“It wasn’t me”: Why context matters in comparative constitutional studies on populisms—A reply

This reply engages with Antoni Abat i Ninet’s review of Giuseppe Martinico’s Filtering ­Populist Claims to Fight Populism: The Italian Case in a Comparative Perspective. I am grateful for the thoughtful critique, which provides an opportunity to clarify the scope and methodological choices underlying my work. The book does not claim to offer a universal theory of the relationship between populism and constitutionalism. Rather, it focuses on the specific historical trajectory of post-World War II European constitutionalism, particularly the “thick” version that emphasizes countermajoritarianism through devices like eternity clauses and strong judicial review. Ultimately, this reply seeks to situate the book as a legal contribution to a debate still dominated by political science and sociology.