The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Constitutive Ambiguity of Populism
Abstract
Has the Weberian disenchantment with the world finally freed people from the illusion that democracy is a panacea? For the past decade, once the glory and triumph of the western model over the socialist regimes had evaporated, we have been able to observe the numerous manifestations of popular misgivings about political participation and democratic institutions. Democratic malaise (Dahl 1998), the politics of resentment (Betz 1994, 1998a, b), political anomie, and protest movements are among the most frequent manifestations of this disillusion in many western democracies. Both electoral turnout and opinion polls testify to the endurance and extension of the problem. Nor have the new democracies which emerged from the collapse of the socialist systems escaped this general phenomenon of disillusion as shown by the return to power—in sheep’s clothing—of former communist party officials. These challenges to democratic governance vary according to the specificity of each national polity, but share some common features such as the decline of electoral support for political incumbents, a marked increase in electoral abstentionism, the volatility of the electorate, the growing fragmentation of the party system, the emergence of ad hoc social movements unrepresented by traditional political organisations, and the emergence of single-issue and/or radical parties. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters
Akkerman, A., Mudde, C., & Zaslove, A. (2014) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/0010414013512600 · Cited by 1,148
Populist Political Communication in Europe
(2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315623016 · Cited by 804
What unites the voter bases of populist parties? Comparing the electorates of 15 populist parties
Rooduijn, M. (2018) · European Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s1755773917000145 · Cited by 513
Populist online communication: introduction to the special issue
Engesser, S., Fawzi, N., & Larsson, A. O. (2017) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2017.1328525 · Cited by 429
Brubaker, R. (2020) · Nations and Nationalism · doi:10.1111/nana.12522 · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Mény, Y., & Surel, Y.
- Venue
- Democracies and the Populist Challenge
- Publisher
- Palgrave Macmillan UK
- Published
- 2002
- Pages
- 1-21
- OpenAlex
- W2418173397
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.39
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Constitutive Ambiguity of Populism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/9781403920072_1
- The paper
- Mény, Y., & Surel, Y. (2002). The Constitutive Ambiguity of Populism. Democracies and the Populist Challenge. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403920072_1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.