How to Tell Nativists from Populists

Abstract

Ben Margulies' critique centers on question of whether antidemocrats and nativists constitute political phenomena that can be meaningfully distinguished from populism, with latter understood as equivalent to democratic illiberalism. In fact, we can demarcate a class of clearly antidemocratic parties using authoritative sources—namely, courts of law in various countries that have decided cases against certain parties on basis of actual political deeds. The distinction between populists and nativists is somewhat more complicated, and hinges on two groups' contrasting relations with liberalism. Unlike Margulies, I define this concept in terms of acceptance of and approaches toward cross-cutting cleavages of modern society, as well as a commitment to rule of law and minority rights. Empirically, we can identify nativist parties by focusing on ten specific conditions, including a negative stance on immigration, right-wing policy positions, a programmatic orientation, weak or collective leadership, and a rejection of division made by populists between the people and an elite.