Populism and inclusion

Populism, as a social and political construct that describes a particular relationship between the public and its leaders, has been observed to involve an understanding of society that positions ordinary people against the smaller group of elite individuals who hold power in the context in question. This relationship is seen as antagonistic, with the public being morally superior (Mudde and Kaltwasser, 2017). In this, it is important to note that populism does not align with a single political philosophy or position, and populist movements have emerged in a range of political contexts (Kaltwasser, 2013), as well as in various geographic locations and historical periods (Gidron and Bonikowski, 2013).

For this reason, it is possible to view populism as a vehicle for greater inclusion in the political and social context, a situation that is generally accepted as beneficial for well-being and giving individuals a stake in their community (Taket et al, 2009). It is this aspect of populism that has implications for action in various areas that include community development but also public health, education and politics itself, in which grassroots activities may figure prominently (Aslanidis, 2007). Filc (2010) notes the significance of inclusion and exclusion in populist politics and finds that inclusion and exclusion have three separate types: material, symbolic and political. In this conceptualisation, material inclusion and exclusion relate to policies that provide benefits or support to specific groups within the population, while symbolic inclusion and exclusion derive from political rhetoric that can be altered to create new social understandings. Finally, political inclusion and exclusion have to do with structures in the political environment, such as parties and organisations that can be structured to facilitate membership and participation. While it has been suggested that populism can be seen as a destabilising force in democracy because of the priority it gives to majority rule, for example (see Pappas, 2013), Kaltwasser and Mudde (2012) also note that populism may act as a corrective in a democratic system.

In Indonesia specifically, the period since the end of the New Order government of President Soeharto in 1998 and the subsequent period of Reformasi (Reform) has been characterised by dynamic discussion and celebration of democracy.