Populism and democracy to come -: Populism, institutions and radical change

Contrary to the dominant view in today's academia (and beyond), this paper argues populism is needed in order to carry out radical progressive change. It also argues that this position can be established in accordance within a general deconstructive (or ‘hauntological’) position. Overall my claim is populism is the hauntological (or perhaps even dirty) by-runner of Derrida’s democracy to come, which is needed in order to bring about radical change. Contrary to Derrida’s – at least more explicit – ethical/political considerations in terms of messianism, hauntology highlights the inherent dangers in ‘radical change’: populism is needed, but it cannot guarantee a progressive direction of the changes.
Apart from Derrida I base my arguments in Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theoretical articulation of populism as a political logic. However, a set of the theory’s constitutive distinctions need further deconstruction. Firstly the concept of institution, based on the distinction between difference and equivalence. Second, the concept of radical change (or rather radical exteriority) insufficiently theorised through the concept of antagonism. These theoretical moves both significantly affects the concept of populism (as an ‘ontological’ political logic), and bring us in a better position to understand and eventually act strategically in order to achieve progressive radical change – with the risks and possibilities inherent in any popular mobilisation.
The point of the paper is to both defy the hegemonic interpretation of populism as anti-democratic, but at the same time include its dangers – its haunting – in our thinking of it.