{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02071563088512241, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00423728813559322, 'mean_word_length': 4.886426592797784, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Development after statism: industrial firms and the political economy of South Asia

their position. Müller thinks it is more important to talk with populists rather than talking like them or talking about them. Other political actors should engage with populists on the issues raised by them, but the terms of engagement should be rephrased and backed by strong evidence and statistics. Müller believes proper argument and evidence can make a difference and create a dent in populist support base. He illustrates this claim by referring to George Wallace’s 1968 presidential campaign. But Müller does not show how effective it is in the current political context. Can a populist be countered with proper arguments and evidence in a post-truth world where truth has increasingly lost its relevance? In a world where facts are fudged and truths are manufactured, it will not be easy to challenge the populists with correct statistics. Another way to challenge the populist, both on symbolic as well as practical level, is to reach out to the section of population who considers themselves excluded or left out by the liberal elites. Populism may not be a corrective to liberal democracy, but Müller concedes that populism creates an opportunity to look into the current ‘failures of representation’ (p. 103) in liberal democratic systems. Müller’s analysis of populism provides a refreshingly new dimension to the understanding of the phenomenon, but what still may trouble some of the readers is the rise of populist leaders to power across the world. Müller fails to explain this rise. If it is explained with ‘broken promises of democracy’ (p. 75) or ‘failures of representation’, then the rise of populists also implies that they are more inclusive than the liberal elites. Moreover, liberal elites recognise populism as a threat only when populists capture power, especially in powerful countries. Is it because of the inherent difficulty involved in separating a non-populist from a would-be populist as both claim to represent the people, either in part or in totality? Both Müller and his readers need to ponder this.