I was on the radio discussing the attempt on the life of the Slovakian prime minister Robert Fico. Mr Fico, we kept saying, was a populist. This much we knew. But I thought it prudent to check the definition of populism. The Chambers dictionary has a populist as: “A person who believes in the right and ability of the common people to play a major part in government.” This feels disappointingly broad to me, if only insomuch as you can’t imagine a politician saying the opposite – that they didn’t believe in the right and ability of the common people to govern themselves. Google, its dictionary provided by Oxford Languages which is responsible for the Oxford English Dictionary, isn’t much more help. “A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” This too is surely standard stuff from politicians of all stripes. There must be something better than this, surely? It’s too important to be a case of knowing it when you see it or, as one of my daughters might put it, “just a vibe”. I thought I better check if my confusion is – as is generally the case – down to my considerable intellectual limitations. I asked a third year politics student of my acquaintance what her definition would be. “How should I know?” she said. I pressed on, contacting the most left-wing intellectual I know, and also the most right-wing. And a couple of avowed centrists too. They’re all well-known, but I’ll not name them because I really don’t want to be in the middle of any public spat that may arise. The left-winger booted this definition into my penalty area: “I’d say broadly a political project which appeals to the broader populace on the basis their interests aren’t only different from a defined elite group but on a collision course with them.” From way over on the other wing came this: “On one level it’s the opposite of whatever The Economist reckons. I would say its defining characteristics in practice are the rejection of mass immigration and corporatism with a dash of nationalism and protectionism. Socially right and economically left.” Storming down the middle of the pitch, one of the centrists said, “Generally a movement setting up the will of the people versus a corrupt elite.” The other said, “An ideology and methodology which views society and politics through the lens of a historic battle between the virtuous downtrodden masses and the evil elite in which progress depends upon the total defeat of the latter.” Fascinating but, to my mind, inconclusive. So we have a word which features heavily in modern political commentary that turns out to have so broad a definition it may well be useless. I suppose you could say the same is true of other political systems and isms. Democracy itself is plainly an elastic concept. As are Marxism, socialism, conservatism and so on. But all of these isms have adherents who are loud and proud of it. As my left-winger puts it: “Populists don’t normally say they’re populist … it’s mostly used by the opponents of something.” And my right-winger says: “It’s pretty meaningless and usually says more about the people saying it than the people described by it … it’s mainly used to describe any party that makes a serious effort to go against the prevailing political consensus.” The Centrist Dad in me is pleased no end to find such common ground between people at opposite ends of the political spectrum. My favourite definition came from someone else, a football commentator friend as it happens: “Being prepared to talk any old bollocks because you think there’s a few quid in it. A monumental grift and a bullies’ charter.” This is the one I’ll roll with, I think, as it’s written in my kind of language.