This study critically examines the works of three authors who analyze populist leadership and its associated political practices. The essay highlights a recurring issue in their analyses: the broad generalization and conflation of distinct political phenomena—such as clientelism, favoritism, corruption, and vote-buying—with the traits of populist leaders, rather than with the structural characteristics of the political systems in which these leaders operate. The authors’ emphasis on populist figures overlooks the fact that corrupt practices are also prevalent among non-populist leaders, legislators, and judicial actors within the same systems. Furthermore, the essay critiques the tendency to subsume authoritarian behaviors—such as political persecution, imprisonment of opponents, and suppression of civil liberties—under the umbrella of populism, thereby distorting the conceptual boundaries of the term.

In addition, the essay challenges the portrayal of populist movements as inherently xenophobic, nationalist, and racist. It argues that such attributes are not exclusive to populist actors and have been central to the platforms of non-populist leaders who exploit anti-immigration sentiments. This critique is particularly relevant in cases where populist governments have enacted legal and constitutional reforms aimed at expanding migration rights, thereby generating new social and political dynamics.

In sum, the essay offers a critical analysis of the central arguments presented in the three reviewed books, questioning their shared assumptions about the nature and expression of populism.