Populism, democracy and property: An interview with Mark Devenney

Examining populism and its social consequences has become a pressing issue with the rise of the far right and the crisis of liberal democracies. It is within this horizon that the work of Mark Devenney is situated, a philosopher who has been critically rethinking the post-foundational and post-Marxist tradition. Professor at the University of Brighton and co-director of the Centre for Applied Philosophy, Politics and Ethics (Cappe), Devenney holds a PhD from the University of Essex and is globally recognised for his work on themes such as populism, critical theory, neoliberalism, coloniality, environmental politics and the politics of literature. Author of Ethics and politics in contemporary theory: between critical theory and post-marxism (2004) and Towards an improper politics (2020), he contributes to the international debate on democracy, articulating reflections that traverse philosophy and politics. His work stands out for its effort to reintroduce the materiality of property and colonial legacies as central elements for a post-Marxist understanding of contemporary political logics. Building on these formulations, Devenney co-authored Populist politics in contemporary Brazil: understanding lulism and bolsonarism (Edinburgh University Press 2026) with Daniel de Mendonça (ufpel) and Bianca Linhares (ufpel). In this interview, he offers a critical reading of the scope and limits of populist theory within post-foundational and post-Marxist thought. He analyses the tensions between populism and democracy, arguing that democracy must be understood as an incessant practice of equality that destabilises “proper” ways of being. The con-
versation also turns to the contemporary Brazilian context, marked by the tensions between Lulism and the rise of the far right. Devenney proposes ways of reflecting on the dilemmas of the left amidst the persistence of historical inequalities, coloniality and environmental destruction. Finally, he draws attention to the resistances that emerge in these contexts, demonstrating how social struggles continue to reaffirm the political as an opening. The interview is, therefore, doubly relevant: for its theoretical-conceptual formulations and for its critical diagnoses of the complex contemporary global scenario.