This contribution discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Cas Mudde’s minimalist
definition to study populism. It argues that his proposal might facilitate consensus
among scholars, yet his conceptualization is an obstacle to grasp the complexity of
populism in its diverse manifestations over space and time. Moreover, some underlying
normative assumptions limit the reach of his concept to small rightwing populist
European parties at the fringes of the political system. The article argues for the necessity
to recognize pluralism and hybridism avoiding any reductionism in populism
scholarship. Populism cannot be reduced to one of its components, like a moralist ideology.
Populism is also a strategy, a political style, and a discursive frame.