Populism’s elite-leader problem: From Bukele, Magufuli, and Trump to a theory of popular elitisms

Many theorists agree that populism divides the social field into a struggle of ‘people’ versus ‘elite’. Yet this is not what a series of alleged populists worldwide, from Bukele to Magufuli to Trump, do. Instead, they present themselves in elite terms. They flaunt their highness, rather than their lowness. Thereby, they neither divide the social into two, nor construct the struggle as one of below against above. I review attempts to resolve this contradiction. The only attempts which succeed involve removing the ‘people’/‘elite’ divide from populism’s definition or classifying elite-leader ideologies as non-populist. How instead, then, should such populism-adjacent elite-leader ideologies be analysed? I develop a framework in which to theorise ideologies which divide society into not two, but three. In it, I conceptualise four ideologies which construct the people-as-part alongside a good/moral elite as allies. I argue that they better capture the specificity of these hierarchical and inegalitarian elite-leader ideologies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
Published
2026-05-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481261441982
Primary Topic
Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Populism’s elite-leader problem: From Bukele, Magufuli, and Trump to a theory of popular elitisms

Dan Paget
The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
Populism, Right-Wing Movements
article

Populism’s elite-leader problem: From Bukele, Magufuli, and Trump to a theory of popular elitisms

Dan Paget
article en

Abstract

Many theorists agree that populism divides the social field into a struggle of ‘people’ versus ‘elite’. Yet this is not what a series of alleged populists worldwide, from Bukele to Magufuli to Trump, do. Instead, they present themselves in elite terms. They flaunt their highness, rather than their lowness. Thereby, they neither divide the social into two, nor construct the struggle as one of below against above. I review attempts to resolve this contradiction. The only attempts which succeed involve removing the ‘people’/‘elite’ divide from populism’s definition or classifying elite-leader ideologies as non-populist. How instead, then, should such populism-adjacent elite-leader ideologies be analysed? I develop a framework in which to theorise ideologies which divide society into not two, but three. In it, I conceptualise four ideologies which construct the people-as-part alongside a good/moral elite as allies. I argue that they better capture the specificity of these hierarchical and inegalitarian elite-leader ideologies.

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
University of Sussex (GB)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Populism, Right-Wing Movements
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.