Populism as Values
Populism is not a complete ideology.Cas Mudde claimed that populist ideology is much inferior to socialism or liberalism in terms of content refinement and consistency.At best，it is a “thin-centred ideology”.[32] Paul Taggart also argued that the core value of populism is “hollow”.[33] In reality，many examples classified as populism cover both the left and the right sides in the political spectrum.Some political parties or politicians claiming to be “populism” often waver and lack consistency in their social and economic policies.Populism is easily attached to other relatively complete ideologies，thus showing different and elusive phenomena.For example，the Russian populism is attached to the ideology of utopian socialism or agricultural socialism，the American populism is attached to the extreme left-wing or right-wing political ideology，and the Western European populism is attached to nationalism or racism.Therefore，it is difficult to define the essence of populism from specific social or economic policies or ideological content.
Since the ideological characteristics of populism are not obvious，it is better to define it as a set of values，which embodies the view with the “people” in the core position. Populism，as values，has returned to a “doctrine”. A “doctrine” contains the ultimate concern for a certain value or a certain goal. For example，liberalism contains the ultimate concern for individual freedom，socialism contains the ultimate concern for social liberation，and capitalism contains the ultimate pursuit for maximizing capital gains. Excluding the numerous and complicated populist phenomena and their diversified definitions，populism，as values，is essentially a kind of “civilian doctrine”，which takes the civilians representing the “people” as its standard and contains the ultimate concern for the status，situation，interests and discourse rights of civilians.
This value of populism can be proved by its etymology. Benjamin Moffitt mentioned that the etymology of populism，as the key to a correct understanding of the term，is “clear enough，new enough and convincing enough that we must take it seriously.”[34] In Chinese，“民 ” means “people”and “粹” means “essence，quintessence”. However，etymologically，“populism” is a foreign word，and its English term originates from the Latin word “populi”；Its Russian counterpart нαродник originated from the radical народ，which means “people”. Both the English word populism and the Russian word народик share the meanings of “the people ’s faction”，“caring for the people”，“loving the people” and “advocating the people”.[35] Therefore，etymologically，there is a gene in the blood of populism that highly advocates “people”. As Marco Dramo said，populism has developed through the social category of “people” in history.[36] Laclau also mentioned that “in any example，it is certain that appealing to the‘people’ takes a central position in populism.”[37] Therefore，various populist phenomena have are most common in extremely advocating the “people”and idealizing the “people”.
However，the “people” itself is a concept that is difficult to define accurately in theory，and it has been hovering between “all citizens” and“grassroots civilians”. In European vocabulary，“people” is used to mean not only the main body of politics，namely，“all citizens”，but also the“lower class” excluded from politics.[38] Italian term popolo，French terms peuple and popularis，all refer to all citizens in the political sense，or the lower class.The English word “people” also retains its civilian significance relative to the rich and the noble.As Agamben said，rather than a complete subject，the concept of people is a dialectical swing between opposing poles: one pole is all the people as a political subject，and the other pole is the diversified concrete people who are poor and excluded.[39]
The “people” in populism also reflects a certain dialectical swing between “all citizens” and “civilians”.Many examples of populism have shown that “the people” in the populist sense seem to represent“all citizens” in form，but actually point to “specific people”，namely，“civilians”.“For the populists，the people have a specific meaning，that is，the civilians opposite to aristocrats or elites，or the lower class in the people with a hierarchical structure，or a certain vulnerable group among the people” [40] Therefore，populism takes civilians among people，especially the grassroots civilians or various vulnerable groups，as “the people”.According to populists，only these “civilians” are the “authentic people”，while those elites，dignitaries and even dangerous “the others” are not“people”.It is better to say that “the people” in the populist sense is an exclusive “people”.While constructing “the people”，populists has also constructed their opposites: elites，dignitaries or “the others”.Advocating“the people” is not necessarily populism，but constructing a binary opposition relationship between “the people” and “the elite” with antielitism is a prominent feature of populism.It is in this sense that populism is not regarded as a “conventional politics”，but more as an “abnormal politics” or a radical politics，which is easy to cause social division or confrontation.
In this sense，populism and elitism are opposing values.Populism emphasizes the value，position and functions of civilians in political society，claiming that virtue exists in civilians.Elitism puts more emphasis on the value，position and functions of elites in political society，claiming that virtue exists in elites.Cas Mudde holds that the two values of populism and elitism are not inclusive and both are “Moorish”.They simply divide the society into two highly homogeneous groups，elites and civilians，which are highly antagonistic.Populism and elitism are just the respective expressions of the political discourse of these two groups.Both populism and elitism deny the diversity，difference and particularity of the society and simply understand and judge social politics with monistic thinking，which is contradictory to pluralism.[41] However，according to pluralism，it is difficult to reach a consensus of interests within both elite groups and civilian groups.In the real political field，there is no highly homogeneous elite group or civilian group，instead，there are multiple interest groups competing with each other for political and economic resources.
Based on the above analysis，we have provided populism with a relatively clear connotation at the “doctrine” level，that is，it is a set of values that opposite to elitism that takes civilians as the standard，pays ultimate concern and extremely advocates civilians.