I was recently having an exchange on social media with a newly elected Reform UK county councillor where I commented on his assertion that his party was 'centre right' with the observation that as a party they don't have an aligned position on any traditional left / right spectrum but rather that they pick and choose policies based on a populist approach. It can be argued that the party has some fairly right wing views when it comes to immigration whilst its stance on the public ownership of British Steel falls far to the left of the Government, for example.
The councillor in question replied to me as follows: "I am centre right that is a fact ,a popular policy like lowering tax will always be popular , removing illegals that cost us billions will always be popular etc etc"
In that one sentence he conflated populism with the notion of being popular. It isn't an unusual mistake to make and I don't criticise him for it, it's not reasonable to expect councillors to be experts in political theory.
But it is important to note that populism isn't about being popular, although some of the policies of a populist party may well be, it's about how the party looks at the world.
Cas Mudde describes populism as being a set of ideas, that may well have a 'host' ideology attached to them that sets the 'good' people against the 'bad' elite. It assumes that the people hold a common set of values and is moral ideology that paints the 'people' as good and the elite, or establishment, or whatever you want to call them as corrupt.
Perhaps most importantly Mudde describes populism as 'an illiberal democratic response to liberal democracy'.
The real issue is that in a liberal democracy we believe in the concept of popular sovereignty and majority rule, but we also believe in minority rights, the rule of law and separation of powers. In that sense we can argue that democracy has progressed from a relatively simplistic electoral version to a much more complex monitory model that takes into account supranational bodies and institutions, courts and treaties.
The essence of populism is that through a strengthened executive it is free to undermine the judiciary, the media, the rule of law and the rights of minorities (if those minorities don't accord with the homogenous views or characteristics of 'the people').
So, going back to my discussion with the unnamed councillor, I don't expect him to understand any strict definition of populism. What I do expect him to recognise is that populism readily infringes on the rights of minorities, and to ask himself if he is happy with that?
And, just as importantly, to remind himself often that you never know when you may become a minority yourself.