International Journal of Social Sciences Perspectives ISSN 2577-7750 Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 13-21 2025 DOI: 10.33094/ijssp.v16i1.2303 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Online Academic Press, USA 13 © 2025 by the author; licensee Online Academic Press, USA Populism and political corruption Stefan SUMAH Government Office for the Care and Integration of Migrants, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Email: Stefan.sumah@gmail.com Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Keywords: Abuse of power Corruption Political corruption Populism Promises State capture. Received: 18 April 2025 Revised: 24 May 2025 Accepted: 2 June 2025 Published: 18 June 2025 Abstract This paper analyzes the relationship between populism and political corruption. Using discourse analysis, it shows that the two phenomena are inextricably linked, as political corruption, along with a lack of good governance, ultimately fosters resentment and distrust in public institutions—attitudes that present an opportunity for populists to employ populist rhetoric in their electoral campaigns. The paper argues that the anger generated by corruption among citizens plays a vital role in bringing populists to power, as they often succeed precisely by promising to eradicate corruption. Drawing on existing literature, the paper finds that populists are more likely to make promises but less likely to keep them— often encouraging new forms of corruption and proving ineffective in addressing existing ones. Populist rule is characterized by three distinct practices: the attempted capture of the state apparatus; corruption and mass clientelism; and the systematic suppression of civil society, which, under the populist principle of ruling “in the name of the people,” becomes delegitimized and increasingly constrained. The paper proposes that the transition from populism to political corruption operates not only at the national level but also at the local level, where politicians are similarly more likely to act populistically when high levels of corruption are already present in the political landscape. Finally, the paper considers a scenario in which populism, combined with political corruption, enables the capture of the state as the highest possible form of corruption. Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Transparency: The author declares that the manuscript is honest, truthful and transparent, that no important aspects of the study have been omitted and that all deviations from the planned study have been made clear. This study followed all rules of writing ethics. Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper. 1. Introduction Corruption—a historically persistent political phenomenon—takes on many different forms and has a variety of effects, both on the economy and on society more broadly. While various forms of corruption have persisted over decades, it is crucial to recognize that even similar types of corrupt practices can produce markedly different effects depending on the institutional, political, and socio-economic contexts in which they occur. Similarly to the impacts, factors contributing to corruption vary as well. More broadly however, the current scholarship tells us that they include the state of the political and economic environment, professional ethics and morality, as well as customs, habits, traditions, and demographic factors. In public discourse corruption often becomes synonymous for bribery, however it is crucial to note that corruption represents a much broader concept, of which bribery is only one form of it. Populism, on the other hand, is a mode of political practice in which the politician positions themselves as representing “the people”—a somewhat abstract group of people that includes an imagined, morally pure and hardworking electoral base alongside the already existing party's members and supporters—against “the elites.” Moreover, populists tend to make broad promises designed to appeal to the widest possible cross-section of society. Crucially, populism operates under the logic of “us” against “them,” with an aim of excluding certain groups of people from the decision- making apparatus. These very characteristics in fact define the politics of populism and create a political landscape without any specific criteria other than the separation between “friends” and “enemies.” During a populist rule, a state of emergency is often declared in the name of “the people” or “the public interest.” These states of emergencies, the paper observes, are typically framed as a response to an “existential threat to a way of life.” In such contexts, political actions that in the time of non-populist rule belong to the realm which is outside the institutional hierarchies of power can quickly be rearticulated as anti-elitist, further reinforcing populist narratives.