Not the One and Not the Many: Reimagining the People against Populism

• In Event: The Demos and the Boundary Problem

Abstract

The rise of populist movements and leaders worldwide, calls for the reimagining of core democratic concepts, and mainly the concept of “the people” that is evoked by these movements. This article examines two contrasting concepts central to modern understandings of 'the people' in democracy: the people as a unified collective with a general will (people-as-one) versus the people as diverse individuals with competing preferences (people-as-many).
The concept of the people-as-one supports understanding democracy as collective self-rule and actualizing the general will of the people. In contrast, people-as-many aligns more with a procedural conception of democracy focused on decision-making methods for aggregating preferences. Both concepts relate to popular sovereignty, which has been closely coupled with democracy since Rousseau. However, they lead to conflicting visions.
By tracing the historical development of popular sovereignty through thinkers like Bodin, Hobbes and Rousseau, the article shows how the ‘democratic people’ were vested with supreme authority as sovereign while distinguishing this sovereignty from actual governance. This tension between sovereignty and government enabled contradictory notions of the “democratic people” to coexist and persist into contemporary democracies.
On one hand, the people-as-one notion readily establishes the democratic people as the source of authority and supreme power through popular sovereignty. Yet on the other hand, the concept of the people-as-many questions and undermines this authority by highlighting diversity and procedural, limited forms of democracy. Thus an inherent tension exists in how modern democracy conceives of the people.
This conceptual tension manifests empirically in contradictory citizen attitudes towards democracy. Research on the views of “populist citizens” shows they support both democratic institutions and principles yet also more majoritarian mechanisms that directly express the unified will of the people. While populists in power may threaten liberal democracy, regular citizens with populist attitudes combine elements of people-as-one and people-as-many. However, populist leaders strategically eliminate this tension in their rhetoric by presenting themselves as the embodiment of the singular, general will of the people unified as one.
The rise of populism accompanied by democratic decline and backsliding worldwide raises urgent questions regarding whether this longstanding conceptual tension remains sustainable. Thinkers like Canovan have argued the pragmatic and redemptive elements of democracy naturally conflict but also balance each other through ongoing struggle. Yet contemporary threats to democracy tied to populism prompt rethinking this equilibrium.
Rather than attempts to devise restraints or institutional fixes, the article suggests re-evaluating foundational concepts of democracy itself. It points to examining historical alternative traditions such as ancient Athens. For instance, Josiah Ober counters the notion that democracy equals majority rule or expressing a general will. Instead, he defines democracy as the collective capacity of diverse individuals to make good things happen through public action.
In this vein, preliminary ideas are put forth for reconceptualizing “the people” based on collective action, shared intentions and plural agency rather than popular sovereignty and a unified supreme will. This shifts the focus from authority and sovereignty towards enabling achievement of common goals together. An understanding in terms of plural “we-intentions” acknowledges diversity while not undermining collective self-governance.
The article suggests that developing such alternative perspectives further may point towards resolving unsustainable tensions in modern conceptualizations of the democratic people. As populism continues reshaping global politics, reimagining core concepts is imperative. By moving beyond notions of popular sovereignty and the strained duality it introduces between the people as sovereign unified collective versus their constrained procedural role as diverse individuals, we may formulate a more coherent foundation for the future of democracy.

Author

• Natan Milikowsky, Hebrew University of Jerusalem