Populist figures and parties present themselves as the solution, as a force uniquely able to understand and serve an oppressed and neglected electorate. As important as seeing who politicians include in this imagined community is seeing who they exclude from it.
By Clara JUAREZ MIRO
As support for populist movements grows rapidly around the world, the term “populism” has become something of a buzzword. It is used to describe a wide range of movements and public figures, in equally diverse political contexts. These include right-wing figures like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Narendra Modi in India, but also left-wing figures like Bernie Sanders in the US, Pablo Iglesias in Spain and Julius Malema in South Africa. To complicate matters further, scholars tend to use different definitions of populism. Some consider it an ideology, others a type of discourse, and even a form of governance.
Despite these differences, most definitions agree on one basic idea: populism divides society into two opposing groups: the “pure people” and the “corrupt elites.”
The concept of “the people” is the foundation of populism, but we still know relatively little about what it actually means for supporters to see themselves as part of this group. Much of the research has focused on populist parties and leaders themselves, including the way they present their version of “the people” as morally superior to corrupt elites. My research looks at the other side, to understand what this means for the supporters who, through their votes, bring these politicians to power.
AN INFINITELY ELASTIC CONCEPT
Some authors have argued that the ambiguity of who “the people” actually are is precisely one of the key elements of populism’s appeal. Because the idea is broad and elastic, it can move from one country to another and from one political ideology to another, enabling different groups of voters to identify with it and imagine themselves as part of the same larger community. And this is not just true of “the people.” Terms such as “the establishment” or “elites” are similarly used to identify, in a broad sense, those who are not part of “the people.” This elasticity means that the people who fall within the concept of “the people” can vary enormously.
Politicians may use the term to refer to those who share a particular cultural identity, as French right-wing populist Marine Le Pen does when she uses this concept to promote policies that prioritize French citizens.
Similarly, others use the term as something that directly corresponds to national affiliation. For example, the Spanish far-right populist party Vox often claims to speak for “the Spanish people.” Others, like the German populist Sahra Wagenknecht—whose political position combines elements of the far-left and far-right—use the term to refer to groups in economic hardship. For example, she defends those who, she says, have been “forgotten by politicians for years,” demanding higher wages and stronger social benefits. Although the members of this imagined group may be completely different, populists of all stripes present “the people” as a united and morally good group whose interests are being ignored or betrayed by corrupt elites.
Populist figures and parties present themselves as the solution, as a force that is uniquely able to understand and serve an oppressed and neglected electorate.
Just as important as looking at who politicians include in this imagined community is looking at who they exclude from it. On the right, this exclusion is often made on cultural or racial grounds, while the left typically excludes the wealthier classes of society. Populist politicians may even suggest that anyone who disagrees with them is not really “the people.” The British populist and one of the architects of Brexit, Nigel Farage, put it in the most direct sense possible when he said: “We are the people. The Brexit Party is the people.”
POPULIST SUPPORTERS
Previous studies have measured how strongly voters identify with “the people.” However, to better understand what it means to belong to this group, we need to take a step back and examine the interpretations, emotions, and experiences that supporters associate with this imagined community. One way to do this is to talk to supporters of various populist movements to understand what it means for them to be part of “the people.” Another way is to examine the communication between these supporters in online communities. These spaces, not limited by geography, allow people to interpret political messages together, develop a shared sense of identity and belonging, and negotiate who is included, and who is excluded, from “the people.”
In a recent study, I analyzed 6.000 interactions in online communities, as well as 33 in-depth interviews with right- and left-wing populist supporters. The analysis showed that populist supporters identified with “the people” in three ways: through how they imagined this group, how they felt about it, and how they experienced being part of it.
As previous research has suggested, supporters often imagine “the people” as hardworking, decent, and morally legitimate. Supporters on the right link this identity to cultural affiliation, while those on the left emphasize a working-class identity. But this identification is also deeply emotional. Supporters express strong affection and loyalty to their favorite populist politicians, while displaying anger and fear toward elites, opponents, and groups they perceive as threats to the community. They also express deep love and understanding for other members of “the people,” whether that community is more abstract or consists of concrete people they interact with online or in real life.
They also experience “the people” through relationships and political participation. Interacting with other people who are perceived as members of “the people” creates a sense of belonging, affirmation, and purpose, while political activity, whether physically, in rallies and protests, or online, can strengthen this sense of community and encourage further participation.
Taken together, these findings suggest that support for populism is not just about ideas or policies. Identification with “the people” works because the elasticity of the term allows politicians to shape it in persuasive ways, and because supporters’ interpretations align with these political messages. But this identification also carries an aspiration: it offers a sense of community and belonging to those who manage to see themselves as part of this group. It helps supporters feel that they belong somewhere, that others understand them, and that they are connected to a common purpose. (The Conversation)