logic o esen men . The logic o esen men o ganizes he speci ic se o emo ions unde he umb ella o esen men , which includes en y and indigna ion. To claim ha one logic pe ains exclusi ely o one pa icula phenomenon would be o engage in a 264 ci izenship in c isis economic globaliza ion and hei ins i u ional ep esen a i es – he T oika and he go e nmen – o cu s deemed unnecessa y and unjus , he echnical- ju idical language and he uni e salis logic o he Cou ’s uling con ibu ed o aming he esen men and ange el by he Po uguese a ec ed by he cu s. I p o en, his hypo hesis would u he help accoun o absence o populism in Po ugal. conclusion The ou opics b ie ly discussed abo e o e a ealis ic amewo k o assess ou heo e ical and me hodological claims ega ding how populism should be s udied oday. As a whole, hey o m wha one could call a p ospec i e esea ch p og amme o populis poli ics. Ou p ima y mo i a ion in designing such a p og amme is wo- old. Fi s , and mo e immedia ely, ou aim has been o answe he ques ion o why populism was no success ul and did no eme ge in Po ugal in he a e ma h o he global inancial and economic c isis o 2008-2010, compa ed o wha happened in o he coun ies also a ec ed by he c isis. I is ou belie ha an answe o his impo an ques ion equi es an in e p e i e me hodological app oach. As we y o show by e e ence o ou key wel a e e enchmen issues, he easons o he ela i e absence o populism in Po ugal ha e less o do wi h objec i e socio-economic causes (which we e simila in Spain and in many aspec s e en wo se in Po ugal), han wi h he pe o ma ion o hese causes, hei na u e, and consequences, by di e en poli ical agen s. Such pe o ma ion is o some ex en a ma e o language, i. e., he in es iga ion o how populis he o ic is used by poli ical and social ac o s o achie e poli ical ends. Bu i is also a ma e o he poli ical cul u e, he policies, he echnologies, and all so s o ma e ial hings o which ha language necessa ily e e s. Ou second aim has been o make clea e o he eade he na u e and scope o ou claims abou he na u e and unc ioning o populism. We do no educe populism o empi ical con en s: esen men is he e unde s ood no as an emo ion o eeling, bu as an unde lying logic, i. e. he way in which such sen imen s a e socially and poli ically o ganized. This signi ies ha populism seen as esen men is no o be s udied h ough su ey i ems conno ing speci ic emo ions such as en y, indigna ion, age, o ha ed. Ye we do no educe i o a pu ely discu si e logic ei he . Ou p agma ic unde s anding o why no populism in po ugal? 265 he populis logic o esen men means, o pu i in sligh ly di e en e ms, ha i should be s udied ela ionally and as a ma e o pe o ma i i y. The meaning o populism is he e o e no some hing ha inhe es somewhe e in he inne mos essence o populis s’ discou ses, s yle, modes o o ganiza ion, o ideology. Ins ead, he meaning o populism depends on he ela ions be ween he di e en elemen s anima ed by he logic o esen men . Explo ing u he he examples o Po ugal and Spain (a nega i e case e sus a posi i e case expe iencing a simila c isis) adds o ou unde s anding o populism, in his case as cons uc ion ha is sensi i e o poli ical con ex , poli ical cul u e, in e plays o poli ical ac o s and na a i es, and o powe ela ions. The in e p e i e na u e o ou app oach s esses he ela ional na u e o poli ics, wi h he po en ial o p oduce dissimila ou comes, e en in appa en ly simila si ua ions. T ump’s populism, and likeminded phenomena, poin o he uncons uc i e na u e o populism. One hing is o c i icize democ acy o ailing o li e up o i s p omises o equali y – qui e ano he is o do his by mobilizing esen men . While he la e can unc ion as he beginning o a posi i e poli ical p ojec o p og essi e social change, he o me can only do so wi h g ea di icul y. The logic o esen men , we a gue, can be deeply uncons uc i e: I en y you jus because you ha e wha I don’ . Bu he logic o esen men can also mobilize sen imen s o igh eous indigna ion. I is he e ha populism’s e hical p omise o which Sheldon Wolin alludes seems o eside. In e es ingly, in Po ugal, he “ igh o indigna ion” was used as a slogan in he popula demons a ions agains he aus e i y measu es ha we e implemen ed as a consequence o he 2011 bailou . In ac , wi h he excep ion o he libe al an i-populis adi ion (Ho s ad e 1955), he unde s anding o populism as democ acy’s wo s enemy is ai ly ecen . Un il as la e as he ea ly 1990s mos we e o he iew ha populism was good o democ acy. Fo populis schola s such as Pe e Wo sley (1969), Ma ga e Cano an (1981), and many o he s, populism’s alue esided in i s aspi a ional quali ies. I o igina ed mobilizing poli ical p ojec s wi h he capaci y o inco po a ing p e iously disen anchised classes in o he poli ical communi y. This au hen ic, bo om-up popula impulse was seen as he much needed key o eene gize democ acy: bo h old democ acies s i led by hei eli is endencies and p agma ic o ins umen al p ac ices and less de eloped democ acies seeking o expand he demos ha coun s and o which ins i u ions and leade s mus be esponsi e. Sepa a ing such dispa a e e alua ions o 266 ci izenship in c isis populism is, o cou se, he unde lying no ma i e ideal o democ acy – libe al plu alis democ acy, in one case, pa icipa o y democ acy, in he o he . This sugges s ye ano he di icul y in inding some hing in insic o populism, which se s i s apa : populism ends a he o be de ined in and by i s ela ionship o democ acy, a ela ionship which is a iously de ined as ex insic o in insic. acknowledgemen s Chap e 10 “Why no populism in Po ugal?” has been w i en wi h he suppo o he esea ch p ojec “populus: Repensando o Populismo”, p dc/soc-soc/28524/2017. Susana Salgado’s wo k is unded by he Fundação pa a a Ciência e Tecnologia, e e ence: i /01451/2014/ cp1239/c 0004. ____________________________________ ilipe ca ei a da sil a Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal [email p o ec ed] o cid.o g/0000-0003-2459-0802 ____________________________________ susana salgado Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa [email p o ec ed] o cid.o g/0000-0002-7967-3763 ____________________________________ e e ences alexande , J. C. 1987. Twen y Lec u es: Sociological Theo y Since Wo ld Wa ii. New Yo k: Columbia Uni e si y P ess. a di i, B. 2007. Poli ics on he Edges o Libe alism. Edinbu gh: Edinbu gh Uni e si y P ess. aslanidis, P. 2015. “Is populism an ideology?”. Poli ical S udies, 64: 1-16. aus in, J. L. 1962. How o do Things wi h Wo ds. Camb idge, ma: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess. ba bale , J. 1992. “A mac o sociology o emo ion: class esen men ”. Sociological Theo y, 10: 150-163. be z, H.-G. 2002. “Condi ions a ou ing he success and ailu e o adical igh -wing populis pa ies in con empo a y democ acies”. In Democ acies and he Populis Challenge, eds. Y. Mény and Y. Su el. London: Palg a e-Macmillan, 197-213. why no populism in po ugal? 267 bonikowski, B., N. Gid on. 2016. “The populis s yle in Ame ican poli ics: p esiden ial campaign he o ic, 1952-1996”. Social Fo ces, 94 (4): 1593-1621. b own, W. 2010. Walled S a es, Waning So e eign y. New Yo k: Zone Books. cano an, M. 1981. Populism. New Yo k: Ha cou B ace Jo ano ic. cano an, M. 2002. “Taking poli ics o he people”. In Democ acies and he Populis Challenge, eds. Y. Mény and Y. Su el. Basings oke: Palg a e Macmillan, 25-44. cano an, M. 2004. “Populism o poli ical heo is s?”. Jou nal o Poli ical Ideologies, 9 (3): 241-252. c ame , K. J. 2016. The Poli ics o Resen men : Ru al Consciousness in Wisconsin and he Rise o Sco Walke . Chicago and London: The Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. deme zis, N. 2006. “Emo ions and populism”. In Emo ions, Poli ics and Socie y, eds. S. Cla ke, P. Hogge , and S. Thompson. Basings oke: Palg a e MacMillan, 103-122. engels, J. 2015. The Poli ics o Resen men : A Genealogy. Pennsyl ania: The Pennsyl ania S a e Uni e si y P ess. emigh, R. 1997. “The powe o nega i e hinking: The use o nega i e case me hodology in he de elopmen o sociological heo y”. Theo y and Socie y, 26: 649-84. ai clough, I., N. Fai clough. 2012. Poli ical Discou se Analysis: A Me hod o Ad anced S uden s. ny: Rou ledge. geuss, R. 2016. Reali y and i s D eams. Ha a d: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess. jage s, J., S. Walg a e. 2007. “Populism as poli ical communica ion s yle: An empi ical s udy o poli ical pa ies’ discou se in Belgium”. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch, 46 (3), 319-345. go man, E. 1956. The P esen a ion o Sel in E e yday Li e. New Yo k: Doubleday. häuse mann, S. 2010. The Poli ics o Wel a e S a e Re o m in Con inen al Eu ope: Mode niza ion in Ha d Times. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. ho s ad e , R. 1955. The Age o Re o m. New Yo k: Knop . jansen, R. S. 2011. “Populis mobiliza ion: a new heo e ical app oach o populism”. Sociological Theo y, 29: 75-96. kazin, M. 1995. The Populis Pe suasion. New Yo k: Basic Books. laclau, E. 2005. On Populis Reason. London: Ve so. mahoney, J., G. Goe z. 2004. “The possibili y p inciple: Choosing nega i e cases in compa a i e esea ch”. Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew, 98 (4): 653-69. mann, R., S. Fen on. 2017. Na ion, Class and Resen men : The Poli ics o Na ional Iden i y in England, Sco land and Wales. London: Palg a e Macmillan. miles, M. B., A. M. Hube man. 1994. Quali a i e Da a Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage. mo i , B. 2016. “The pe o ma i e u n in he compa a i e s udy o populism”. Compa a i e Poli ics Newsle e , 26 (2): 52-58. mo i , B., S. To mey. 2014. “Re hinking populism: poli ics, media isa ion and poli ical s yle”. Poli ical S udies, 62 (2): 381-39. mudde, C. 2004. “The populis zei geis ”. Go e nmen and Opposi ion, 39: 542-563. mülle , J.-W. 2016. Wha is Populism? Uni e si y Pa k, pa: Penn S a e Uni e si y P ess. salgado, S. 2018. “Whe e’s populism? Online media and he di usion o populis discou ses and s yles in Po ugal”. In Populis Discou ses and Poli ical Communica ion in Sou he n Eu ope, Symposium Eu opean Poli ical Science, eds. S. Salgado, and Y. S a akakis. A ailable online i s : h ps://doi.o g/10.1057/s41304-017-0137-4 268 ci izenship in c isis salgado, S., J. P. Zúque e. 2017. “Po ugal: Disc ee Populisms Amid Un a o able Con ex s and S igma iza ion”. In Populis Poli ical Communica ion in Eu ope, eds. T. Aalbe g, e al. New Yo k and London: Rou ledge, 235-248. shils, E. 1956. The To men o Sec ecy. London: Heinemann. s anye , J., S. Salgado, and J. S ömbäck. 2017. “Populis ac o s as communica o s o poli ical ac o s as populis communica o s: c oss-na ional indings and pe spec i es”. In Populis Poli ical Communica ion in Eu ope, eds. T. Aalbe g, e al. New Yo k and London: Rou ledge, 353-364. u e, M. 2014. “Resen men /Ressen imen ”. Cons ella ions, 22: 599-613. weyland, K. 2001. “Cla i ying a con es ed concep : populism in he s udy o La in Ame ican poli ics”. Compa a i e Poli ics, 34: 1-22. wolin, S. 2004. Poli ics and Vision: Con inui y and Inno a ion in Wes e n Poli ical Though . P ince on, nj: P ince on Uni e si y P ess. wo sley, P. 1969. “The concep o populism”. In Populism: I s Meanings and Na ional Cha ac e is ics, eds. G. lonescu and E. Gellne . New Yo k: Macmillan, 212-250. ci e his chap e as: sil a, F. C. da, S. Salgado. 2018. “Why no populism in Po ugal?”. In Changing Socie ies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. ii. Ci izenship in C isis, eds. M. C. Lobo, F. C. da Sil a and J. P. Zúque e. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais, 249-268. h ps://doi.o g/10.31447/ics9789726715047.10