Scholars and scientist immersed in perspective defining populism as a form of political strategy distinguish various aspects of focus in their research such as forms of mobilization, political organization, and policy choices. One of them being, a sociologist from the University of Michigan, Robert S. Jansen’s article entitled “Populist Mobilization: A New Theoretical Approach to Populism” that introduced the concept of populist mobilization upon the example of mid-twentieth century politics of Latin America. He advocated for the shift of the term away from “populism” to “populist mobilization,” and explained it as “political means that can be undertaken by challengers and incumbents of various stripes in pursuit of a wide range of social, …show more content…
To begin with, Paul Taggart asserted that populism is “particularly liable to the politics of personality” due to its “lack of key values.” As he stated, a strong charismatic leader is a main feature of every populist party. This argumentation is with accordance of the study of both Latin American and European populism by Takis S. Pappas, a professor of comparative politics, who stated that “populism obtains when a certain political entrepreneur is able to polarize politics by creating a cleavage based on the interaction between the people versus some establishment, thus forging a mass political movement.” For Pappas, charismatic leader has a special recognition of populism and its existing conditions in a certain country. Thus, is responsible for not only positive but also negative outcomes of the party. Nevertheless, some scientists such as Robert Barr, a professor of political science and international relations, argued against focusing solely on political leaders while attempting to define populism. For him, politicians certainly are immediately connected with populism, however, he claims they are not truly fundamental. As Barr asserted populism is reflect[ing] the specific combination of appeals, location and linkages that suggests a correction based on enhanced accountability rather than increased participation. More specifically, it is a mass movement led by an outsider or maverick seeking to gain or maintain power by using anti-establishment appeals and plebiscitarian