New Delhi: Renowned political theorist Partha Chatterjee said the term populism has gained prominence only in recent decades, underlining that it was “not a word widely used in the 1970s,” but has since become central to understanding political developments worldwide. Further, he suggested that fascism can only be an “‘ultranationalist right-wing movement”. Chatterjee made this observation while delivering the fourth Nikhil Chakravartty Memorial Lecture, organised by The Book Review on March 7 at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi. He examined the relationship between populism and fascism in his lecture ‘Populism and Fascism: Differences and Convergences’. Tracing the roots of contemporary populist politics, Chatterjee outlined the transformation of Western democracies after the Second World War. The expansion of the welfare states across Europe and the United States enabled sections of the working class to achieve middle-class prosperity, he said. From the 1970s onwards, however, criticism of these systems emerged through the neoliberal economic doctrines associated with figures such as Milton Friedman and the political programmes of leaders including Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, Chatterjee noted. The resulting shift towards neoliberal policies, he said, led to glaring inequalities and social discontent. Many groups of people, particularly those in industrial regions experiencing economic decline, felt they were “rotting in the peripheries” and excluded from opportunities available to others. This resentment, he argued, also fed into anti-immigrant politics in Europe, seen in movements associated with figures such as Nigel Farage during the Brexit campaign.Talking about the work of theorist Ernesto Laclau, Chatterjee explained that populism operates by bringing together disparate grievances under the symbolic banner of “the people”. Such mobilisation often constructs a political divide between “the true people and the enemy of the people, the elite,” allowing diverse social groups to unite around common demands, he said. Unlike the ideologically rigid political movements, populist politics could combine both right-wing and left-wing elements. “Populist movements need not adhere to a single ideology,” he noted, pointing to examples ranging from right-wing populism in parts of Eastern Europe to left-leaning populist movements in Latin America.Chatterjee said the trajectory of populism has been different in India, adding that while populism in the West emerged amid the shrinking of the state, Indian populism developed in the context of its expansion. After the political fluctuations of the late 1960s, Indira Gandhi reasserted central authority by presenting the government as a “benevolent protector of the poor” and introducing welfare measures that reinforced her political legitimacy, he mentioned. Over time, Chatterjee said, electoral politics in India had increasingly taken the form of “mass clientelism,” with parties tailoring welfare promises to different sections of society based on caste, class, gender and region.The political theorist then turned to the distinction between populism and fascism. While both forms of politics often involve charismatic leaders claiming to embody the unity of the nation, he stressed that historically, fascist regimes, through cooperation with conservative factions, ultimately dismantled democratic institutions. Therefore, he argued that while populism can be left and right, fascism can only be an “ultranationalist right-wing movement”. Referring to the experience of Europe in the twentieth century, Chatterjee noted that fascist movements had initially come to power through parliamentary processes but later “did away with parliamentary democracy and established dictatorships”.Contemporary politics, he suggested, raised similar questions about the future of democratic institutions. Pointing to the attack on the United States Capitol by Donald Trump’s supporters in 2021, Chatterjee pointed to the increasing tendency of a populist movement gaining fascist elements. Drawing a parallel with India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he argued that it remains to be seen whether populist mobilisation would remain within democratic frameworks or evolve into more authoritarian forms.“The question,” he concluded, “is whether populist regimes, when faced with defeat, allow democratic alternation of power, or seek to transform the political system itself.”Saurya Mishra is a post-graduate in political science and currently Lead Policy Researcher at a Member of Parliament’s office. Ishan Fouzdar is a doctoral student working on a conceptual history of decolonisation at Shiv Nadar University.