Left Populism and the Rule of Law. Notes Based on the Greek and Ecuadorian Experiences

Populism and the rule of law have been more often than not depicted as necessarily antithetical to each other. Although it has received less attention in the relevant literature than its right counterpart, left populism is also treated with suspicion. The paper problematises the all too common attitude of having populism as the ultimate peril for the rule of law. Such a critical undertaking is pursued in two ways. Firstly, through a definitional discussion on how to best interpret and treat populism and the rule of law. The view adopted here is that the discursive approach to populism and the functional one to the rule of law are the best proxies to understand the two notions at stake, as they seem better equipped than rival theories to pay heed to context and contingency. Secondly, the paper conducts an empirical analysis of two left populist practices–those of Alexis Tsipras in Greece and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. If taken to an extreme, left populism may be problematic in terms of tempering abuses of power. At the same time however, left populism may also spur processes of institutional strengthening that increase state legitimacy, arguably another fundamental component of the rule of law. Yet both aspects should be assessed empirically on a case by case basis rather than by reference to theory, as populism can manifest itself very differently and the rule of law should be understood in terms of use rather than meaning.