The law between the various faces of populism

The category of populism is notorious for its polysemy, creating a fog in the theoretical landscape, especially regarding strategies to preserve democratic space. The difficulty in outlining its main characteristics reflects the methodological complexity in addressing such a phenomenon. In light of this, the present investigation seeks to answer the question: how has political science addressed populism? Based on this question, the study aims to identify the predominant traditions of thought on populism in political science and, by extension, to explore connections with legal debates on the relationship between democracy and constitutionalism. Thus, through a conceptual mapping conducted using inductive logic, the investigation identified two main traditions of thought. The first is called democratic-liberal, in which populism is seen as a threat to democracy, a perspective dominant in the academic realm. In contrast, the second strand views populism as a possibility of politics. By exploring these traditions of thought, it was possible to identify that the first offers greater deference to constitutionalism, perceiving the limits it imposes as insurmountable for the establishment of a democracy; whereas the second offers greater deference to democracy, not limiting such an expression to established boundaries. This is a conceptual mapping constructed through inductive logic and developed through exploratory research and a literature review.

Keywords:
Democratic Legitimacy; Crisis of Democracy; Social Instability; Representation.