The term "populism" has been widely misused of late.
Actual populism simply means being a leader who does what the people want.
It involves having a sense of the common good, and a basic desire to make life better for the many, if not all.
At its worst, populism, in some cases(such as in the U.S. in the 19th Century) has pandered to bigotry...but that pandering doesn't define the idea, and it's entirely possible(and has been done by people like Jim Hightower in Texas in the Eighties and Nineties to Hugo Chavez at his best) to have a populist politics that is free of bigotry and demagogy.
What people like D___d T___p, Vladimir Putin, the near-fascist leaders of Hungary and Poland, Doug Ford, and the increasingly psychotic Rodrigo Duterte represent is not "populism" in the true sense. Their politics are not about doing what the people want-they are about punishing one part of the people to appease the unjustified resentments of another part of the people. They are about a rigid fixation with "order" at the expense of all other values. They are about the notion that a nation needs to be led by a strong, harsh, inflexible "great father" figure, who is seen as all-knowing and infallible; the rest of the population are expected to see themselves as "the children", who can never have any say in the decisions that affect them, but must simply obey, in exchange for a beautiful, delusional myth of "national greatness".
Therefore, since they aren't technically fascist-these leaders go through the motions of having elections, allow a nominally independent press, and have not as yet ordered mass executions, I propose that we label their ideology as "Patriarchalism". "Patriarchalism" suits the words and deeds of these figures, and allows the rest of us to reclaim the term "populism" to mean what it was always meant to mean: the empowerment and liberation of ALL of the people.