Introduction
This essay seeks to delve into the strategies of Radical Right Populist Parties since the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on their potential role in advancing what can be termed as a „5th wave of populism“ (Battista, 2023).
Populism is often analysed in waves to describe its historical development. Right now, there is an ongoing debate in the research field, if we live in the uprising of a 5th wave, characterized by election denying, deplatforming, and restrategizing (Battista, 2023). The new era of conspiratorial populists since the outbreak of the pandemic has given rise to misinformation and increased polarization (Bergmann, 2020). The transformation in the media environment has played a pivotal role in the ascendancy of new forms of right-wing populism. Online media platforms have proven instrumental in the dissemination of Conspiracy Theories. This phenomenon can be referred to as “media populism” (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017).
This essay has three main objectives. First, it addresses the lack of theory on the role of new media and its contribution to a new era of populism. Second, it looks at how mediatisation, the process of institutions transforming due to increased media influence, influences populism and how populists incorporate media logic into politics. Third, it looks at how conspiracy theories shape populist narratives.
Research question
This essay aims to understand how these parties have seized upon the pandemic to further their populist agendas, and what this implies for populist theory in the academic discourse.
The research question focuses on how populist figures instrumentalize the media and conspiracy theories which changes and expands the theory on how populism goes in waves.
Methodology
The research question will be investigated with text analysis of significant scholarly work in the academic discourse. The increased dissemination of fake news and conspiracy theories in novel media has clearly facilitated the widespread development of a post-truth politics in recent years. It is therefore important both to frame and carefully interpret the nature of populist political communication in our time and contribute to the theoretical gap in the academic literature.
Contextualization
The first phase of right-wing extremism, from 1945 to around 1980, focused mainly on history and descriptions, exploring links between pre-war and post-war eras. The second phase, roughly from 1980 to 2000, saw an increase in social science literature, especially various modernization theories (Mudde, 2016).
The third phase started around the year 2000, with scholars turning more attention to the supply-side of populist radical right politics and included the role of the party in the analytical framework. The fourth phase emerged during the European migrant crisis in 2015, bringing renewed focus and scholarly interest in the current dynamics of far-right politics, particularly regarding challenges posed by mass migration (Mudde, 2016).
The study of populist radical right movements has lacked significant theoretical advancement since the early 1990s. Populism, as a field of study, remains fragmented and scattered, with scholars yet to fully acknowledge the breadth of research from different contexts and times. There is an evident hesitancy to systematically integrate insights from diverse sources (Kaltwasser et al, 2020).
The current use of the term “populism” often overlooks or ignores existing research on the subject. This neglect of the wealth of knowledge accumulated across various situations and periods hinders the development of a more comprehensive and interconnected understanding of this complex political phenomenon (Kaltwasser et al, 2020).
There’s not enough systematic research examining party ideology or exploring the reasons behind their electoral success, much of the scholarly work is narrowly centred on specific issues like immigration, ethnic minorities, and European integration (Mudde, 2016).
Although recent studies have started exploring overlooked political areas such as gender, media, and religion, there is still much more to investigate. The media’s role, in particular, hasn’t been thoroughly examined. Populism, both on the left and right, is becoming increasingly important in regard to political communication (Mudde, 2016).
To comprehensively grasp how affective media contributes to populism, it is essential to develop a theoretical understanding of populist political ontology (Jutel, 2019). It’s crucial to understand the complex relationship between the media and populist radical right parties, especially since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in popular press outlets, as well as on social media.
Defining populism
Populism comes from the Latin word “populus,” meaning the people, aligning with the concept of the Nation. It emphasizes the public against the elite, and throughout history, political movements centred around the people have existed (Bergmann, 2020). Populism is a controversial concept without a fixed doctrine, representing a collection of distinct claims with inherent logic (Müller, 2016).
The existing literature on populism faces challenges in defining the concept. Some definitions are too broad, including all parties claiming to represent the people, while others are too specific, focusing mainly on radical right-wing parties (Rydgren, 2017).
According to Mudde and Kaltwasser, populism isn’t a comprehensive ideology like fascism or liberalism, it’s a thin-centred ideology with limited characteristics often linked to other ideologies (Rydgren, 2017). Müller sees populism as a specific moralistic view of politics, a framework that imagines a morally pure and fully unified, fictional, people against elites seen as corrupt or morally inferior (Müller, 2016).
The division of society into the “pure people” and a “corrupt elite,” populism is perceived by scholars as a threat to democracy, especially liberal democracy. Radical right parties often show authoritarian tendencies and use conspiracy theories, particularly in the new digital age (Pajnik & Sauer, 2020). They challenge democratic values, erode trust in institutions, and fuel polarization (Weyland, 2018).
Contrary to popular belief, populists don’t necessarily oppose representation; instead, they may support a specific version of it. Populists endorse representation when they believe the right individuals represent the right people to make informed judgments and do what they see as right (Müller, 2016).
Populism as a political style
Another perspective in the literature sees populism not as a full-fledged ideology but as a form of discourse or style in political expression (Rydgren, 2017). The term “political style” is used to capture elusive and ephemeral political phenomena (Moffitt, 2016).
In simple terms, political style refers to how politicians present themselves in politics, using images, body language, design, and staging to navigate power dynamics. This approach emphasizes the stylized nature of contemporary politics, linking political style to changes in media, culture, and celebrity influence (Moffitt, 2016).
Unlike approaches focusing solely on political content, the political style approach considers both content and presentation, highlighting the “how” of populism, not just the “what.” Populism, viewed as a political style, gains momentum by dramatizing crises, appealing to “the people” against “the elite” (Moffitt, 2016).
This essay posits that a synthesis of both definitions is optimal within the context of the subject matter. Contemporary political dynamics exhibit a discernible trend towards an emphasis on political style, wherein performance and dramatization play pivotal roles in the conduct of populist figures. The central focus of this essay is on the observed transformation in this regard. Yet, to support these ideas with a solid theoretical foundation, the perspectives of Kaltwasser and Mudde, viewing populism as a thin-centred ideology are particularly endorsed.
Mediatization
The media’s role in shaping public opinion has intensified with digital technologies. The concept of “mediatization” helps to understand the interaction between media and political logics, particularly for right-wing populists advocating for a more open and popular form of politics (Pajnik & Meret, 2018).
The mediatisation hypothesis suggests that politics is increasingly influenced by media logic, favouring styles like populism in the contemporary political landscape (Moffitt, 2016). However, existing research lacks a systematic analysis of this connection.
Nowadays politicians, including populists, use public relations strategies to influence media coverage, thus shaping political discourse (Moffitt, 2016).
In the new age of politics, using media can deeply influence various social and political domains. Mediatization shapes politics, making them dependent on entertainment and dramatization. Access to media, earned or through social media, empowers figures to influence public opinion outside the normal political process (Jutel, 2019).
This has gained new momentum. The rise of right-wing populist parties is linked to the commercialization and privatization of media, along with the adoption of social media. This transformation contributes to symbolic politics and de-politicization through innovative communication approaches (Sauer et al, 2018). As mentioned earlier, framing populism as a political style aligns with these evolving trends and holds promise for future scholarly inquiries.
The success of right-wing populism is accelerated by shifts in media roles and styles, amplified by the Internet and social media. These changes provide new avenues for political actors to connect with citizens, creating a conducive stage for populist movements (Sauer et al, 2018).
The subsequent paragraphs will delineate the avenues that have been utilized since the onset of the pandemic, explaining how these platforms have provided them with enhanced visibility in the media landscape.
The importance of social media
Looking at major episodes of populists using social media from the late 2000s, such as the emergence of the US Tea Party in 2009 and Donald Trump’s 2015 campaign, academic studies have explored the relationship between populism and social media (Moffitt, 2018).
In the aftermath of the second wave of populism, an argument gained popularity, suggesting that social media is a key factor in the rise of populism. This perspective claims that populists effectively use social media to connect directly with the public, bypassing traditional media and gaining an edge over mainstream competitors (Moffitt, 2018).
Moffitt contributes to the study of populism regarding social media by warning against four pitfalls: misinterpreting online directness as genuine connection, overstating the supposed unmediated nature of populism, assuming two-way online communication, and assuming uniformity in how populists use social media (Moffitt, 2018).
The far-right’s communicative revolution involves a change in the style and role of political communication, creating new forms of communication and discourse. The Internet hence becomes a powerful tool for right-wing populists (Sauer, et al, 2018).
The rise of online media has favoured conspiratorial populists in spreading distorted information. By capitalizing on controversies, populists attract attention, using pushback from the establishment to advance their agenda (Bergmann, 2020). Research indicates that right-wing populist parties heavily rely on communicative strategies, given their weaker organizational structure compared to traditional parties (Sauer, et al, 2018).
This dependence underscores the critical role of media, especially new media, in right-wing populist communication. It emphasizes the need to recognize the diverse ways populists engage with social media, challenging simplistic links between social media and the global rise of populism.
Instrumentalization of conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories provide simple narratives that divide the world into insider and outsider groups. They create a sense of exclusivity, making extremist narratives more appealing. Furthermore, they foster group cohesion and protect followers from external influences, attributing events to a secretive few (Lee, 2020).
Conspiracy theories are effective in maintaining group solidarity and dismissing counternarratives as part of a larger plot. They exist in the realm of “stigmatized knowledge,” claiming connections between seemingly unrelated events and people (Lee, 2020).
These narratives not only explain events but also make extremist groups more attractiveby portraying followers as heroic or knowledgeable individuals, enhancing their agency. The prevalence of uncertainty contributes to belief in conspiracy theories (Lee, 2020). While these theories align with radical right-wing parties, it’s mainly because of these parties’ monist or anti-pluralist ideology (Rydgren, 2017). Populists use non transparent political procedures to strengthen their conspiracy theories.
Characteristics of the new wave of populism
In the new era, populism goes beyond a generic strategy to mobilize “the people”, it involves a distinctive language where populists claim to represent the true people, not just criticizing elites (Müller, 2016). Populist rhetoric, known for its strong emotions and confrontations, has been proven to be successful. It started by addressing economic concerns in the lower class but shifted from migration to the pandemic as global regulations tightened (Betz, 2018).
Mediatization processes have increased the spectacle of political communication, with political actors adopt populist strategies in line with journalistic standards and public relations techniques (Pajnik & Meret, 2018). Populist rhetoric simplifies complex issues into straightforward solutions, often focusing on problems like the expulsion of foreigners. Populism, if considered as a political style of mobilization, instils fear among the public by identifying scapegoats blamed for threatening our seemingly virtuous society (Bergmann, 2020).
Populist leaders employ a distinct communication style marked by dramatization and simplification to evoke emotional responses, intentionally provoking to attract attention and foster polarization. The terms “populism” and “conspiracy theory,” often viewed negatively, thrive on the Internet in echo chambers, alternative media, and counter-publics (Bergmann & Butter, 2020).
Leaders in power often fuel polarization by framing situations as apocalyptic confrontations labelled as existential threats, a tactic to legitimize their governance and present themselves as saviours (Müller, 2016). The appeal of conspiracy theories is linked to broader societal trends in the “age of uncertainty” resulting from advanced capitalism and globalization, particularly affecting marginalized groups. These theories gain traction when groups perceive themselves as under threat (Lee, 2020).
Instead of categorizing populist movements as conspiracist or not, it is more meaningful to recognize that these movements successfully integrate individuals who believe in conspiracy theories and those who do not (Bergmann & Butter, 2020).
Mediatization, where mass media takes on political functions, is part of a broader societal transformation. Right-wing populist parties use the internet for self-promotion, especially through social media, commenting on political affairs and spreading populist messages. Mediatization empowers parties with strong and personalized leadership, often associated with issue movements and flash parties that emphasize controversial leadership (Pajnik & Meret, 2018). This transformation shapes the political landscape and give populist actors a possibility to impose their beliefs in a new form.
Conclusion
This essay argues that media plays a central role in the unfolding of contemporary populism (Moffitt, 2016). The rise of populism and its shifts in the media landscape, often overlooked in existing literature, need examination. The Internet’s role in the interplay between democracy and populism deserves more research attention. This is especially essential, considering its theoretical gap. The findings in this essay contribute to the idea of a 5th wave of populism. This new age is characterized by politicians instrumentalization of the media, as well as conspiracy theory narratives.
As the academic literature catches up with the impact of social media on populism, it’s crucial to critically assess these claims rather than accepting them blindly. It’s crucial to avoid errors such as mistaking directness for genuine connection, exaggerating the unmediated nature of populism, assuming two-way communication, and presuming uniformity in how populists use social media (Moffitt, 2018).
The rise of conspiratorial populists has led to “post-truth politics,” where an excess of information overwhelms factual accuracy, and public discourse relies more on emotions and personal beliefs. The media landscape, flooded with indiscriminate information, makes it challenging for individuals to discern facts from fabrications. This environment fuels misinformation, making democratic societies susceptible to manipulation (Bergmann, 2020).
The contemporary media landscape has intensified polarization, aligning well with the rhetorical style of populist communicators. In this evolving media milieu, conspiracy theories find a more fertile ground for dissemination than ever before (Bergmann, 2020). Thus, introducing a change in not only populist practices, but also in our understanding of politics.
Battista, D. (2023). Knock, Knock! The Next Wave of Populism Has Arrived! An Analysis of Confirmations, Denials, and New Developments in a Phenomenon That Is Taking Center Stage. Soc. Sci., 12*(2), 100.
Bergmann, E. (2020). Populism and the Politics of Misinformation. The Journal of South African and American Studies, 21*(3), 251–265.
Bergmann, E., & Butter, M. (2020). Conspiracy Theory and Populism. In Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. Routledge, 330-343.
Betz, H. (2018). The Radical Right and Populism. In: The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right. Oxford University Press, 86-104.
Jutel, O. (2018). Donald Trump, American Populism and Affective Media. In Routledge Handbook of Global Populism. Routledge, 249-262.
Moffitt, B. (2016). The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford University Press.
Moffitt, B. (2018). Populism 2.0: Social Media and the False Allure of ‘Unmediated’ Representation. In Populism and the Crisis of Democracy. Routledge, 30-46.
Mudde, C. (2016). The Study of Populist Radical Right Parties: Towards a Fourth Wave. C-Rex Working Paper Series, No. 1/2016*. Center for Research on Extremism, University of Oslo, 1-23.
Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Müller, J. (2016). What Is Populism?. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pajnik, M., & Meret, S. (2018). Populism and the Web: Communicative Practices of Parties and Movements in Europe. In Populist Political Communication in Mediatized Society. Routledge, 35-54.
Rydgren, J. (2017). Radical Right-Wing Parties in Europe: What’s Populism Got to Do With It?. Journal of Language and Politics, 16*(4), 455-476.
Sauer, B., Krasteva, A., & Saarinen, A. (2018). Post-Democracy, Party Politics, and Right-Wing Populist Communication. In Populism and the Web: Communicative Practices of Parties and Movements in Europe. Routledge, 14-35.
Weyland, K. (2018). Populism and Authoritarianism. In Routledge Handbook of Global Populism. Routledge, 319-333.
rybicki.at 