Populists Claim to Speak for “The People”—But Who Are They Actually Talking About?

LIVING

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

As support for populist movements surges around the world, the term has become something of a buzzword. It is used to describe very different movements and public figures in very different political contexts. These range from rightwing figures like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Narendra Modi in India, to leftists like the US’ Bernie Sanders, Spain’s Pablo Iglesias and South Africa’s Julius Malema.

To further complicate this issue, scholars tend to work with different definitions of populism. Some see it as an ideology, others a type of discourse, or even a form of government. Despite these differences, most definitions agree on one core idea. Populism divides society into two opposing groups: the “pure people,” and the “corrupt elites.”

The concept of “the people” is the bedrock of populism, but we still know relatively little about what it actually means for supporters to see themselves as part of this group. A great deal of research has focused on populist parties and leaders themselves, including how they present their version of “the people” as morally superior to the corrupt elites. My own research looks at the other side, to find out what it means to the supporters who vote them into power.

An Endlessly Flexible Concept

Some authors have argued that the vagueness of who “the people” are is actually a key element of populism’s strong appeal. Because the idea is broad and flexible, it can travel across countries and political ideologies, allowing different groups of voters to identify with it and imagine themselves as part of the same broader community.

This is not only the case for “the people”—terms like “establishment” or “elites” are used to similar effect to broadly identify those who are not “the people.”

This flexibility means that the people included in “the people” can vary considerably. Politicians can use the term to refer to those who share a particular cultural identity, as French rightwing populist Marine Le Pen does when she invokes it to promote policies giving priority to French citizens.

Similarly, others refer to it as directly overlapping with national groupings. Spain’s populist radical right party Vox, for instance, often claims to speak on behalf of “the Spanish people.”

Yet others, such as German populist Sahra Wagenknech—whose political position combines elements of the far left and right—use it to refer to economically disadvantaged groups, for instance advocating for those who have been “forgotten for years by politicians”, to promote higher wages and stronger social benefits.

While the members of this imagined group can be completely different, populists across the spectrum present “the people” as a unified and morally good group whose interests are being ignored or betrayed by corrupt elites. Populist figures and parties cast themselves as the solution, a force that is uniquely capable of understanding and serving a downtrodden, neglected electorate.

It is just as important to pay attention to who politicians include in this imagined community as to who they exclude. On the right, this often runs along cultural or racial lines, while the left typically excludes wealthier social classes.

Populist politicians may even suggest that anyone who disagrees with them does not truly belong to “the people” at all. British populist and Brexit architect Nigel Farage expressed this in the most literal terms when he said “we’re the people. The Brexit party are the people”.

Populist Supporters

Previous research has measured how strongly individual voters identify with “the people”. However, to better understand what belonging to this group means, we also need to take a step back and look at the interpretations, emotions and experiences that supporters attach to this imagined community.

One way of doing this is to talk to supporters of different populist movements, in order to grasp their understandings about what membership in “the people” entails. Another way can be to look at communication among these supporters in online communities. These spaces offer geographically unbounded spaces to interpret political messages together, develop a shared sense of identity and belonging, and negotiate who is included in—and excluded from—“the people”.

My own research has followed both of these lines. In a recent study, I analyzed 6,000 online community interactions, 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 imagine the group, how they feel about it, and how they experience being part of it.

As suggested by previous research, supporters often imagine “the people” as hard-working, deserving, and morally legitimate. Right-wing supporters connect this identity with cultural belonging, while left-wing supporters emphasize working-class identity.

However, this identification is also strongly emotional. Supporters express close affection and loyalty toward their preferred populist politicians, while showing anger and fear toward elites, opponents and groups they see as threatening the community. They also express deep love and understanding for fellow members of “the people”—whether this community is more abstract, or made up of specific people they are in contact with online or offline.

They also experience “the people” through relationships and political participation. Interacting with other perceived members of “the people” creates belonging, validation and purpose, while political activity – whether offline at rallies and protests or online—can strengthen this sense of community and encourage further participation.

Taken together, this suggests that populist support is not only about political ideas or policies. Identification with “the people” works because the term’s flexibility allows politicians to frame it in compelling ways, and because supporters’ interpretations align with those political messages.

But it is also aspirational, offering a sense of community and belonging to those who get to see themselves as part of this group. It helps supporters feel that they belong, that they are understood by others, and they are connected to a shared purpose.

Clara Juarez Miro, Investigadora Beatriz Galindo, Departament de Ciència Política, Dret Constitucional i Filosofia del Dret, Universitat de Barcelona 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.