I was on the radio discussing the attempt on the life of the Slovakian prime minister Robert Fico. Mr Fico, we kept saying, was a populist. This much we knew. But I thought it prudent to check the definition of populism. The Chambers dictionary has a populist as: “A person who believes in the right and ability of the common people to play a major part in government.” This feels disappointingly broad to me, if only insomuch as you can’t imagine a politician saying the opposite – that they didn’t believe in the right and ability of the common people to govern themselves. Google, its dictionary provided by Oxford Languages which is responsible for the Oxford English Dictionary, isn’t much more help. “A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” This too is surely standard stuff from politicians of all stripes.
There must be something better than this, surely? It’s too important to be a case of knowing it when you see it or, as one of my daughters might put it, “just a vibe”. I thought I better check if my confusion is – as is generally the case – down to my considerable intellectual limitations. I asked a third year politics student of my acquaintance what her definition would be. “How should I know?” she said. I pressed on, contacting the most left-wing intellectual I know, and also the most right-wing. And a couple of avowed centrists too. They’re all well-known, but I’ll not name them because I really don’t want to be in the middle of any public spat that may arise.
