Paradigmi della "sovranità popolare"

Abstract

Populism, lacking a unified and universal theoretical manifesto,
cannot be considered a structured political ideology. As a result, retrospective analysis is the only viable method for researchers. Thus, most scholars tend to attribute the rise of (neo)populist politics entirely to the socio-economic transformations that have structurally affected liberal political systems. While these factors are undeniably crucial, if we focus only on them, we could risk to carry out partial analyses. Therefore, a long-term analytical perspective is necessary to deepen our understanding of populism. In the same way, it is also essential to employ interpretative categories from the history of political thought. Through this investigation, I  propose to locate populism within the broader history of the evolution of popular sovereignty. While populism is undeniably a unique  phenomenon shaped by its historical context, emphasizing its specificities without recognizing its historical and theoretical antecedents could be a mistake. By distinguishing between monist and pluralist conceptions of sovereignty, my analysis shows how populism reflects the ongoing tension between the recognition and the limitation of popular sovereignty, a tension present since the seminal theorizations conducted by Rousseau and Madison.