por Ana Luiza Flores
The way humans communicate has always affected politics. Great examples of this are the Gutenberg press and live debates on TV for elections. Thus, it is clear that the internet and, more recently, social media is playing a significant role in the political setting worldwide. However, is it possible to say this new way of communication has facilitated the success of populist leaders or movements? In this analysis, I will try to answer this question and explain why social media collaborates for populism's success. In the first section, I present the concept of modern populism and, later, its relationship with social media.
Modern Populism
Within the public opinion, populism is frequently linked to authoritarian governments. However, in Social Science, this concept is widely used to classify different historical movements. Takas S. Papas (2016) classifies populism in three periods: the classical populism, the neoliberal populism, and the modern populism. The first emerged in Latin America with Getúlio Vargas in Brazil, Juan Perón in Argentina and Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico; then the second come out after the exhaustion of import substitution industrialization strategies in Latin America and, finally, the latter that is happening now and according to him, should be analyze in the context of contemporary liberal democracy.
Modern populism, still according to PAPAS (2016), has its origins in the growing distrust of citizens in the institutions of liberal democracy established after World War II. This distrust is mostly based on the inequality of wealth, and the growing distrust of the current political leaders, which encourages these disaffected citizens to seek a new kind of leadership. In this regard, an outlet for these citizens is a charismatic leader willing to challenge the established institutions and to integrate communities claiming the same agenda. Thus, both characteristics mentioned above, a charismatic leader and a mass movement, are some features that are present in all populism typologie according to Papas (2016) and it should be an alert for unconsolidated democracies.
From a theoretical point of view, MUDDE (2004, p. 543) affirms populism as a “thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite,’”. He also argues that politics should be the expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people (MUDDE, 2004, 2007). This reveals a polarized form of seeing politics: the right way that came from the representation of the people’s voice (pure people) and the others, the corrupt elite, that came from the establishment.
From this definition, populism is not related directly to a political spectrum and it can be found in right-wing or left-wing movements , each with their pure people and their corrupt elite. An example of right-wing is the 5-Star movement in Italy and for the left-wing Podemos in Spain. Thus, the unifying appeal against the corrupt elite can take differing forms in each political orientation, while in the populist-right the enemies are usually, migrants, ethnic and religious minorities, in the left-populism it’s the immoral privilege, rogue entrepreneurs and corrupt politicians (GERBAUDO, 2017).
Additionally, some scholars see populism as an internal periphery, classifying it as a parasite of democracy, given that populist leaders disqualify speeches not considered as the “will of the people” (PAPAS, 2016). On the other hand, rather than a threat, populism can be seen as “a corrective to democracy by bringing the excluded masses back into politics, thus enhancing pluralist representation and accountability” (PAPAS, 2016, p. 13). However, here I won’t discuss the impact of populism in democracy, but how this phenomenon is amplified and facilitated by social media as I am about to show you in the next section.
Populism and social networks: a perfect match?
The way society consumes information has changed greatly over the decades. We have been exposed to a lot of information and the traditional media - like newspapers, broadcasters, and magazines - is no longer the only source (HILLYER, 2020). In this sense, we saw an increasing trend to get informed by the news media that is mostly represented by social networks, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others. As a result, in the last decades, we have seen the impact of social media on gathering people and amplifying the voice of the ones not represented by the mainstream media or have never been connected with political movements (GERBAUDO, 2017). In that means, Gerbaudo (2018) argues social media “provide a suitable channel for populist appeals”, because it allows ordinary people to express their opinion going beyond the classical model of traditional media with journalists and specialists. Hence, it is necessary to link the view of social media as a place to people’s voice with the criticism of mainstream media (MSM) given that the attacks against MSM are common on many online conversations in populist movements.
Furthermore, the dynamism of social media allows leaders to connect outside the existing political channels far more quickly and easily than ever before, and often at zero cost (BARTLETT et al., 2014). Thus, the use of social networks is useful for the civil society gathering people with the same beliefs, but it is also a cheap way for political parties to influence their people, compared to old ways such as TV advertisements or political rallies. Despite the traditional way of communication, populist parties have been using social media successfully to increase their popularity [1] . As shown by PopuList project (2019), which is the result of the cooperation between journalists and academics to analyze populism in Europe, there has been an increasing number of votes in populist parties since 2014 in Europe.
[1] According to Engessser et al (2017) populists actors use a hybrid media system to communicate, the traditional ones and the social media.
Source: PopuList project image
There are many factors that can explain why populist parties are being more voted in the last decade and some scholars suggested this is linked with the crisis in liberal democracy (HOWELL; MOE, 2020), but also it is possible to state that social media has allowed contact between people dissatisfied with the political establishment and a populist leader which has increased the number of votes for these parties. Therefore, by using social media those populist leaders create a feeling of proximity between them and their supporters using these tools frequently to communicate news and the leader’s opinion. Through this, they can challenge traditional media and present themselves as a representative anti-establishment, hence an option for voters disappointed with politics (HENDRICKSON; GALSTON, 2017). As an example, Rodrigues and Ferreira (2020) identified that the Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaroused social media as his favorite communication tool for advertising his ideas during electoral processes in 2018 and he was not present in the public debates amongst presidential candidates on the traditional media.
Another good reason for populist leaders to use social media is to spread news relevant to their public, helping them influence their supporters (RODRIGUES, FERREIRA, 2020). It is not rare for populist parties to attack the traditional media and criticize what is shown as said before. In this way, the use of social networks helps them to guide the debate of public agenda, at least to their public. A study from London College University with German voters suggests that the frequent use of social networks as a main information source creates the Social Media Exposure Effects (SCHUMANN et al., 2019). According to them, a regular voter in Germany informed mainly by social networks are more likely to be a voter for Alternative for Germany, a populist party. This reveals how the news spreading on social media can influence people's votes even in non electoral processes.
Another proof that populism fits with how social media works is the easy solutions proposed as answers to complex social problems. The simple interface of social media is a good way for those parties to show their shallow and straightforward answers to social problems. In this regard, populists' simplified view of society corresponds to the uncomplicated life presented for the users which reinforces and explains the connection between populists and social media. It is worth noting that many times the social networks themselves place limits on each post, such as Twitter, and this supports the simplistic way of presenting social problems and solutions.
Social media has favored the rise of populist movements also because of the aggregation logic based on its algorithms and the way it can focus the attention of an otherwise dispersed people (GERBAUDO, 2017). When using these new means of communication, users are submitted to algorithms that show in their feed only the publications that they have already interacted with and are interested in, which reinforces this division of society seen by populists and also explains in some way how social networks can influence contemporary political polarization. This is to say that by only seeing posts from their social bubble, the user has access to more discussions of the “pure class”, and thus, they believe more and more in this division between the pure and the corrupt elite (GERBAUDO, 2017).
Another consequence of algorithms is the Mobocratic effect when the network tends to make highly connected nodes likely to become more connected. In other words, the algorithms favor instantly popular content - posts with a high number of interactions the moment it is published - that will have more eyeballs turn toward (GERBAUDO, 2017). It clarifies your relevant role when analyzing the large number of demonstrations that were organized using social media. It can be seen in 2011 when Facebook and Twitter were crucial to the downfall of General Hosni Mubarak in the Egyptian Revolution or in 2013 in Brazil when protesters used Facebook and Instagram to mobilize people against the price of public transport tickets all over the country.
Conclusion
Given all of the above, the relevance of studying social networks when analyzing populist movements in the 21st century is indisputable. Studying the details of how social networks are used by right and left populists as Rodrigues and Ferreira (2020) did is another way to comprehend the result of the combination between populism and right-wing parties and populism and left-wing parties, given that all populist nowadays utilize social networks as a means of communication.
Using social media is not, clearly, the only way populism can emerge in society, there were other populist movements before that did not use them. However, it is possible to affirm that social networks developed a potential populist bies even if multiple factors can explain the rise of populism in modern democracy, like economic crises, unemployment, and dissatisfaction with the political system. In this sense, for some researchers social media is a tool that “has slipped out of the hand of their creators”, that means, from the Silicon Valley corporations such Facebook and Google who support the neoliberal system, and now they see their platform full of political contents that raise challenges to neoliberal ideology (GERBAUDO, P. 2018). Their platform has become a place to manifest online discussions about social problems and put in touch people concerned about it.
For sure assuming that social networks developed a populist bies does not mean that other parties and candidates cannot use these means too. On the other hand, it can be noticed that the dominant orientation in social networks runs counter to the key features of establishment politics, including moderation, formality, rationality, and it tends to favor populist movements that are against the standard view of society (GERBAUDO, P. 2018). In an interesting way, there are some successful paradoxical cases of “establishment populist” that find themselves obliged to adopt the populist rhetoric on social networks like Emmanuel Macron in France and Matteo Renzi in Italy. Likewise, when they use this same tactic we still have a polarized scenario in politics based on the populist logic of dividing society into two classes.
References
BARLETT, Jamie. Populism, Social Media and Democratic Strain, European Liberal Forum, Chapter 5, pp. 99-114, 2014. Accessed on: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/74233199.pdf
ENGESSER, Sven; ERNST, Nicole; ESSER, Frank; BUCHEL, Florin. ‘Populism and social media: how politicians spread a fragmented ideology’, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 1109-1126, 2017.
GERBAUDO, Paolo. Social Media and Populism: An elective affinity? Media Culture & Society, 40(5), 745-753,2018 https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718772192.
GERBAUDO, Paolo. Populism 2.0. In: Trottier D and Fuchs C (eds) Social Media, Politics and the State: Protests, Revolutions, Riots, Crime and Policing in the Age of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. New York: Routledge, pp. 67–87, 2014.
GERBAUDO, Paolo. The Mask and the Flag: Populism, Citizenism, and Global Protest. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
HENDRICKSON, Clara.; GALSTON, William A.. Why are populists winning online? Social media reinforces their anti-establishment message. Brookings TechTank Blog. 2017. Disponível em:
HILLYER, Madeleine. How has technology changed - and changed us - in the past 20 years?. World Economic Forum. 2020. Disponível em: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/heres-how-technology-has-changed-and-changed-us-over-the-past-20-years/. Acessado em; 25/02/2022
HOWELL, William G.; MOE, Terry M. Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. University of Chicago Press. ISBN-13: 978-0226763170. 2020.
MUDDE, CAS. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
PAPPAS, Takis S. (2016) Modern Populism: Research Advances, Conceptual and Methodological Pitfalls, and the Minimal Definition. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Retrieved 22 Feb. 2022, from https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-17.
ROODUIJN, Matthijs; VAN KESSEL, Stijn; FROIO, Caterina; PIRRO, Andrea, DE LANGE, Sara; HALIKIOPOULOU, Daphne; LEWIS, Paul., MUDDE, Cas; TAGGART, Paul. 2019. The PopuList: An Overview of Populist, Far Right, Far Left and Eurosceptic Parties in Europe. www.popu-list.org.
RODRIGUES, Theófilo; FERREIRA, Daniel. Estratégias digitais dos populismos de esquerda e de direita: Brasil e Espanha em perspectiva comparada. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, Campinas, SP, v. 59, n. 2, p. 1070–1086, 2020. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/tla/article/view/8658277. Acesso em: 22 fev. 2022.
SCHUMANN, Sandy; BOER, Diana; HANKE, Katja.; LIU, James. Social Media Use and Support for Populist Radical Right Parties: Assessing Exposure and Selection Effects in a Two-wave Panel Study. Information, Communication and Society. 2019.