Populism, Democracy, and the Struggle to seize the state: a thought

 Populism, Democracy, and the Struggle to seize the state: a thought

By Kat Ulrike

In the 21st century, populism has emerged as one of the most powerful political forces worldwide. But what exactly is populism, and why has it taken such a prominent role in the political landscape? In its essence, populism is not simply an ideology or a political movement but a reflection of deep societal discontent, a challenge to the entrenched power structures, and an assertion of the people's right to self-determination. At its core, populism represents the people's struggle for democracy, for control over their own fates, and for the redistribution of power and resources from the elite to the masses.

Populism’s rise cannot be understood without also examining the growing disillusionment with existing political and economic systems. As sociologist Saskia Sassen has argued, the contemporary world is marked by the growing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a global elite, leaving many people — especially in the Global South and working-class communities — feeling marginalized and excluded from the political process. Sassen’s work on global cities highlights the increasing power of transnational corporations and international institutions, which, she asserts, "disembed" economic activity from local contexts, rendering political elites more responsive to global rather than local concerns. In this context, populism represents a response to the alienation and disempowerment that large sections of the population experience.

Yet, populism is not a monolithic force. It can take different forms, from left-wing movements that aim to redistribute wealth and power to the people, to right-wing movements that seek to restrict immigration, preserve national identity, and roll back globalization. The difference between these types of populism lies not only in their policies but in their conceptualization of the people. For some, the people are the working-class masses whose interests have been sidelined by elites; for others, the people are those who seek to protect a cultural and national identity from foreign influence and “outsiders.” However, all forms of populism are connected by their critique of the status quo and their call for a radical shift in the balance of power.

As revolutionary José María Sison often pointed out, the very essence of democracy is tied to the struggle of the masses to assert their rights, their dignity, and their collective power. Sison, a leader of the Philippine revolutionary movement and a strong advocate for Marxist-Leninist principles, has long argued that true democracy is not a static concept but a living, evolving force that must constantly be won and defended by the people. In "The Philippine Revolution: The Leader's View" (1985), he writes, "Democracy, in its real sense, is the people’s rule. It is not confined to the right to vote or to speak, but it is the right to transform society in accordance with the needs and aspirations of the people" (Sison, 1985). For Sison, democracy is not just an ideal to be achieved, but a process of struggle that requires the active involvement and leadership of the people, particularly those who have been excluded from power.

The Shift Toward Populism: Challenging Established Norms

The growing appeal of populist rhetoric, particularly in the United States, is a direct response to this stagnancy. Populism, at its best, does not pander to superficial desires or seek to placate the public with meaningless promises. Instead, it channels the deep, often overlooked frustrations of the electorate — frustrations that stem from the very real problems of wage stagnation, job insecurity, healthcare access, and educational inequality. Populist movements, from Bernie Sanders on the left to Donald Trump on the right, have been driven by a collective demand for change. As Jill Lepore writes in These Truths: A History of the United States (2018), “Populism is as American as the country itself. It is a demand for the restoration of power to the people, a rejection of the notion that political power should remain in the hands of the elite.”

But in distinguishing modern populism from the "bread and circuses" variety — a term often used to describe superficial populist appeals that rely on distraction rather than substantive policy changes — it becomes clear that populism today is no longer about pacifying the masses with entertainment or empty promises. The defeat of Kamala Harris in the recent elections or the rise of Trump’s MAGA movement shows that modern populism is driven by a need for genuine political change, not by celebrity endorsements or slogans. Populism is no longer simply a distraction to keep people from the harsh realities of life. As the Oxford Handbook of Populism (2017) edited by Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser notes, modern populism is a direct response to the unresponsiveness of political elites and the failure of traditional democratic institutions to address the material needs of the people.

Populism: A Legacy of Democratic Struggle

It is important to remember that populism, in its foundational sense, emerged from the desire of the oppressed to have a say in the political processes that govern their lives. Historically, populist movements have been a response to the concentration of power in the hands of the elite, whether that elite be royal, aristocratic, or corporate. The modern populist call is rooted in a desire to shift political power from those who have historically monopolized it and to restore that power to the people themselves. As Chantal Mouffe argues in For a Left Populism (2018), populism can be a force for progressive change when it serves as a reaction against "the oligarchic and technocratic elites" who hold the levers of political and economic power. "Populism is an expression of the people’s dissatisfaction with the existing order. It can either be a force for reactionary or progressive change, depending on who leads it" (Mouffe, 2018).

Populism, in this context, is not just a passing political fad or a temporary rallying cry for discontent. It is an expression of democratic aspiration, driven by those who feel disenfranchised by the current system. This is precisely what Sison understood when he described the Philippine revolution in terms of the people’s desire for self-determination, social justice, and the redistribution of wealth and power. He often framed populism as the force that exposes the contradictions within bourgeois democracies, which in his view, only serve to protect the interests of the ruling classes. “What is being called ‘populism’ today is simply the awakening of the people to the reality that they have been left behind by the system of political and economic inequality,” Sison remarked in an interview with The International Journal of Socialist Thought (2017). “The people are calling for something more than symbolic recognition or identity politics — they are calling for a transformation of society itself.”

However, populist rhetoric can often be co-opted by elites, leading to a situation where the interests of the people are ignored in favor of policies that deepen inequality. As Sison often warned, the people’s discontent can be easily manipulated by those who seek to use populist sentiment for their own gain. In a statement to The International Journal of Socialist Thought (2017), he explained, “Populism can be used both as a weapon of the oppressed and as a tool of manipulation by the elites. The task of the revolutionaries is to ensure that populism serves the interests of the working class and oppressed, not the ruling class.”

Populism and Its Revolutionary Potential

Populism has always been a force for social change. Historically, populist movements have often emerged from the ranks of the oppressed, the marginalized, and the disenfranchised. From the labor movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to the civil rights movements of the 1960s, populism has been a key instrument for pushing for equality, justice, and the redistribution of power. At its most radical, populism calls for the dismantling of entrenched systems of power — capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism — and the creation of a society in which wealth and resources are distributed more equitably.

Sison articulated this vision in his work The Philippine Revolution: The Leader’s View (1985). Sison argued that true democracy is not just about voting rights or civil liberties, but about ensuring that the people, not the elites, control their own fate. “Democracy, in its real sense, is the people’s rule,” he wrote. “It is not confined to the right to vote or to speak, but it is the right to transform society in accordance with the needs and aspirations of the people.” This radical vision of democracy — one that goes beyond elections to address the deeper structural issues of economic inequality and exploitation — is central to understanding populism in its revolutionary form.

In this context, populism is not merely about obtaining recognition or symbolic victories but about taking control of political and economic power. Sison’s famous quote, “Revolution is not a dinner party,” encapsulates this point. For Sison and many other left-wing populists, the true challenge is not merely asking for respect or representation within the existing political framework, but overthrowing that framework to build a society that reflects the people’s interests.

The Center Cannot Hold:
A Crisis of ideology under a stagnant order

In today’s world, however, the political center is under increasing strain. Whether they are labeled "woke," "pseudo-progressive," "conservative," or "liberal," all factions within the political establishment seem to be struggling to maintain their relevance in an era marked by a growing populist revolt. These groups often find themselves defending a political status quo that increasingly feels disconnected from the needs and desires of the majority of people.

As political theorist Chantal Mouffe notes in For a Left Populism (2018), the center has always represented an equilibrium that privileges stability over transformation. However, in the face of systemic economic inequality, rising social unrest, and the unraveling of the neoliberal project, the center can no longer claim to be a neutral or balanced position. It has become, in her words, “a stagnancy that merely preserves the power structures that benefit elites.” This stagnation is becoming evident as people increasingly demand that political systems serve the interests of the majority, rather than the entrenched power structures that dominate both public and private life.

A key factor in the rise of populism today is the crisis of the political center. Across the globe, traditional political elites — from center-left social democrats to center-right conservatives — are losing the trust and support of the public. In many parts of the world, the political center has failed to address the underlying crises of inequality, unemployment, and social dislocation. The globalized neoliberal economic order, which has concentrated wealth in the hands of a few while leaving millions behind, has exacerbated these issues.

The work of Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart offers valuable insights into this phenomenon. In their book Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Authoritarian Populism (2019), Norris and Inglehart argue that the rise of populism is not just a response to economic inequality, but also to cultural shifts and identity politics. They highlight how globalization and cultural liberalization — particularly in terms of issues like immigration, gender, and sexual orientation — have caused a backlash among certain segments of the population. The political center, which has often embraced globalism and social liberalism, has struggled to bridge the growing divide between the cosmopolitan elites and the disaffected working-class voters who feel that their culture, identity, and economic security are under threat.

In their analysis, Norris and Inglehart draw on the concept of cultural backlash to explain how populist movements tap into fears about cultural change. This idea echoes Karl Polanyi’s concept of the “double movement,” which describes the tension between the forces of market liberalism and the pushback from society’s protective mechanisms. Polanyi argued that the disembedding of the economy from social relations — such as the deregulation of markets and the reduction of the welfare state — would lead to social instability and ultimately provoke a political reaction. Today, this “protective” backlash is embodied in right-wing populism, which seeks to preserve traditional identities and restrict the forces of globalization.

The "Woke" and the Superficial Progressive:

Diverting Attention from Real Change

It is here that this note see the tension between woke politics, pseudo-progressivism, and genuine populism. While “woke” movements rightly highlight important cultural issues such as racial justice, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ rights, they often fail to challenge the economic systems that underpin these issues. The material struggles of the working class — such as wage stagnation, workplace exploitation, and job insecurity — are frequently overshadowed by identity politics that focus primarily on recognition and symbolic representation. The problems with this are clear: respect and recognition are important, but they are not enough to solve systemic issues of poverty, inequality, and economic exploitation.

This is why populism — when it is authentically left-wing and rooted in the struggles of the working class — is so crucial. José María Sison argued that the revolutionary challenge to capitalism goes beyond symbolic demands. He stated, “The masses do not merely demand respect or recognition; they demand control over their own lives, their own labor, and their own destiny. Revolution is not a dinner party. It is the seizure of power from those who have used it to oppress and exploit” (Sison, 1985).

This is the fatal flaw in much of the current mainstream "progressive" movement: it often serves as a distraction from the deeper, structural issues of capitalist exploitation. By focusing on identity issues without addressing economic inequalities, much of modern progressive rhetoric has been co-opted by the elite in a way that ultimately preserves, rather than challenges, the status quo. For example, corporate diversity initiatives and tokenism — where companies and institutions implement superficial changes like diversity quotas or pride month celebrations — can be seen as "woke" gestures that distract from the real issues of class struggle.

The Rise of Right-Wing Populism

One of the most notable aspects of modern populism is the prominence of right-wing movements, especially in Western democracies. Figures like Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, and Viktor Orbán have tapped into widespread dissatisfaction with the political elite and the globalist consensus, often framing themselves as champions of the “common people” against the corrupt establishment. But does right-wing populism truly represent the interests of the people, or is it simply a reactionary force that seeks to reinforce existing power structures? It’s crucial to understand that modern populism is not just a response to economic or political frustration, but also a rejection of the shallow, incremental reforms often offered by the political establishment. This "bread and circuses" style of populism — where political leaders offer symbolic gestures or temporary distractions to pacify the masses — is no longer enough. As demonstrated by the defeat of Kamala Harris in the recent elections and the continued rise of Donald Trump, populism is a force that reflects deeper societal issues that cannot be resolved through token gestures or celebrity endorsements. The recent presidential election results in the U.S. highlight that no amount of high-profile endorsements or "woke" politics can stem the tide of populist discontent.

Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement, for example, tapped into a growing frustration among working-class voters, especially in rural areas, who felt alienated by globalization, technological change, and the shifting cultural norms of an increasingly diverse society. Trump’s populism became a rallying cry for those who believed that the political elite, particularly in Washington, D.C., had abandoned them. But this type of populism raises important questions: Does Trump’s version of populism truly reflect the will of the people, or does it serve the interests of the very elites he claims to oppose?

David Frum, in his book Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic (2018), argues that Trump’s populism — despite its rhetoric — ultimately serves the interests of the wealthy elite. “Trump’s populism, while it claims to represent the will of the people, has been, in practice, a vehicle for advancing the interests of the richest Americans,” Frum writes. Trump’s administration, Frum contends, prioritized tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and a strengthening of the corporate elite, all while stoking divisions over race, immigration, and national identity. 

Furthermore, Sison noted, “Populism can be used both as a weapon of the oppressed and as a tool of manipulation by the elites. The task of revolutionaries is to ensure that populism serves the interests of the working class and oppressed, not the ruling class.”

Similarly, in Russia, Eduard Limonov, a controversial writer and politician, has argued that populism in post-Soviet Russia has largely served the interests of the oligarchs. Limonov’s critique of Russian populism reflects the reality that in many cases, populist rhetoric can be used as a tool of elite consolidation, rather than as a vehicle for genuine democratic change.

This is why the true potential of populism lies not in its rhetoric, but in how it is harnessed. Left-wing populism — grounded in the struggle of the working class and the marginalized — can provide the revolutionary force needed to dismantle the systems of capitalist exploitation. But when populism is co-opted by right-wing forces, it risks being a reactionary movement that protects the status quo rather than challenging it.

Left-Wing Populism: A Radical Vision
for Social Transformation

In contrast, left-wing populism, as articulated by theorists like Chantal Mouffe, offers a radically different vision. Mouffe, in her book For a Left Populism (2018), argues that populism can be a tool for progressive change, if it is centered around a vision of social justice and equality. For Mouffe, the key to left-wing populism is the ability to unite disparate social groups — workers, immigrants, women, LGBTQ+ people, and others — around a shared vision of democratic socialism and anti-capitalism. In her view, the core of populism is the assertion of the people’s sovereignty over the capitalist forces that seek to subordinate them.

Mouffe’s analysis is informed by Laclau and Mouffe’s concept of “hegemony,” in which populism is seen as a way to create a collective identity and build a political majority around a shared set of demands. In a world where neoliberalism has undermined democratic accountability, left-wing populism offers the potential for a new form of democracy — one that prioritizes collective action, solidarity, and the radical redistribution of power.

For Sison, this radical vision is inseparable from revolutionary action. He stresses that populism is not just about electoral politics or incremental reforms, but about dismantling the systems of exploitation that perpetuate inequality. “Revolution is not a dinner party,” Sison famously declared using Mao's quote. “It is the seizure of power from those who have used it to oppress and exploit.” Hence, it's about the need for a revolution as the people must not only be represented but must hold real power. Whether it is in the form of political representation, economic control, or social autonomy, the people’s will must prevail over the entrenched interests of the elite. In this way, populism becomes not just a political movement but a social revolution.

“Populism is not just about reforms but about the total transformation of society. It’s about breaking the chains of imperialism and feudalism and building a new society based on the people’s interests,” he wrote in The Philippine Revolution: The Leader’s View (1985). This is the essence of revolutionary populism: it is not about reforming the existing system but about building something entirely new. It is the people's uprising against the capitalist, imperialist, and feudal systems that exploit and oppress them.

Conclusion: The People’s Struggle for a Just Society

Populism, at its core, is the people’s struggle for control over their own lives, their labor, and their destiny. Whether left-wing or right-wing, populism reflects the growing frustration with the status quo and the belief that democracy should not be limited to mere participation in elections but should involve a fundamental transformation of society. For Sison, Mouffe, Saskia Sassen, and many others, populism represents the last bastion of democracy in a world increasingly dominated by corporate elites and neoliberal policies.

In this age of inequality, economic crisis, and political alienation, populism offers a vision of a world where the people hold the power — not just in theory, but in practice. It is a vision of democracy in its fullest, most radical sense: a democracy that goes beyond elections and symbolic gestures to a true redistribution of power and resources- and the task of populist movements is clear: to overthrow the systems of exploitation and oppression that benefit the few at the expense of the many. “The task of revolutionaries is to ensure that the people, not the elites, control their own fate” (Sison, 1985).

The challenge today is to reclaim populism from those who seek to co-opt it for their own gain. Whether through revolutionary means or through progressive reform, populism — rooted in the struggles of the working class and the marginalized — can still offer the hope of a new, just society where the people hold real power, not just in theory, but in practice. The question is not whether populism is the answer but whether the people can harness its power to create a world that reflects their interests and aspirations. 

Will that populism be a tool of the elite or a force for the revolution of the people? Only time will tell.