The article depicts in a concise manner how populism can generally be understood, what it stands for within societal and political context of a nation, and, perhaps most importantly, to what extent it needs to be scrutinised more critically. The way it comes across here is primarily as a means, or tool, of politicising a country.
While populism innately generates confrontation between two parties, producing aggressors based on under- and over-representation within society, it is significant to note that it can and will highlight flaws in affected democracies as well -- whether this be positive or not in light of populism's influence, it certainly can open a gateway to change. The aspect of crowding around a leader to achieve as such seems slightly more problematic and rather antidotal to me. My understanding of democracy stems on the idea of the population being in power, not a spokesman turned leader while exceeding their initial function into a crass mobilisation, as is mentioned in the article. (6)
I want to neither agree nor disagree with the article's contents as it seems to successfully bring across a new understanding of populism and its effects on and connections to democracy.