I'd say that populism is opposed to democracy in the same way that gluttony is opposed to health. Eating a ton is better than eating nothing at all, but the goa

I'd say that populism is opposed to democracy in the same way that gluttony is opposed to health. Eating a ton is better than eating nothing at all, but the goal isn't mere survival. Populism subverts democracy, it doesn't further it. To your point about the Roman republic, I mean sure. But democracy itself isn't and never was a mechanism to give the less affluent an equal voice to the wealthy, who always set up their own, more prestigious power structure that could overrule the lesser if needed. US Senate, House of Lords, Athenian Areopagus, the Indian Rajya Sabha, all were mechanisms to allow affluent minorities exercise disproportionate influence. Putting the poor first, that's the aim of communism. In a republic, you have a voice. The rest of society, including the movers and shakers, still has to agree with it.