Creating the people: an interview with Aurelien Mondon on populism opendemocracy.net /can-europe-make-it/aurelien-mondon-antonis-galanopoulos/creating-people- interview-with-aurelien-mond Aurelien Mondon and Antonis Galanopoulos Populism is a political style whereby the populist creates her/his ‘people’ according to her/his ideological goals. ‘The people’ therefore can take many shapes and forms and be used in both inclusive and exclusive ways. Aurelien Mondon is a lecturer in French politics at the University of Bath specialising in populism, the extreme right, abstention and the crisis of democracy. This interview was conduced by Antonis Galanopoulos, a post-graduate student at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. ----- Let’s start with the most important question. In recent years, there have been too many debates in the media and in academia about populism. And we ourselves will now have a discussion focusing on populism. But, what is populism? Which is, in your opinion, the best way to define the term? That is a crucial point indeed, and too often commentators talk about populism without clearly defining it. Because the concept of ‘the people’ is central to the word populism and because of its highly polemical political content, a definition is necessary before anything else can be discussed. Populism is usually understood either as an ideology (be it a thin one) or as a style or discourse. My own research, based loosely on the so-called Essex School, sits firmly within the latter understanding, wherein populism is a political style or discourse whereby the populist creates her/his ‘people’ according to her/his ideological goals. ‘The people’ therefore can take many shapes and forms and be used in both inclusive and exclusive ways (e.g. against global injustice, against minorities, for democracy, for discriminatory purposes etc.). Essentially, populism is not intrinsically positive or negative, it is a tool to create a political commonality. Populism is largely interpreted as a threat for democracy. But can it function as a corrective for democracy? On its own populism is neither corrective, nor threatening; the ideologies it is attached to are. The term ‘populism’ connotes various ideas and meanings, both positive and negative. Because of its strategic and opportunistic essence, it is crucial not to consider populism as an ideological feature as it would provide the populist with a semblance of democratic legitimacy by reinforcing her/his image as the ‘voice of the people’. Many theorists have argued that the demonization and condemnation of populism affects also the people and the very idea of popular sovereignty. What are the consequences of this -let us say- devaluation of the people for democracy itself? This is particularly striking with regards to the mainstream/elite coverage of right-wing populism (and to some extent that of the left). When ‘the people’ choose not to choose the acceptable options in the pseudo-democratic electoral game and turn instead to more radical options on the left or right, their choice is derided as a vote for the populist alternative(s), that is a vote for demagogues taking advantage of the masses’ passions and irrational behaviour. In fact, this brings us back to the democratic debates which were rife in the 19th century, when the