In an exclusive interview with ECPS, Professor Cornelia Woll, President of the Hertie School, criticized US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, calling it “quite a hypocritical statement.” She pointed out that while Vance accused Europe of restricting free speech, the Trump administration actively attacks institutions like Wikipedia and NPR. Professor Woll also warned that the US, under Trump, is pursuing policies that align with Russia’s interests, deepening transatlantic fractures. With nationalist rhetoric rising on both sides of the Atlantic, she emphasized that Europe must navigate these challenges to maintain economic stability and security.
In a striking critique of US Vice President J.D. Vance, Professor Cornelia Woll, President of the Hertie School in Berlin and a leading expert on international political economy, described his speech at the Munich Security Conference as “quite a hypocritical statement.” Speaking with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) on Thursday, Professor Woll dissected the contradictions in Vance’s rhetoric, particularly his claims that Europe’s speech restrictions pose a greater threat than military aggression from Russia or China.
“I don’t know if one should even react,” Professor Woll said of Vance’s remarks, pointing out the glaring irony of his accusations. “Everyone in the room—and I was in the room when he gave that speech—was well aware of the hypocrisy.” She noted that Vance’s critique of European policies comes at a time when the Trump administration itself is actively attacking free expression within the US. “This comes at a time when the Trump administration is firing the head of an art institution, the Kennedy Center, attacking Wikipedia, and targeting public radio and NPR,” she explained. “It is a common strategy for the Trump administration to accuse others of doing precisely what they themselves are doing.”
Beyond hypocrisy, Professor Woll argued that Vance’s speech was little more than a domestic campaign statement. “It was a national campaign speech, like many heard during an election,” she said, adding that its delivery at a major security conference reflected “the weakness of J.D. Vance in international discussions.” She suggested that Trump’s broader geopolitical calculations—including talks with Russia and Saudi Arabia—likely influenced Vance’s remarks, forcing him to focus on internal US politics rather than engage in substantive global security discussions.
Professor Woll also raised concerns about the broader implications of US policy under Trump and Vance, particularly regarding Germany. “Let me put it very bluntly: what Elon Musk, J.D. Vance, and Donald Trump are currently doing is supporting Russia’s interests,” she warned. She emphasized that many Germans still see these actions as fundamentally against their country’s security and long-term development, not just because of their history but also due to the risks posed by increasing Russian influence.
This growing divide is not just about rhetoric; it has real consequences for transatlantic relations. Professor Woll pointed out that Europe can no longer count on the US as a reliable partner. “Even though the US is not fully disengaging or explicitly leaving NATO, the uncertainty about whether it can be relied upon is significant,” she said. “Today, who can say with certainty that if Russia attacked a NATO partner, like Finland, the US would intervene. We simply do not know, and that uncertainty is deeply consequential.”
These shifts in US policy are also contributing to a broader geopolitical transformation. Professor Woll noted that a post-Western economic order is already emerging, driven in part by China’s strategic investments and growing sphere of influence. “We already see a stable and strong Chinese sphere of influence, which is now challenging the structure of multilateral institutions established under the Bretton Woods system,” she explained. This raises the question of Europe’s role—whether it will align fully with US interests or attempt to position itself as a third force between China and the US. “In my opinion, the latter would be the better path forward,” Professor Woll concluded.
At the same time, Europe faces internal struggles that could weaken its global standing. The rise of far-right parties like the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been fueled by economic grievances and anti-globalization sentiments. Professor Woll warned that if the far right gains further power, Europe could see increased protectionism and economic fragmentation. “Every far-right party includes economic protectionism on their agenda, across all domains—whether it is student mobility, economic exchange, or military investment,” she noted.
With nationalist rhetoric gaining traction on both sides of the Atlantic and traditional alliances under strain, Professor Woll’s analysis underscores the fragility of the liberal world order. As the US embraces economic nationalism and European politics become more polarized, the future of global governance remains uncertain. The challenge now is whether European leaders can navigate these fractures while maintaining economic stability and security.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Cornelia Woll with some edits.
The World Returned to an Era of Protectionism
A metaphorical image depicting the US-China trade war, economic tensions and tariff disputes on imports and exports. Photo: Shutterstock.
Professor Woll, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In one of your earlier studies, you and Ben Clift differentiate economic patriotism from economic nationalism, arguing that economic patriotism is not inherently protectionist but instead seeks to favor specific actors based on territorial status. You also examine how economic patriotism serves as a tool to balance market liberalization with national political imperatives. How do you see this concept evolving in an era of increasing protectionism, and do you see it as a sustainable strategy in an era of increasing economic fragmentation?
Professor Cornelia Woll: Thank you for that question. When we developed the concept of economic patriotism, Ben Clift and I were interested in how governments defend the interests of their countries in open societies committed to free trade and free exchange while still wanting to protect their national interests.
What I see now is that this is no longer the issue because we have returned to an era of protectionism that is willing to sacrifice an open liberal order with free trade on the altar of national interests. We are essentially back a century ago when countries sought to close their borders, and if their interests were not fulfilled, they would retaliate against trading partners with protectionist measures. To a certain degree, that work is almost outdated because it started with a different premise.
Given the resurgence of state-led economic strategies, do you believe we are witnessing a fundamental shift away from the neoliberal order, or is this merely a cyclical adjustment? In your view, how fragile is the liberal world order today, and do you see a path for its reinvigoration, or are we witnessing its irreversible decline?
Professor Cornelia Woll: I think we are seeing a fundamental shift. It is a break, particularly in the position of the United States, away from multilateral institutions that were built to support a liberal order of the West, one might say. It is also a break away from the political systems that came with that liberal economic order, particularly democracy.
There was this Western combination of democracy and free markets that formed the backbone of the post-war order, which I will refer to as the order of the West. What we see now is a trend in different parts of the world toward more authoritarian systems or illiberal democracies. There is an ongoing debate on the best term for this shift.
I definitely see that it is important for many players, even within Europe—European countries and different political parties—to promote a vision that is quite orthogonal to these ideals. And yes, that is the biggest challenge to the liberal world order and to the governments that support it.
Trump’s Second Term Would Be an Intensified Attack on the Liberal Order
What role did President Donald Trump play in the fragmentation of global governance structures during his first term, and do you foresee a second Trump presidency further accelerating this decline?
Professor Cornelia Woll: I think everyone would agree that Donald Trump did not change his fundamental convictions between his first and potential second term. His approach remains the same and is clearly articulated in the “America First” doctrine—highly self-interested and transactional in nature, both for himself as a person, for the government, and for America’s role in the world.
We saw this during his first term with numerous decisions that opposed multilateral institutions, including his withdrawal from the climate agreements. Now, we see this approach returning even more forcefully because he has learned how to better navigate the system to achieve his goals.
For example, he has become more strategic about avoiding legal challenges. In his previous term, he denied press licenses, whereas now, he simply withdraws access, which is more difficult to challenge in court. Similarly, in dismantling USAID, the development agency of the United States, he is effectively shutting it down without officially closing it—keeping only a handful of staff, making it harder to contest legally.
Everything he is doing in his second term represents an intensified, more systematically executed attack on the liberal order.
Trump to Sacrifice the Liberal Economic Order for His Own Gains
Donald Trump with a serious look as he delivers a speech at a campaign rally held at the Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre, PA – August 2, 2018. Photo: Evan El-Amin.
The Trump administration ushered in an era of economic nationalism, trade wars, and tariff challenges—how much of this shift has been institutionalized within US trade policy, and can it be reversed? Given the protectionist tendencies under the Trump administration, including tariffs on European and Chinese goods, how much do you think Trump’s policies accelerated the erosion of the liberal economic order? Do you see a long-term shift in US trade policy away from multilateralism?
Professor Cornelia Woll:Trump has engaged in an outright tariff war, and as everyone knows, trade wars are retaliatory. If you impose tariffs on goods, you will face tariffs on your own goods from the countries you are trying to exclude from your market. That is what we are currently seeing.
This type of protection for domestic production is one form of defending economic interests. I would say it is a form of industrial policy. We talk about the protection of infant industries, for example, and for a long time, I would have said this is the industrial policy of emerging economies—countries that lack many tools to protect their industries. The US had much sharper, more sophisticated ways of protecting its companies, but now it is reverting to a very crude tariff war, a trade war where one country’s interests are set against another’s.
What will happen next? Most countries have understood that Donald Trump only respects strength and that they must respond in kind and be very clear about where they set their boundaries. As a result, we will see an acceleration of retaliatory measures. However, we have also seen that Trump uses tariffs not just to influence the economy but often as a tool to negotiate deals on entirely different issues.
With Mexico, for example, one of the concessions he secured by threatening tariffs was increased protection of the US-Mexico border. Similarly, regarding the inflow of drugs, particularly fentanyl, the stakes may be different with other countries. Essentially, he uses economic threats to extract concessions on issues that may be related to security, borders, or other policy areas.
This means that, yes, Trump is willing to sacrifice the liberal economic order for his own gains and objectives. The question of what will happen in the medium or long term depends on how extensively he actually enforces these measures. If he primarily uses tariffs as a negotiation tool without fully implementing them, they might prove to be effective bargaining instruments. However, if he puts them into practice and raises the tariffs he has announced, the consequences will be significant.
Since the US is part of an interconnected global economy, these measures will also harm the US economy. For example, American car manufacturers—whom Trump wants to protect—would lose access to steel and aluminum imported from abroad. Technology producers might face disruptions in their supply chains due to components manufactured in China, and the list goes on.
Economists analyzing this issue are now trying to estimate the impact on US GDP, which will translate into economic pain for American consumers and producers. The key political question is: how long will Trump be willing to impose that kind of pain, and at what point will it start to hurt him politically? He knows that if gas prices rise in the US, even his base will be unhappy. He has stated on television that people will tolerate some level of hardship if they believe it serves their interests—but for how long?
At this point, we do not know exactly how long this will continue, because we do not yet fully understand the economic consequences and fallout—but there will certainly be an impact.
We Are Entering a Multipolar World of Fragmented Economic Influence
With the resurgence of mercantilist policies and protectionism, particularly in the U.S. and China, are we witnessing the end of globalization as we know it? What alternative economic models might emerge?
Professor Cornelia Woll: I don’t think an alternative economic model is emerging. What we are seeing instead is an alternative geopolitical model. Simply put, we previously lived in a world where economies were connected through structures created by the West, particularly the US, after World War II. It was a Western-led system of economic interdependence across markets. Today, the US is deeply concerned about the rise of China as an economic superpower and seeks to either shut itself off or at least reduce its rivalry with China by blocking certain aspects of Chinese economic development. This leads to greater fragmentation—both geopolitical and economic. China has been highly effective at forging partnerships and economic interdependencies around the world, creating its own sphere of influence. That sphere has now grown significantly.
The key question is: What kind of economic relationships will exist in a world increasingly dominated by China’s sphere of influence? What portion of global trade will remain within the US sphere of influence? And where will other countries position themselves? What role will Europe play between these two giants? What direction will Latin America take? Will what is sometimes referred to as the “Global South” develop into an independent trade bloc that avoids having to choose between the US and China? We are currently witnessing the emergence of a multipolar world with fragmented zones of economic exchange and influence. That trend is certainly to continue.
How has the EU responded to the deterioration of transatlantic relations under Trump, and do you believe these fractures are temporary or part of a long-term geopolitical shift?
Professor Cornelia Woll: I am quite certain they are part of a long-term geopolitical shift. The news cycle was filled with images from the Munich Security Conference, particularly Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the conference, which was a clear criticism of Europe at a time when much is at stake in international security and the global order—Ukraine, the Middle East, and many other issues where the transatlantic partnership is central.
The fact that none of these concerns were addressed in the Vice President’s speech, and that he explicitly criticized European partners, while at the same time the US was organizing peace talks for Ukraine with Russia—without inviting other stakeholders—signals that the EU can no longer count on the US as a reliable partner to support European concerns both on the continent and beyond.
I believe these fractures are real and will persist. Even though the US is not fully disengaging or explicitly leaving NATO, the uncertainty about whether it can be relied upon is significant. In security matters, guarantees and trust are crucial. Today, who can say with certainty that if Russia attacked a NATO partner, like Finland, the US would intervene? We simply do not know, and that uncertainty is deeply consequential.
European leaders have repeatedly stated that they have heard the wake-up call and understand the need to become more self-reliant. The challenge, however, is that this realization has come very late. Organizing military capabilities requires significant investment, is extremely costly, and must account for the diverging opinions of the 27 EU member states. Moreover, Europe has only a limited window—just a few months—to organize itself in response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and other potential crises.
This geopolitical shift is real and long-term. Where Europe ultimately positions itself will depend on the ability of European governments to coordinate effectively and forge a united path forward.
Far-Right Parties Turn Economic Grievances Into a Political Weapon
The rise of the far right in Europe, particularly the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, has been fueled in part by economic grievances and globalization backlash. How much of this is a structural trend versus a temporary political wave?
Professor Cornelia Woll: Economic grievances are always very important to address, and it is crucial to ensure that both mainstream and fringe parties recognize the challenges faced by different parts of the country. Globalization, as we know, has created both winners and losers. There is a highly mobile, urban elite that sees no flaws in global interconnectedness, and then there are other parts of the population—perhaps more disconnected or more concerned about the industries and regions they depend on, such as the automobile sector or others. These concerns must be central to political debate.
The rise of the AfD, in particular, is not solely fueled by economic grievances but also by how political leaders have been able to mobilize around these grievances. There is an element of political entrepreneurship at play—this is, in many ways, a political game. The key question for many countries, including Germany, is to what extent the far right is able to dominate the discourse and shape the terms of debate.
One issue that often emerges alongside economic grievances on the far right is migration. Economic concerns quickly become linked to migration, which in turn leads to discussions about internal security—an issue that currently dominates political debate in Germany.
A central question now is: Are we safe? Following Chancellor Merkel’s decision to welcome a large number of immigrants into Germany, many of whom have not been successfully integrated, some are now being linked to violent incidents in public spaces. How to address this issue is a major challenge.
The most emotionally charged and dominant topics in recent political discourse have been attacks in cities like Aschaffenburg and now Munich, carried out by individuals who initially came to Germany seeking refuge. As a result, migration has become an even more prominent issue than economic grievances. This trend is evident in all countries where the far right has gained significant influence.
In an interview you gave to Greece’sTo Vimanewspaper, you emphasized that protecting democracy in Germany requires centrist parties to focus on economic stability and security rather than engaging with the far-right AfD’s populist rhetoric. How can governments effectively address voters’ economic anxieties—such as deindustrialization, energy costs, and labor market access—without legitimizing the nationalist economic narratives of parties like the AfD?
Professor Cornelia Woll: That’s a good question. I do think it is important to address economic grievances. And, of course, for any government or any party running for office, it is essential to have a clear vision of where they want to take the country and its economy.
What is striking about far-right parties is that their rhetoric is often more focused on social and identity issues rather than purely economic concerns. They link economic grievances to broader themes of migration and national identity.
What I would recommend—because we have seen that it does not work in other countries—is that centrist parties should avoid adopting the identity-based language of populist parties. When centrist politicians begin to frame economic well-being in terms of who should be considered German and who should not, they risk legitimizing the far right’s rhetoric and giving it a more central place in political discourse. Most of the time, this strategy ends up benefiting the far right by increasing their support rather than drawing voters away from them.
This is ultimately a question of the best electoral strategy. My recommendation would be to focus on economic development and well-being: How do you address deindustrialization? How do you ensure energy costs remain manageable? How do you expand and improve access to the labor market for all? These economic issues should take priority over engaging in the identity politics promoted by the far right.
Europe Must Rely on Itself as the Transatlantic Divide Deepens
EU flags in EU Council building during the EU Summit in Brussels, Belgium on June 28, 2018. Photo: Alexandros Michailidis.
With the rise of economic nationalism in the US, Germany, and across Europe, coupled with shifting global alliances, do you foresee a deeper transatlantic divide between the US and the EU on trade and economic governance? How might the world navigate these fractures, particularly as it balances economic autonomy with its reliance on global trade?
Professor Cornelia Woll: Yes, we do see these fractures, and for European countries, it is quite clear that they will be cut off from some of the resources they previously relied on. Take Germany, for example. I may be oversimplifying, but Germany essentially outsourced its defense capabilities to the US and relied on Russia for cheap energy. It structured its economy and investments around the assumption that these needs could be met through external partnerships rather than domestic restructuring.
Now, Germany must find a way to provide for its own defense with less reliance on the US. It has also struggled in recent years to reduce its dependence on cheap energy from Russia, and this process will need to continue. For Europe, it is clear that the only viable scale for addressing these challenges effectively is the European market rather than individual national markets.
It is quite clear that in a world where two giants, China and the US, dominate the game—and where Russia is also an important player—Germany alone is not enough. France alone is not enough. Certainly, Belgium is not big enough. What we can do is leverage the market power of the single European market and use it as a still very important economic space, not only for Europe but also for other countries with which we aim to remain on equal footing.
This means we must move toward a European project that is less focused on overregulating every minor detail and more focused on answering the key question: How do we provide peace and stability within the region? By fostering an integrated economic space, Europe can actively participate in global discussions and remain on par with the world’s major powers.
Given the recent rise of the far right in both Germany and France, the traditional engines of European integration, do you believe these internal struggles will hinder the EU’s ability to advance industrial and defense strategies? Could leadership on these issues shift to other European actors, and if so, what role might Germany still play in shaping the future of European economic governance?
Professor Cornelia Woll: It is certainly true that both Germany and France have struggled domestically to provide leadership for the EU in recent years. Let me be an optimist here. I think France is slowly making progress. They have now passed the budget, even though the government remains fragile. A vote of no confidence is not imminent as it was in the past.
Germany is approaching an election this weekend, and there is still hope that the outcome will be less fragile than the three-party coalition of recent years. Perhaps a two-party coalition will emerge, allowing for a return to more stable leadership. So, I remain optimistic that both Germany and France will regain some footing.
On foreign policy, France has a strong presidency. Emmanuel Macron can take initiatives that are less constrained by internal debates. For example, he recently invited European countries to discuss defense and their position on Ukraine at the beginning of the week. Initiatives like this remain important in the security domain. Europe cannot move forward without France and possibly the UK as key drivers of decision-making.
Germany, meanwhile, remains crucial for any funding decisions. There will need to be significant shifts in how investments are financed, possibly through common borrowing or changes to the European budget. These decisions cannot happen without both France and Germany.
That said, other countries also matter and will take on leadership roles, which is a positive development. The traditional Franco-German axis is certainly less central than it once was, and in the future, forming strong coalitions of willing partners will be key.
Italy and Poland are hugely important players. There has been a divide between Western and Eastern European countries, and bridging that gap is crucial for many of these issues. The Franco-German axis will not necessarily be essential if a coalition of other countries can be built. If another country steps up to take leadership, that would be good news for Europe.
A Far-Right Surge Would Bring Further Protectionism and Economic Fragmentation
What are the economic risks if the far right gains further power in Europe? Could we see increased protectionism and economic fragmentation within the EU itself?
Professor Cornelia Woll: Yes, I think the answer is quite simple—yes. And I’ll give you one example. Every far-right party includes economic protectionism on their agenda, across all domains—whether it is student mobility, economic exchange, or military investment. So, it is quite a clear tendency.
With China, Russia, and other powers seeking to establish alternative economic alliances, do you see the possibility of a post-Western economic order emerging? What role, if any, will Europe play in this transition?
Professor Cornelia Woll: Yes, a post-Western economic order is emerging, and it has been for quite some time—over the past 20 years, I would say. If you look at the economic connections China has built through its initiatives to establish new trade routes across Asia and toward Europe, it is quite clear. The same is true of its investments in Africa and its support for countries struggling with sovereign debt. Many of these nations now turn to China as a lender of last resort, a role previously played only by multilateral institutions.
We already see a stable and strong Chinese sphere of influence, which is now challenging the structure of multilateral institutions established under the Bretton Woods system. As a result, these institutions must be redesigned and revised to continue playing a role in global economic cohesion. However, they are struggling to fulfill the functions for which they were originally created.
What role can Europe play? The reason, for example, that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is not as inclusive of Chinese interests as it should be is not due to European opposition but rather to opposition from the US. I believe Europe must decide whether to align entirely with US interests, which are strongly anti-Chinese, or to position itself as a third force in the geopolitical struggle between China and the US. In my opinion, the latter would be the better path forward.
Trump, Vance and Musk Are Advancing Russia’s Interests
Matryoshka dolls featuring images of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump displayed at a souvenir counter in Moscow on March 16, 2019. Photo: Shutterstock.
US Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk have both lent support to the AfD, which is surprising given that they come from the US—a country Germans have long thanked for putting an end to a deeply shameful period in their history. Do you think this approach signals the end of bilateral relations between the US and Germany as we know them?
Professor Cornelia Woll: Well, it certainly makes clear to Germans that the US, even with its capacities in government, will pursue objectives that are contrary to what Germany considers its own security and national interests. Let me put it very bluntly: what Elon Musk, J.D. Vance, and Donald Trump are currently doing is supporting Russia’s interests. I think the majority of Germans still believe that this is not in Germany’s best interest or in the best long-term development of the country. This is not just because of Germany’s own history and the National Socialist period, but also because of what it would mean for Russia’s influence in Germany.
And lastly, Professor Woll, in his speech to the Munich Security Conference, J.D. Vance called Europe’s restrictions on speech a greater threat than a military attack by Russia or China, comparing them to those imposed by the Cold War Soviet Union. What is your reaction to this statement?
Professor Cornelia Woll: I don’t know if one should even react because everyone in the room—and I was in the room when he gave that speech—was well aware of the hypocrisy in J.D. Vance’s declarations about incidents in Europe. This comes at a time when the Trump administration is firing the head of an art institution, the Kennedy Center, attacking Wikipedia, and targeting public radio and NPR. It is a common strategy for the Trump administration to accuse others of doing precisely what they themselves are doing. So, it was quite a hypocritical statement.
Beyond that, his remarks were purely national in scope. It was a domestic campaign speech, similar to many others heard during an election cycle—nothing new.
The fact that he delivered it at a security conference, however, was, I think, a sign of J.D. Vance’s weakness in international discussions. Trump had just stated his intention to negotiate with Russia and was preparing talks with Saudi Arabia. I believe the last thing he wanted was for his Vice President to make any statements that could be considered newsworthy or that might contradict Trump’s own diplomatic efforts. As a result, J.D. Vance had to deliver a speech that was purely focused on domestic politics and did not address the security concerns of anyone else in the room.
As for the content, the attacks were so obviously false that I don’t think it is even worth deconstructing. Free speech is under far greater threat in Russia than in Europe. The anecdotes he cited—half of which may not have been as accurate as he claimed—do not change this reality. I won’t go into the details because doing so would give too much credit to the fake news bubble that J.D. Vance was catering to.
Dr. Conrad Ziller, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Duisburg-Essen, discusses the key factors shaping voter sentiment ahead of Germany’s elections. In an exclusive interview with the ECPS, he argues that the recent terrorist attack in Munich is likely to have a greater impact on voter behavior than US Vice President J.D. Vance’s endorsement of the far-right AfD. Highlighting the growing openness of radical right parties, Dr. Ziller warns of the AfD’s shifting strategy—from Euroscepticism to consolidating political power through ideological alliances and nationalist rhetoric.
As Germany heads into a pivotal election on Sunday, Dr. Conrad Ziller, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Duisburg-Essen, sheds light on the factors shaping voter sentiment, particularly the growing influence of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). In an exclusive interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) on Monday, Dr. Ziller argues that while the recent endorsement of the AfD by US Vice President J.D. Vance is significant, it is unlikely to shift voter behavior as much as real-world events, such as the recent terrorist attack in Munich.
“I don’t believe J.D. Vance’s statement will have a major impact, but the recent terrorist attack in Munich might, as it is a deeply tragic event that affects people on an emotional level,” he explains. “This, of course, is a serious issue. I think such incidents have a greater effect on voter sentiment than what J.D. Vance said.”
Dr. Ziller situates this development within a broader trend: the increasing openness of populist radical right parties about their true political ambitions. “Vance’s endorsement is part of a broader effort to shift the political narrative further to the right and enable more power for the AfD,” he notes, emphasizing that “what is surprising is how openly he has expressed his support.” This, he argues, reflects a larger shift in global politics, where far-right movements no longer attempt to mask their agendas but instead push their narratives forward with unprecedented transparency.
This shift presents both challenges and opportunities for European leaders. “In a way, this increased openness could be beneficial because it allows European leaders and the European Union (EU) to fully recognize the situation and take action accordingly,” Dr. Ziller observes. He points to the upcoming conference on Ukraine as an example of how European leaders are already strategizing to counter the rise of nationalist and far-right influences across the continent.
Another key factor in the AfD’s rise is its evolving stance on European identity and sovereignty. Unlike traditional nationalist parties that focus on ethnic distinctions, the AfD’s rhetoric has shifted toward ideological alliances rather than national ones. “Previously, right-wing populists or extremists in Germany might have rejected alliances with Southern Europeans, people from Turkey, or Eastern Europeans, insisting on a strictly German national identity. Now, however, these ethnic categories are no longer as significant,” Dr. Ziller explains. Instead, the AfD aligns itself with like-minded political figures such as Viktor Orbán, Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, and Vladimir Putin, forming transnational far-right networks based on shared political goals rather than national identity. While the party remains Eurosceptic, its focus is not on defining who belongs within Europe, but rather on shaping alliances that strengthen its broader nationalist and anti-immigration agenda.
Against this backdrop, the upcoming elections in Germany will be a test case for how effective the AfD’s strategies—capitalizing on issues like immigration, security, and anti-elitist sentiment—will be in mobilizing support. In this interview, Dr. Conrad Ziller delves into the party’s tactics, its positioning within the broader European far-right movement, and the implications for democracy in Germany and beyond.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Dr. Conrad Ziller with some edits.
The AfD Thrives on Fear—Immigration, Welfare, and Political Distrust
Photo: Shutterstock.
Professor Ziller, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: How has the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland – Alternative for Germany) capitalized on anti-immigrant sentiment in Germany? In your research, how do you see social trust mediating the relationship between nativist attitudes and radical right-wing support?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: Thanks for having me. Immigration is at the forefront of this election, and the AfD is capitalizing on it, as you already mentioned. Why are anti-immigrant attitudes and immigration such important topics?
First of all, there have been terrorist incidents in Magdeburg, Aschaffenburg, and Munich, which are highly problematic. At the same time, these incidents have increased the salience of the immigration issue. Not only the AfD but also mainstream parties have taken a very strong stance on immigration, competing over who can be the toughest on it.
Immigration is a salient topic, but it is also proximate—people experience immigration in their everyday lives. Additionally, it is an ambivalent issue. On one hand, immigration can contribute to economic growth, but on the other hand, it may also increase conflict and raise concerns about newcomers benefiting from the welfare system.
So, it is a complex issue, and politics can play a crucial role in shaping public perception. Unlike topics such as unemployment or economic growth, which are widely agreed upon, immigration remains a subject of ongoing debate. This is where politics has normative power—it can shape public discourse about immigration.
What role does welfare chauvinism play in the AfD’s electoral success? How do perceptions of welfare access by migrants influence native support for far-right parties?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: Welfare chauvinism refers to the view that public support is needed, but at the same time, it should be restricted and only be available to non-immigrants.There has been a huge debate about this, and as I already mentioned, all the mainstream parties are currently quite restrictive toward immigration. If you look at the electoral manifestos and programs of these parties, most of them—except for the Left, the Greens, and the SPD—favor restricting immigrants’ access to welfare. The center and right-wing parties, including the liberal FDP, also advocate for limiting these benefits.
A key issue is the so-called Bürgergeld, which is the basic welfare support that everyone has the right to receive, including Ukrainian refugees. The AfD strongly opposes this and seeks to take these benefits away from immigrants who are already eligible. Both centrist and right-wing populist parties are using welfare chauvinism as a strategy to shift public discourse further to the right, with right-wing populists, in particular, capitalizing on these sentiments to mobilize electoral support.
Strong Local Governance Can Curb Nativism
Does local governance efficiency impact nativist sentiment? Your research highlights how local government performance affects public attitudes toward immigrants. Could decentralization in Germany mitigate or exacerbate these attitudes?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: First of all, immigration presents a challenge to the social cohesion of receiving societies. Newcomers may not speak the language, and both immigrants and local residents need time to adapt to the new system. At the same time, there is the question of how integration should be structured, which can come with certain transactional costs.
The ability of local governments to efficiently manage integration-related tasks—such as housing—while maintaining high-quality public services is crucial. Administrative work, public service availability, and the management of public spaces, including street maintenance, all play a role. When local governments perform well in these areas, it can help mitigate resource competition, reducing the perception among non-immigrants that something is being taken away from them. This, in turn, helps maintain social cohesion.
Moreover, effective local governance fosters strong community structures by supporting organizations and associations that facilitate integration. A well-functioning local government contributes to a stable and cohesive social fabric where newcomers can be integrated more smoothly. In this way, efficient local governance can be a key factor in reducing nativist sentiment and fostering a more inclusive community.
Misinformation Spread by AfD Fuels Division
AfD’s Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla at a meeting in Berlin, Germany on July 4, 2023. Photo: Shutterstock.
What is the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and far-right support in Germany? Does misinformation play a role in strengthening AfD’s voter base? If so, to what extent has the AfD leveraged conspiracy theories to mobilize support, and how do these narratives influence public trust in democratic institutions?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: The AfD is a right-wing populist party, and we see that, especially from the radical right, but also to some extent from the radical left, there are conspiracy theories. You can think of Trump and the Republicans, and also the QAnon movement, which accused politicians of being engaged in child abuse and other extreme things. In Germany, it is not like this—there are no typical conspiracy theories of that magnitude. However, there is, of course, misinformation, which is something we do see here, though not as much conspiracy theorizing.
This misinformation is problematic because it challenges social norms, serves to break political correctness, and hinders the narrative of equality. If people believe there is a corrupt political elite that they must act against, it opens the door for even more misinformation. You can think of this as a kind of “information smog,” where people struggle to distinguish between what is true and what is false.
This is also a strategy used by the right-wing populist AfD. They engage in a significant amount of misinformation, both about political elites and about immigrants, making it difficult for ordinary people to discern what is right and what is wrong. So, while conspiracy theories are not as prominent, the AfD does engage in spreading misinformation and contributing to this information smog.
Your research suggests that political corruption erodes trust in institutions and drives radical right support. How has this dynamic played out in Germany, and what role has the AfD played in capitalizing on political distrust?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: Political distrust is a really important issue that has gained momentum in the past years. One strategy of the AfD is to undermine the competencies of the established center parties, especially regarding immigration and integration. They deflect from other pressing issues such as prices, climate problems, and inequality by shifting the focus to immigration.
By making immigration the dominant issue, the AfD positions itself as the party with the toughest stance, claiming to have the best solution—namely, restricting immigration as much as possible. If immigration becomes the primary topic in political discourse and the AfD is perceived as the most competent in handling it, this naturally undermines public confidence in the established political actors and fosters political distrust.
Regarding corruption, Germany has not experienced many corruption scandals in recent years, at least not in comparison to Southern and Eastern European countries. Corruption is not the most pressing issue here. However, issues related to government quality and economic policies have also faded into the background, as political discourse is largely dominated by other topics.
Political discontent can stem from two main sources. One is the experience of actual unfairness, such as firsthand encounters with corruption. While some corruption does exist in Germany, it remains relatively limited compared to other countries. The second source is the perception of problems that may not actually exist. If people struggle to distinguish between real issues and fabricated ones, this fuels political discontent.
It is also worth noting that the AfD itself has faced issues related to campaign donations and financial transparency, making it one of the parties with more corruption-related concerns. However, much of the political discontent today arises from perceived rather than actual problems, which is a key factor shaping public attitudes at the moment.
Affective Polarization Fuels AfD’s Growth by Deepening Divides
What impact does affective polarization have on radical right-wing support? Are voters more motivated by anti-elite sentiment or ideological alignment when choosing to support the AfD?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: Both are important. Affective polarization occurs when parties, especially nowadays, are divided not so much along the economic left-right axis but more along the social-cultural left-right axis. For example, progressive parties like the Greens in Germany stand in opposition to socio-culturally conservative parties like the AfD on the right.
If these opposing groups increasingly dislike each other and develop strong negative sentiments toward one another, this further fuels the perception that center parties do not represent them. As a result, voters may feel compelled to align with either the far-left or the far-right. Affective polarization is partly a consequence of the increasing popularity of populist right-wing parties, but it also serves to reinforce their growth.
Anti-elite sentiment is another key factor. It has long been a central narrative alongside anti-immigration stances. This aspect becomes particularly important for voters who may not be strongly anti-immigrant themselves. Even established immigrants—those who arrived in Germany years ago—can be drawn to anti-elitist rhetoric. The AfD actively exploits this, particularly through social media.
For example, on platforms like TikTok, many AfD-affiliated channels specifically target individuals with a Turkish immigrant background. These channels do not focus as much on anti-immigration rhetoric but instead emphasize anti-elite narratives. This messaging has proven quite effective, while democratic and center parties struggle to develop similarly compelling narratives that can attract voters in the same way.
In your work on public support for state surveillance, you highlight the role of security threats in shaping policy preferences. How has the AfD framed surveillance policies, and what are the implications for civil liberties in Germany?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: I think the most important thing is that most people are no longer as critical of state surveillance. A lot of this has to do with the fact that we have already become quite accustomed to it through our use of cell phones and digital technologies.
As a result, there isn’t much of a political debate about surveillance in the sense that some parties are strongly against it, advocating for civil liberties, while others push for more surveillance. That kind of clear divide does not really exist. Most people accept surveillance, but it is not currently a politically salient issue. It tends to resurface from time to time, especially in response to terrorist attacks, such as those we have seen recently in Germany, for instance, in Munich or Aschaffenburg.
However, in these discussions, the focus is more on surveilling immigrants. The debate is framed around where agencies have struggled to track or monitor certain immigrants—particularly Islamic individuals who could potentially commit terrorist attacks. Essentially, the conversation revolves around immigration policy, with political actors competing over who has the toughest rules and the most restrictive stance on immigration.
Beyond that, there are also broader discussions, such as whether Germany should maintain a registry of individuals with specific psychological conditions—both to provide them with help and to track them if issues arise. However, due to Germany’s historical experiences with the GDR and National Socialism, civil liberties and data protection remain highly valued. Unlike some northern European countries, it is not easy to create such registries in Germany.
So while surveillance remains an important topic, it is largely discussed in the context of immigration, and aside from that, it is not a major political issue at the moment.
Crisis and Social Media Propel AfD’s Rise in Germany
AfD demo with slogan Stop Islamization and counter demonstration of the Left in Luetten Klein in Rostock, Germany on May 14, 2018. AfD, Alternative for Germany, is a right wing political party in Germany. Photo: Shutterstock.
The AfD has gained traction by opposing immigration and EU policies. How does their success compare to other radical right parties in Europe, and what unique factors have contributed to their rise in Germany?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: The AfD is similar to other right-wing populist parties in Europe, which are currently quite successful. There are different reasons for this. One key reason is the series of crises we have faced—the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza between Israel and Palestine, and, to some extent, the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a general feeling of insecurity among many people, and the AfD, like other right-wing populist parties, does not need to be constructive or implement policies. They have an easy time positioning themselves because they can simply be against something and act as critics without needing to govern or prove that their ideas work.
Another major factor is that immigration remains a highly salient and visible issue, as I previously mentioned. The AfD currently holds a stable support base, similar to parties like the FPÖ in Austria, ranging from approximately 18% to 25%. This is a significant increase compared to three and a half years ago during the last federal election when they had only around 10% or 11% of the vote.
I believe this rise is largely due to the ongoing crises, but also because right-wing populists have been highly effective in promoting themselves on social media. They have been particularly successful in reaching younger cohorts—who are not only experiencing these crises firsthand but are also more engaged with digital platforms. The AfD has developed a strong strategy in terms of marketing and social media outreach, which has contributed to their recent electoral gains.
How does AfD’s position on European integration shape its voter appeal? What factors drive the party’s Eurosceptic stance, and how does it compare to other radical right parties in Europe?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: The anti-European Union stance was a core narrative for the AfD in the mid-2010s. When the party was founded in 2013, its main focus was anti-EU rhetoric—calls to return to the national currency, withdraw from Schengen, and even leave the European Union entirely. One of the key motivations for the AfD’s formation was opposition to the bailout of Greece during the financial crisis. Greece was still struggling, and resisting financial aid to Greece was a primary reason for establishing the party in the first place.
Nowadays, the EU is not their central focus. If you look at the AfD’s current election program, the European Union is still mentioned, but the rhetoric has shifted. Their arguments are more about the EU lacking legitimacy—claiming that the EU should not have the authority to raise taxes but does so anyway—and suggesting that Germany should refuse to pay. The AfD’s broader vision is to replace the EU with a federation of European nations, essentially dismantling the existing structure. They also oppose Germany’s financial contributions to the EU, knowing that Germany plays a key role in funding the Union. If Germany were to withdraw, it would severely destabilize the EU in its current form.
However, the AfD’s approach to solidarity is conditional. If other countries were also led by right-wing populists, they might be open to cooperation, but we are not at that stage yet. At the moment, while they remain anti-EU, their primary focus has shifted. Their main emphasis is now on immigration and gaining political power.
Compared to previous elections, this shift is evident—the AfD is now actively working to gain influence in parliament and explore potential collaboration with the conservative CDU. This is a significant change from their earlier strategy, which was primarily focused on opposing the European Union. Now, they really want to grab political power.
AfD’s Politics Is Less About Identity, More About Ideological Alliances
Election poster of Björn Höcke for the AfD party with the slogan roughly translating to “forbidden good” in Sonneberg, Thuringia, Germany, on August 4, 2024. Photo: Shutterstock.
How has the AfD framed the EU as a threat to German identity? Does its discourse on sovereignty and immigration reflect broader trends in European far-right movements?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: I think that immigration and the question of who belongs—who is considered a citizen—are still central issues. This is particularly important for immigrants in Germany, who may worry about whether their citizenship could be withdrawn or, if they do not yet have citizenship, what might happen if the AfD gains more political influence, even if they do not attain full power.
For immigrants without citizenship in another European country, these concerns are especially pressing. However, when it comes to the AfD’s stance on European identity, I would say that it is not a priority for them. They are not particularly concerned with the idea of a shared European identity. This is not the framework in which they think. Instead, their perspective is shaped more by a distinction between friends and foes—who is an ally and who is an enemy.
What we have seen over the past ten years is that right-wing populists and extremists have increasingly formed connections across borders. Previously, right-wing populists or extremists in Germany might have rejected alliances with Southern Europeans, people from Turkey, or Eastern Europeans, insisting on a strictly German national identity. Now, however, these ethnic categories are no longer as significant.
Instead, the focus has shifted to aligning with political groups and leaders who share similar ideological positions. The AfD has built connections with figures such as Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Marine Le Pen in France, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, and, of course, Vladimir Putin in Russia. These relationships are based on shared political stances rather than ethnic or national identity.
As a result, questions of European identity—such as defining who is or is not European—are not central to the AfD’s discourse. While these issues were once more relevant to debates about the European project, the AfD does not actively frame or engage with them in its political messaging today.
AfD Exploits Anti-Elite Narratives While Facing Its Own Corruption Scandals
Your research explores how direct experiences with corruption influence voting behavior. How does the perception of elite corruption fuel support for the AfD, and how does the party itself navigate corruption scandals?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: Direct experiences of corruption can occur in situations where, for example, someone needs a doctor’s appointment and has to pay extra to get one or if someone encounters trouble with the police and can offer a bribe. However, in Germany, instances of everyday corruption are extremely rare, similar to what we see in Northern European countries. In Southern and Eastern Europe, corruption is somewhat more prevalent, but still not at the level seen in developing countries in the Global South. So, corruption in daily life is not a major issue in Germany.
The idea behind this research was to examine whether individuals who have encountered corruption—however rare—experience a decline in political trust, which in turn could lead them to support radical right-wing populist parties. There is some connection between these factors, but it is not strong or systematic enough to conclude that corruption is a primary driver of radical right support.
What is more significant, however, is the broader sense of deprivation—when people feel they are not receiving what they believe they deserve. This feeling contributes to anti-elite sentiments, where people perceive that a corrupt political elite is operating behind the scenes. The AfD actively reinforces this perception, promoting the narrative that the established political parties are not only incompetent but also corrupt.
Ironically, the AfD itself has been embroiled in numerous corruption-related scandals, particularly regarding campaign donations of undisclosed origins. Some AfD politicians have also been linked to China and Russia—countries considered political adversaries of Germany—which could be labeled as political corruption. So, the party that frequently accuses others of corruption is often the one facing the most serious allegations.
The question, then, is why voters continue to buy into the AfD’s anti-corruption narrative despite these scandals. The answer lies in the AfD’s ability to deflect attention from its own issues. Rather than attempting to conceal their actions, they openly acknowledge their efforts to dismantle institutions, weaken administrative structures, and undermine principles of equality—similar to the approach taken by Donald Trump in the US. Instead of hiding, they shift the focus to other issues, primarily immigration, while painting all other parties as corrupt.
Surprisingly, this strategy has been highly effective. Many of their voters no longer deny the party’s extremist tendencies; instead, they openly embrace them. Over the past four to five years, public discourse and social norms have shifted significantly, making these radical positions more mainstream.
Vance’s Endorsement Unlikely to Sway Voters, but Munich Attack Might
U.S. President Donald Trump at a rally for then-VP nominee J.D. Vance in Atlanta, GA, on August 3, 2024. Photo: Phil Mistry.
And lastly, Professor Ziller, American Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk have both openly supported the AfD. How do you think their support will influence the elections on Sunday?
Dr. Conrad Ziller: This is a good question. This is similar to Friedrich Merz, who introduced a law in Parliament that was also supported by the AfD, leading to a significant debate about the extent to which this shift in their firewall policy might influence election outcomes.
What we are seeing at the moment is that the AfD is not necessarily gaining beyond 20 or 21%. Their support remains relatively stable. One might ask whether we are underreporting their numbers or whether some voters are not openly disclosing their support for the AfD. Perhaps a few do underreport, but overall, our surveys indicate that a considerable number of respondents now openly state their intention to vote for the AfD. This is a notable shift compared to previous years.
In the end, I don’t think we are underestimating what the AfD might gain. However, a significant segment of the German electorate remains undecided about how they will vote on Sunday. For these voters, the final days leading up to the election may still be crucial, and certain events or rhetoric could influence their decision.
I don’t believe J.D. Vance’s statement will have a major impact, but the recent terrorist attack in Munich might, as it is a deeply tragic event that affects people on an emotional level. This, of course, is a serious issue. I think such incidents have a greater effect on voter sentiment than what J.D. Vance said. However, his endorsement is part of a broader effort to shift the political narrative further to the right and enable more power for the AfD. What is surprising is how openly he has expressed his support.
This is also reflective of a larger trend in which populist radical right parties are becoming more transparent about their real intentions. In a way, this increased openness could be beneficial because it allows European leaders and the European Union to fully recognize the situation and take action accordingly. In fact, they are already responding, as seen in the upcoming conference on Ukraine, where efforts are being made to strengthen cooperation.
In an exclusive interview with ECPS, Professor Julie Ingersoll exposes how Christian Nationalism, Reconstructionism, and Catholic Integralism have coalesced into a powerful theocratic force behind Trump’s second presidency. She explains how these groups reject democracy, embrace authoritarian governance, and aim to reshape American society under biblical rule. “They all seek to make religion the dominant force in shaping society,” she warns, highlighting Project 2025 and figures like Paula White as key players in this movement. This is not a fleeting moment but a systematic, decades-long effort to transform US governance.
For decades, the influence of religion on American politics has been a subject of intense debate. While the United States was founded on principles of religious freedom, it has never fully separated faith from governance. Now, with Donald Trump’s second presidency, this intersection is more powerful than ever, as a broad-based coalition of Christian movements seeks to shape policy and redefine democracy itself.
In a revealing interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Julie Ingersoll, Professor of Philosophy & Religious Studies and Religious Studies Program Coordinator at the University of North Florida, unpacks how Christian Reconstructionism, Christian Nationalism, and Catholic Integralism have coalesced into a powerful force behind Trump’s agenda and the broader transformation of American governance.
“It’s huge. And this is where we get into expanding our understanding from Christian Reconstructionism specifically to the broad-based coalition of various versions of Christianity that are in power at the moment,” says Professor Ingersoll.
She traces this movement’s ideological roots back 75 years—to Christian Reconstructionists, who developed a biblical worldview that sought to apply scripture to every aspect of life. Over time, they joined forces with Charismatic Pentecostals, forming what is now called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)—a movement that believes in spiritual warfare, divine authority, and the division of people into “God’s people” and “Satan’s people.”
But their influence doesn’t stop there. A third group—Catholic Integralists—have also entered the political fray, advocating for a return to a society in which the church and state are united under a hierarchical order. These groups, Professor Ingersoll warns, are not merely religious factions but political actors with a shared vision of theocratic governance.
“They all seek to make religion the dominant force in shaping how society functions. While they may have different visions of what that should look like, they agree on the goal,” she explains.
One of the most striking elements of this coalition is its rejection of democracy. While they tolerate elections when they serve their interests, they are equally comfortable with authoritarian rule, monarchy, or any system that delivers a biblically ordered society.
As these forces gain more power—through figures like Paula White in the White House or Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation— Professor Ingersoll argues that ignoring their long-term ambitions is dangerous. This is not a fleeting moment in American politics; it is a systematic effort to reshape the country’s future.
Dr. Julie Ingersoll, Professor of Philosophy & Religious Studies and Religious Studies Program Coordinator at the University of North Florida.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Julie Ingersoll with some edits.
How Christian Nationalism Challenges Secular Governance in the US
Professor Ingersoll, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: The US was founded on the principle of religious freedom, yet religion has always played a central role in shaping its political identity. How do you see the tension between secular governance and religious influence in American political history?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: That’s a really complicated question, which is interesting because most of the discourse about it is very simplified. You have one faction in the US that says the Founding Fathers wanted religion in the public square, and then another faction that says, “No, no, no, they were secularists,” when, in fact, the historical truth is somewhere in between.
The way the Constitution was originally set up, there was no federal prohibition on established churches; the prohibition, or the Establishment Clause, only applied to the federal government. So, in the founding era, there was an assumption that the federal government would be religiously neutral, as a compromise between the different religious communities that were dominant in various states. However, there were state-established churches at that time, and I believe the last state to disestablish its churches was Massachusetts in the 19th century.
So, it isn’t the case that America’s founding was based purely on religious freedom. Rather, it was a decentralized system that evolved over time. This, in part, is why the conflict over secular governance and religious influence continues today.
Christian Nationalism has been a growing force in American politics. In what ways has it influenced policy-making and public discourse, and how does it compare to earlier religious movements in American history?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: Well, the conversation about religious nationalism using that label is relatively recent. If you go back to the middle of the 20th century, we were talking about the Religious Right. Then we talked about the New Religious Right, which meant that we needed a name for what came before, so we called that the Old Christian Right. Then there was the Tea Party and other movements.
In my view, these movements were just different iterations of the same impulses, but scholars and journalists have given them different names, demarcating them from each other. I think that’s a problem because we lose the thread that shows that this tension—between a secular civil society and a religious civil society—goes all the way back to the founding era and even the pre-founding era. When the Puritans settled New England, they thought they were building a theocracy. They wanted religious freedom for themselves, not for everyone.
So again, this tension runs throughout American history and is replicated in different eras. Today, we are calling the side that wants a theocratic—or at least theocratically tinged—public square “Christian Nationalists.” But, in my view, this is not a new movement.
How Religious Narratives Shape American Power and Policy
A “God, Guns, and Trump” sign displayed on an old military bus following the 2020 presidential election in November 2020, Tampa, Florida. Photo by Florida Chuck.
Many political leaders have framed the US as a divinely chosen nation. How has this religious narrative shaped American foreign and domestic policies over time?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: Oh, that’s such a huge question, isn’t it?
I think the most important thing is what Americans have come to call American exceptionalism. When the Puritans built a theocratic New England, they used the famous phrase that Ronald Reagan later popularized—that it was going to be a “city on a hill.” This phrase came from the Puritans, and what they meant by it was that their society would be so impressive that everyone around the world would emulate it. So they had these kind of expansionist goals from the very beginning.
It was always rooted in this divine right that early Americans believed they had—and that many Americans still do—to shape not only their own communities but also to transfer what they think is God’s will to the rest of the world.
Evangelical Christians have been a powerful political bloc, particularly since the late 20th century. What historical factors contributed to their political influence, and how has it evolved in the 21st century?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: Again, I have to say I’ve been very impressed with your questions. They’re rooted in some solid research on the issues at hand, and even in my own work, for the purpose of asking me questions, and I appreciate that so much.
My book Building God’s Kingdom traces the rise of today’s iteration of theocratic Protestantism. Now, there are a couple of other threads that make up the contemporary movement that we’re calling Christian Nationalism, and we could talk about those. But the Protestant movement itself is rooted in a mid-20th-century obscure group called Christian Reconstructionism.
The Christian Reconstructionists had a whole worldview about how the Bible applies to every area of life, and they meant that literally. They detailed how that would play out in a biblical society. Most theological systems sort of fall by the wayside. Most of the ones that have developed across history we’ve never even heard of, let alone have they taken hold.
But what happened with the Christian Reconstructionists is they developed the view that public education was unbiblical and that it should ultimately be dismantled. In order to make that happen, they developed the Christian school movement, and the foundations of that led to the Christian homeschool movement. Without the Christian Reconstructionists, you wouldn’t have had those movements, and those movements spread the obscure group’s ideas out to the broader conservative evangelical subculture.
People who had never heard of Christian Reconstructionists often sent their kids to Christian schools, and the Christian Reconstructionist way of thinking about things framed the curriculum that Christian schools promote. Then, of course, a decade or so later, on that foundation, the Christian homeschool movement developed. So those two educational movements, which have been 75 years in the making, have shaped this contemporary evangelical understanding of the relationship between church and state and the role of Christians in politics.
The Role of Religion in Shaping Social Change and Political Polarization
A homeowner displaying their political affiliation and religious devotion on their front lawn in Forest, Virginia, USA, on August 21, 2020. Photo: Shutterstock.
Religion has played a dual role in both supporting and resisting social change in America, from abolitionism to civil rights to contemporary issues. How do religious traditions shape activism and policy debates today? Your work especially discusses the rise of affective polarization in American politics. How do religious identity and political affiliation reinforce each other in this dynamic?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: I consider it a rise of affective politics. My approach to the study of religion comes out of social science and even social history rather than theology. People who approach religion through the study of theology presuppose that theological systems, theologies, and ideas come first and that cultural developments follow.
I, as a social scientist, take a different view. I think culture comes first. For me, there is no Christianity that exists apart from history and culture. So I don’t think you can go back to a time where affective politics wasn’t part of what we are now calling religion. I think religions serve to establish social boundaries between different groups, reinforce those boundaries, and make people inside those boundaries feel like they have a particularly correct, appropriate, or valuable way of seeing the world over and against the people that get put on the outside of those social boundaries. And that’s deeply political from the very beginning.
So, I don’t know that if that has changed. But it is the case that progressive Christianity has long served as an alternative vision of how religion should engage in politics. Certainly, in America, the Black Church has had a deeply profound influence on thinking about how religion might engage in the public square, and these are starkly different versions of what Christianity means in the political sphere.
The versions between, say, the Black Church, progressive Christians, and Socialist Catholics share certain understandings about how Christianity should engage the public sphere. And that’s very distinctly different from how the Christian Nationalist, Christian Reconstructionist folks think about how Christianity should shape the public sphere.
Can you please explain the concepts of Christian Reconstructionism and Christian Nationalism for our audience? Your work traces the ideological influence of Christian Reconstructionism on contemporary politics. What are the keyways in which Reconstructionist theology continues to shape the Christian Right today?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: The Christian Reconstructionist movement—this is what I primarily write about—has its origins at least as early as the 1950s, but certainly the 1960s in the US. The key figure there was R.J. Rushdoony.
He developed a system in which Christians think of the Bible as a continuous whole, from Genesis to Revelation. They don’t understand there to be a disjuncture between the Old Testament and the New Testament the way a lot of modern Christians do. They believe that this continuous revelation from the Old Testament to the New Testament provides everything needed to understand how to live in the world.
There are theological structures through which they interpret what the Bible says about specific topics, and we could discuss this if you’d like. But for some people, that level of detail is a little too in the weeds. Nevertheless, they develop a system that speaks to every part of life. A central idea in this system is that God granted authority to humans in three distinct spheres: the church, the family, and civil government. These encompass everything regarding how humans should live, at least according to Christian Reconstructionists.
Each of these spheres has distinct tasks and is given specific authority. They are not allowed to interfere with the authority granted to the other spheres. This concept becomes particularly important when discussing education because, in this framework, education is a task assigned to families. Therefore, the state has no legitimate role in educating children. This belief leads them to conclude that public schools are unbiblical and should be dismantled.
This also explains how they can claim to believe in the separation of church and state, even though, from an outside perspective, it doesn’t appear that they do. In their view, the church and the state have separate authority derived from God and are assigned separate tasks. However, both remain under the authority of the Bible, making it a theocratic system despite the distinct roles of church and state.
This distinction confuses a lot of people. Some assume they are simply being dishonest when they claim to support the separation of church and state. They’re not lying. The question is how much they allow the misunderstanding to persist. Some people will hear them say they believe in the separation of church and state and just accept it at face value. Others will push back and say, “But that doesn’t make sense.” And if you press them, you’ll see that they mean something entirely different by it.
Christian Nationalism Plays Huge in the Second Trump Administration
A Trump flag waves at a pier on Coden Beach in Coden, Alabama, on June 9, 2024. The flag bears the slogan, “Jesus is my Savior. Trump is my President.” Photo: Carmen K. Sisson.
What roles do these two concepts, Christian Reconstructionism and Christian Nationalism play in the second Trump administration?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: Well, it’s huge, it’s huge. And this is where we can get into expanding our understanding from Christian Reconstructionism specifically to the broad-based coalition of various versions of Christianity that are in power at the moment.
So, in the movement that we’re calling Christian Nationalism, you do have a thread rooted in a kind of traditional Protestantism—a Calvinist kind of Protestantism, such as Presbyterianism, maybe some early Baptists, or the Christian Reformed movement—and that is Christian Reconstruction. But in addition to that, you have a charismatic Pentecostal movement.
For readers or listeners who may not be familiar, Pentecostalism emerged in the 20th century as a version of Christianity that emphasizes a literal spiritual realm. It includes practices distinct from other forms of Christianity, such as speaking in tongues, miraculous healing, and other actions described in the Bible that most other Christian traditions tend to mythologize. These believers are called Charismatics and Pentecostals.
In the 1980s, Christian Reconstructionists started working with Pentecostals to bring them around to the idea of applying the Bible to every area of life. They called this Dominionism. Over time, this Dominionist Pentecostalism evolved into what is now called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).
When you see figures like Paula White, who was appointed head of the faith-based office in the White House, she comes from this New Apostolic Reformation movement. While it may sound benign, their view of “spiritual warfare” is central to their ideology. They don’t interpret it as a personal struggle against sin, as many Christians do, but as a literal battle in which people are divided into God’s people and Satan’s people. This apocalyptic worldview has become a crucial part of the movement.
At the same time, the Christian Reconstructionists and the New Apostolic Reformation have joined forces with a third movement within US Christianity: Catholic Integralism. This movement draws from a medieval form of Catholicism in which the Church and State were united under a monarchy. You can see this influence at institutions like the Heritage Foundation, which produced Project 2025.
All three of these groups—Christian Reconstructionists, the New Apostolic Reformation, and Catholic Integralists—share key components of Christian Nationalism and have made common cause. One shared component is a theocratic impulse; they all seek to make religion the dominant force in shaping how society functions. While they may have different visions of what that should look like, they agree on the goal.
Another shared characteristic is their lack of commitment to democracy. They are fine with democracy if it leads to a religiously based, biblical society, but they are also comfortable with monarchy or authoritarian structures as long as they result in the “right” kind of biblical society. These groups have united around these core ideas.
In practice, their influence is visible. There is a faith-based office in the White House led by a New Apostolic Reformation figure. Catholic Integralists were behind Project 2025, which essentially serves as the policy agenda for the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Christian Reconstructionists laid much of the ideological groundwork over the last 75 years to make this possible.
So, yeah, I think that answers your question.
Tech Elites and Religious Extremists Unite to Undermine Democracy and Equality
Donald Trump and Elon Musk on the X social media platform. Photo: Rokas Tenys.
In the interview you gave to the Guardian on January 24th, you underline that: ‘“When these guys say they believe in the separation of church and state, they’re being duplicitous. They do believe in separate spheres for church and state, but also in a theocratic authority that sits above both.’ Do you mean that Trump and his team do endorse a theocratic authority above democracy? If yes, how much of a danger do these people pose to American democracy and American secularism?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: Well, I didn’t mean Trump necessarily. I meant the coalition of Christian groups that are behind the Trump administration. Because I think that you do have more secularized versions of political organization that also join in the goals of the Christian Nationalists. So let me back up just a little bit.
Because I treat religion like a social scientist, I recognize that the categories we’re using to talk about these things are socially and culturally produced. So, for example, the distinctions between the Reconstructionists, the New Apostolic Reformation, and the Catholics—we can think of those as distinct and separate movements with clear-cut boundaries for the purpose of understanding. But in reality, that’s not the case. These are fluid movements, and they make common cause where it’s useful. The people on the ground are not necessarily concerned about theological consistency, so they’ll embrace part of what one of these groups says and let go of the rest if it doesn’t fit their worldview.
Likewise, there’s no strict division between these three religious groups that we’re calling Christian Nationalists and other groups that we might not think of as religious but share some of the same underlying concerns about how society should function. For example, I think the best contemporary example is the “Tech Bros” out of Silicon Valley. These folks are not religious per se. They’re not necessarily connected to Christian Nationalism, but they share underlying views about how society should be ordered. They believe that certain people are naturally more equipped to be leaders, while others ought to be followers. They hold a commitment to the idea that there is some moral right for those who are equipped to lead to take charge and do what they think is best.
These Tech Bros coming out of Silicon Valley are also not committed to the idea of democracy or to the principles of equality that underpin it. All three of those religious groups, along with the Tech Bros, agree that equality is a problematic category. They are not committed to the idea that all human beings are equal, and they believe that efforts to promote equality in society undermine the strength and power of society.
So the lines between the religious groups and the secular groups aren’t as clear in reality as we often think they are. We talk about them as though they are distinct, and in some ways, they are, but in other ways, they are not. So, in Trump’s administration, you have a coalescence of factions in society who do not believe in equality, who aren’t committed to democracy, and in particular, who—at least in expressions found in the US—believe that white people are superior and that men are superior.
So, in terms of leadership, you’ll see that play out in the administration, where the leaders will mostly be white and mostly be men, and they will actively work to undermine what has historically been a commitment to increasing equality in civil society. That is a goal they do not support. You also see this playing out in international relations. It comes down to this idea that “might makes right.”
And with Trump’s recent conversations about Gaza and about Ukraine and Russia, the underlying thread is that if you have the power to take the land, then it’s okay. It’s moral for you to do so. If you have the power, you have the right to do it.
All of these groups might have different justifications for why they have power. The Christian ones will say, “Well, we have the power because God gave it to us.” Others might not invoke God but instead claim that power comes from a kind of moral superiority of a certain class of people. But in practice, those two views aren’t different. They both build a society that is colonizing.
Christian Nationalism’s Theocratic Push and Its Threat to Democracy
Donald Trump’s supporters wearing “In God We Trump” shirts at a rally in Bojangles’ Coliseum in Charlotte, North Carolina, on March 2, 2020. Photo: Jeffrey Edwards.
In the same interview, you argue that “So their commitment is to theocracy: the government of civil society according to biblical law and biblical revelation.” Can we call this the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism? How do you think fundamentalist Christian groups and other religious movements will be affected by the second Trump administration?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: For me, fundamentalism is a specific movement in Christianity that is tied to a particular place and time. It’s a Protestant Christian movement that originates in the late 19th, early 20th century, and has its heyday up through, say, the 1950s. It’s a specific thing, and efforts to argue that there are fundamentalists across the globe and to export that language, I think, are problematic.
But here’s another way to think about it. There’s a scholar in religious studies whose work I use a lot and really like. His name is Bruce Lincoln, and he talks about religious movements in terms of how they understand their place in larger society. He categorizes them into two groups: minimalist and maximalist.
He explains that Enlightenment philosophers were attempting to put a hold on the wars of religion that were happening in Europe. They aimed to make religion exist within its own sphere, distinct from the rest of society. Religion was still very powerful in a spiritual and personal way, but not in a public way. He calls the movements that adopted this modernist way of thinking about religion “minimalist.” He calls those that reject it and believe that religion speaks to all areas of life “maximalist.”
I think that is a more helpful framework for conceptualizing this issue. If you consider early fundamentalism in 20th-century America, they were maximalist. They rejected the idea that religion should be limited to a private, personal matter. Certain forms of Islam around the world are also maximalist, just like Christian fundamentalists of the 20th century. Other forms of Islam are minimalist. American Muslims, for example, mostly resemble other religious groups in the US in this regard.
At my university, we often have interfaith events where a Protestant, a Catholic, a Jew, a Hindu, and a Muslim share a stage and talk with each other. It quickly becomes clear that they have more in common with one another as minimalists than they do with their counterparts under the same religious label who are maximalists. My colleagues at UNF, who are Muslims, are minimalist Muslims, and they can engage in discussions with minimalist Jews, but they don’t really talk to maximalist Muslims. The same pattern applies to Jews, Christians, and Hindus.
So, I think this is a better way to understand the rise of fundamentalism. These categories are less tied to a specific place and time than the language of fundamentalism itself.
In your article titled ‘Classification matters: Hiding violence in Christianity in the US,’ you argue that: “Since Christianity is the dominant religious tradition in the US, it is the beneficiary of rhetorical structures and classification systems that function to obscure its relationship to violence.” In the West, it is usually Islam that is strongly associated with violence. How do you think these classifications shape public perceptions of religious extremism in the US? Can you explain the relationship between violence and Christianity and the dynamics of this relationship?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: Well, this is great because this question follows the last one, right? We’re not talking about all Christians. Christianity in general, if there were such a thing, isn’t necessarily violent, but there are forms of Christianity that see the employment of violence as legitimate, just as there are forms of Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism— and even Buddhism—that legitimize the use of violence.
By those structures that hide it, in the context of the US—a society infused with forms of Christianity—the result is that, a decade ago, as Americans, we could readily see Islamic forms of violence around the world. But when a group identified with Christianity enacted violence, there was no notion that it represented Christianity in general, right? So, when Muslims committed acts of violence, they were associated with all of Islam. But when Christians committed acts of violence, they were disassociated: Oh, that’s an aberrant form of Christianity. Those aren’t “real” Christians, right?
Those dividing lines separated the rest of us—who are “nice people” and “not violent” (in quotes as a distancing mechanism)—so that everyday Americans could look at someone like Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing a lot of people, including many children, and say, Oh, but he wasn’t really a Christian. But yes, he was. Yet he didn’t get identified as a Christian terrorist. He didn’t even get identified as a terrorist. He was labeled as a kind of right-wing crazy guy who committed a violent act.
If Timothy McVeigh had been a Muslim, that would have been framed as Islamic violence attacking us. The way these events are framed is shaped by the fact that Americans take for granted a Christian backdrop and more easily discern the distinctions between various forms of Christianity than they would with a religious tradition that is less familiar.
There are other answers to that question, but yeah, this discussion could go on for a long time.
The Media’s Failure to Capture Long-Term Influence of Christian Nationalism
Christian singer Sean Feucht hosts a “Worship Protest” on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during the COVID-19 pandemic on October 25, 2020. Photo: Nicole Glass.
And the last question, Professor Ingersoll; in the article “From Christian Reconstruction to Christian Nationalism: What the media need to know about the 75-year effort to establish theocracy in the US,” you critique how media coverage of Christian Nationalism often fails to grasp its long-term influence. What changes would you recommend for journalists covering this topic?
Professor Julie Ingersoll: Well, it’s interesting how you organize this, because this question really brings us back to much earlier in our conversation about Christian nationalism—what it is and how we think about it. One of the things the media does—and scholars do it too, particularly those who don’t root their work in history and lack a historical sense of the development of things—is systematically rename this group of Christians, whatever you call them.
The consistent renaming happens about every 10 years. Around five or six years into that cycle, reporters say, Oh, well, they’re gone now. Then, a few years later, they’re not gone. A few years after that, something happens—often an election—and people start recognizing them again, but under a new name.
This renaming has some advantages. For example, talking about evangelicalism—which is how I used to refer to this movement—suggests that it is mostly Protestant. Calling it Christian nationalism today expands the way we see it to include Catholics and Charismatics, which is helpful. But the problem with this renaming is that it erases the historical trajectory.
As a result, we, as a culture, think this movement has just arisen out of nowhere. In fact, some reporters even ask, Who could have thought this would happen? Well, everybody who has been paying attention should know that this could happen because they’ve been trying to do it for at least 75 years—really, even longer.
We miss the long-term time horizon with which these people work. If we rename them every 10 years, decide they have disappeared, and fail to connect the previous version to the new one that arises, we misunderstand the movement. Because of this mistaken sense of time, we think we can address the issue within an election cycle. People believe that if they can just power through the Trump administration for two years, they can change everything in the midterms.
We might have a midterm election—I hope we do—and we might be able to change the composition of the three branches of government in a way that could make things better. But even if that happens, this movement doesn’t go away. They’ve been working on this for a long time, and they will continue to work on it.
Two quick illustrations of this long-term project:
Project 2025, which now serves as the blueprint for a second Trump administration, didn’t come out of nowhere. The Heritage Foundation started developing these plans—under the larger name The Mandate for Leadership—going into the Reagan administration. Every four years, they have released a new version. The latest one is by far the most comprehensive. They got right to work at the end of the last Trump administration, and if you read that document, the level of detail is overwhelming. This is the most coherent version of their strategy so far, but it is not new. They have been doing this since the late 1970s.
Christian Reconstructionists in the homeschool movement have created a curriculum that instructs families to build a 200-year plan for a family dynasty. They encourage homeschooling families to sit down at their kitchen table and map out a two-century-long plan for their descendants.
This is not something that can be resolved in two years. What I would like the media to recognize is the long-term nature of this movement because the only way to address it is to also work long-term.
Shewan, Molly. (2025). “Populism and Autocracy in the Gulf Countries.” European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS).January 10, 2025. https://doi.org/10.55271/rp0094
On December 19, 2024, ECPS hosted the 18th session of the Mapping Global Populism (MGP) Panel Series, titled “Populism and Autocracy in the Gulf Countries.” This session examined a number of key contemporary dynamics at the intersection of populism and authoritarianism in the Gulf region. A distinguished panel of experts presented on a wide range of topics, including the evolution of social contracts in Gulf states; autocratization processes; the environmental dimension of authoritarian leadership; and the role of religion in shaping both domestic and international politics. The session thus offered many key critical insights into both the nebulous features of populism itself and the importance of bringing the Gulf region into scholarly conversation regarding populism’s impact across the globe.
The European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) hosted the 18th session of the Mapping Global Populism (MGP) Panel Series, “Populism and Autocracy in the Gulf Countries,” on December 19, 2024. The session explored the complex dynamics surrounding populism and authoritarianism across the Gulf region. Bringing together a distinguished panel of scholars and practitioners, the discussion focused on a number of key developments, including the environmental and religious dimensions of autocratic leadership in the Gulf States, as well as the evolution of the social contract, in order to examine the diverse causes, manifestations and impacts of populism and authoritarianism in the region.
Moderated by Dr. Courtney Freer, Assistant Professor at the Department of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies-Emory University, the panelists included Dr. Thomas Demmelhuber, Professor of Middle East at the Friedrich Alexander University, Erlangen-Nürnberg-Germany; Dr. Gail Buttorff, Hobby School of Public Affairs-University of Huston; Dr. Tobias Zumbraegel, senior researcher and lecturer at the Department for Human Geography at Heidelberg University-Germany; Mr. Kardo Kareem Rached, University of Human Development-Iraq, and Dr. Kristin Smith Diwan, senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.
The panel made a multidisciplinary, wide-ranging, and insightful contribution to the scholarly exploration of populism and autocracy in the rapidly evolving social and political context of the Gulf region. Therefore, this session constitutes a significant and timely addition to the panel series overall, aiding in its goal of generating a more complete understanding of the diverse impact of populism and authoritarianism across the globe.
Panel Overview
Dr. Thomas Demmelhuber opened the panel with his presentation on “Key Drivers of Autocratization in the Gulf Region.” Dr. Demmelhuber began by arguing that Gulf regimes are often much too complex to be neatly categorized into a binary division between democracy and authoritarian governance. Rather, he regards autocratization as a fluid, multifaceted process which can occur within a variety of regime types in notably different ways. Dr. Demmelhuber argued that autocratization is primarily driven through the actions of prominent elites at the domestic, regional and international levels.
At the domestic level, populist discourses can be utilized as a means of consolidating regime power, utilizing affective appeals to the citizenry as a united collective in order to strengthen the legitimacy of the regime. At the regional level, regimes often learn from one another and adapt their political strategies to mirror their neighbors, which is linked to the emergence of authoritarian gravity centers. On the international level, norm diffusion can occur through transnational networks, promoting authoritarian practices across the globe. Dr. Demmelhuber concluded his insightful presentation by flagging the need for greater scholarly interrogation of the non-material dimension of populist appeals, as well as of the populism which emerges “from below.”
Our second speaker, Dr. Gail Buttorff, a researcher of gender and political participation in the Middle East, followed with an engaging talk titled “The Evolving Social Contract in the GCC” with a particular focus on gender as a key factor. Dr. Buttorf began by offering a succinct overview of the social contract in the GCC up to the 2000s, which was heavily reliant upon strong wealth redistribution and a generous welfare state in exchange for limited political participation by the citizenry. She then went on to note a variety of factors that have put pressure on this institutional arrangement since then: declining oil rents, lower revenue, and growing populations, which led Gulf states to embrace austerity while unemployment was rising.
In an effort to renegotiate their social contracts in this new contemporary context, Gulf regimes have deployed policies of labor renationalization, which in turn resulted in a significant increase in female employment, as well as “vision statements” which explicitly emphasize “mutuality” between state and citizen responsibility. The gendered impact of these adjustments was particularly visible during the COVID-19 outbreak, as a number of states – including the UAE and Bahrain – passed legislation which illustrated the intersection between labor nationalization and women’s participation in public life.
Overall, Dr. Buttorff effectively explored the ways in which Gulf states have attempted to retain legitimacy in uncertain economic conditions by adjusting their social contracts, with particularly significant implications for women across the region.
Dr. Tobias Zumbraegel, who has written extensively on the environmental dimension of state power in the Gulf, turned to focus on the environmental dimension in his presentation: “The New Green Autocrats: How Saudi Arabia and the UAE Redefine Environmental Leadership.” He, too, began by examining the social contract in the Gulf, emphasizing the enhanced role of provision and protection by regimes—made possible through the vast income generated by the oil and gas industries—in exchange for a lack of participation by their citizens. In the wake of growing pressures to lessen their dependence on fossil fuels, Dr. Zumbraegel argued that the emerging “Green Gulf Model” is characterized by strong, personalistic leadership, a techno-utopian vision which perhaps over-exaggerates the potential for new technologies to reverse environmental harm, strong emphasis on the continuing importance of fossil fuels; and a close alignment of environmental goals with other economic diversification projects, such as in sports and entertainment. Dr. Zumbraegel further sought to locate the role of these “green autocrats” in influencing global environmental governance, supported by a strong alliance of transnational corporations whose goals align with those of the Gulf regimes.
To conclude, Dr. Zumbraegel argued that autocratic regimes in the Gulf have embraced a top-down approach to sustainability. By gradually pivoting towards green energy yet continuing to protect their oil and gas interests, Gulf states are attempting to maintain the rentier welfare state system whilst neglecting the environmental and social justice dimensions of sustainability altogether.
Mr. Kardo Kareem Rashed, an expert on the intersection between religion and politics in the Middle East, discussed the intersection between religion and authoritarianism in his talk: “The Role of Salafism in the National and International Politics of Gulf Monarchies.” Taking a historical-analytical approach, Mr. Rashed began by tracing the roots of Salafism back to Saudi Arabia, emphasizing its complex role in shaping Saudi Arabian domestic and international politics since 9/11 due to links with Jihadism. He went on to note the relevance of the political decision-making process in Saudi Arabia, a strictly patrimonial regime, wherein power flows downwards through a hierarchical model of authority from the King to tribal sheikhs and army leaders.
As Saudi Arabia evolved into a rentier state, Mr. Rached argues, Salafism became institutionalized; post-World War II, Salafism was a powerful tool used by Saudi King Faisal to oppose and suppress Arab nationalist movements, bolstered through the establishment of new educational institutions. The Gulf War marked a key turning point, however, as the Salafist movement rejected the presence of US troops on Saudi soil. As a result, the Saudi state began to tighten control over religious institutions and strengthened alliances with other nations on the basis of shared Islamist ideology. Overall, Mr. Rached argued, in a supposedly post-Salafi era, a complex relationship remains between the Saudi state and transnational religious dynamics.
Finally, Dr. Kristin Smith Diwan, a leading scholar on the politics of Arab Gulf States, presented on the topic “Populism in Gulf Monarchies: Suppression, Cooptation, Adoption,” concluding our discussion with a more direct interrogation of populism itself, its varying definitions and its contemporary manifestations across the Gulf region.
Dr. Diwan began by discussing salient conceptualizations of populism as a theory of international relations, an approach to economic policy, and a style of political leadership before arguing that populism appears particularly prominently as a discursive form of rhetoric in the Gulf region. Populist rhetoric frequently features direct appeals to “the people” as a virtuous citizenry and depicts a cultural, economic or political elite as a corrupt “establishment.” Dr Diwan aptly noted that populist rhetoric is also often tightly entwined with nationalism, as it punches both downwards, outwards the “undeserving” unproductive class, as well as outwards, targeting migrants and non-citizens too.
While it might be surprising to see populism emerge in the Gulf states, considering their strong track record of resource distribution, Dr. Diwan argued that both increasing wealth inequality and the emergence of communication technology – e.g. social media – are both important factors in explaining the emergence of populism from below. Detailing a number of examples of populist rhetoric by opposition figures, Dr. Diwan argued that different Gulf Monarchies have responded with varying strategies of suppression, cooptation and adoption. In a particularly interesting case, she noted that Saudi Arabian elites have deployed populist rhetoric from above in an attempt to consolidate their state power, emphasizing the fluid nature of populist discursive strategies.
Conclusion
The 18th session of the Mapping Global Populism (MGP) Panel Series provided an engaging examination of some of the key contemporary features of populism and authoritarianism in the Gulf region. Each speaker presented an insightful contribution to this theme, from conceptualizing autocratization to gendering the social contract to the intersection between autocracy, environmentalism, and religion. Overall, the panel highlighted the pressing need for greater scholarly attention on the region within the field of populism studies, owing largely to the rapidly evolving social, political and environmental landscape of the Gulf states. In particular, scholars emphasized the need to consider both the material and non-material causal factors at play in furthering populist or autocratic trends. For instance, changes in wealth redistribution and affective emotional or discursive appeals were both highlighted as particularly relevant.
The highly engaging and insightful analysis shared throughout the panel was, therefore, not only successful in representing a number of key developments within current scholarship on the region but also in signposting important avenues for further research.
Overall, this session constituted an effective contribution to ECPS’s broader goal of advancing our understanding of populism across the globe. It will undoubtedly prove a valuable resource for those looking to enhance their understanding of the way in which populism and autocracy manifest and interact within the Gulf region today.
Portugal is facing heightened scrutiny after a young, inexperienced policeman fatally shot Odair Moniz, a Black man, under dubious circumstances. This incident has reignited longstanding debates about structural racism and revealed deep-seated cultural and social divides, exposing unresolved issues around race, security, and the state’s role. Reflecting James Davison Hunter’s concept of “culture wars,” these moral conflicts have deepened into societal divisions that erode shared values. Portugal’s colonial legacy further intensifies these tensions, perpetuating systemic racial exclusion and fostering fertile ground for populist narratives.
James Davison Hunter stands as one of the most prominent and enduring authors on the topic of “cultural wars” in the United States. He emphasizes how so-called moral issues tend to undermine the “common ground” that forms societies, with the potential to become an effective war by sharpening citizens’ moral divisions (Hunter, 1991). Conversely, Fiona Morris and other contributors in Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (2005) challenge this view, arguing that polarization largely operates within the media, while society as a whole tends toward consensus.
However, time has lent more credence to Hunter’s perspective and the work of other scholars who focus on cultural wars. Ezra Klein, in Why We’re Polarized (2020), argues that moral values and social identity issues have become central to our political identity, aligning with Cass Sunstein’s arguments in #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media(2018), which highlights how social media has become an echo chamber for tensions around morality and “customs,” amplifying socially divisive themes. But what does this theoretical prelude have to do with recent events in Portugal involving the case of Odair Moniz and the ensuing public unrest? Quite a lot, as it turns out, and the reasons are worth exploring.
Among the polarizing issues within society, racial matters stand out prominently. In Portugal, we have engaged in ongoing debates over whether or not racism exists, what constitutes racism, whether Portugal is a racist country, and if structural racism is present. Much of this discussion is either redundant, given the evidence, or overly theoretical.
In summary:
i) racism exists wherever individuals are differentiated based on race, creating hierarchies of value and access (Bonilla-Silva, 2014; Fanon, 2008);
ii) racism operates as a social process in which such differentiation disadvantages some while benefiting a dominant group—typically Caucasian in Western societies due to the legacies of slavery and colonialism. According to Achille Mbembe (2019), colonial histories have left profound imprints on social hierarchies, with racialized groups enduring forms of systemic marginalization that permeate all levels of society. In his concept of “racialized social systems,” Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2014) argues that racism is not a mere individual prejudice but is embedded in societal structures, creating a social order that inherently privileges certain racial groups over others. Theoretical discussions around power, privilege, capitalism, and racialization are ideologically relevant yet often seem to lack practical contributions in tackling urgent issues, though they offer critical insights into systemic challenges (Wynter, 2003).
iii) Portugal is a country where racism is evident, with unique characteristics that should not be oversimplified through comparative analysis with other contexts. Its documented history includes ties to late colonialism and scientific justifications for the supposed cultural, biological, and mental inferiority of Black populations (Mbembe, 2001). The continued influence of colonial narratives has shaped racial and social dynamics within contemporary Portugal, as examined by Carla Rodrigues and Jorge Leal (2009), who reveal how these legacies reinforce discriminatory practices that marginalize racialized communities.
To understand the recent incidents centered in Zambujal – the neighborhood where protesters fired cars and a bus, with latter mimetic acts in some areas of Lisbon – it is necessary to consider a history of misguided policies regarding the inclusion of racialized individuals within Portuguese society, as discussed in O Estado do Racismo em Portugal (2021), edited by Silvia Rodriguez Maeso. Despite critiques of its activist bias, this work rigorously details systemic issues related to racial policies in Portugal, including urban planning and policing, which are directly relevant to this case. Such policies, compounded by socioeconomic inequalities and an enduring colonial mentality, contribute to a racialized social order that perpetuates marginalization and exclusion for racialized communities (Mbembe, 2019; Fanon, 2008).
The decision—albeit somewhat understandable—to address the urban integration of people from former Portuguese colonies by establishing social housing has, as in other countries, led to ghettoization. This pattern has perpetuated social exclusion and generational poverty, with vulnerable families often lacking resources or sufficient parental involvement, leaving children exposed to criminal networks. Meanwhile, underfunded schools and educational neglect further diminish prospects for youth in these areas. Together, these factors create a “social cauldron” that stigmatizes these communities as socially excluded islands, often becoming the target of state policing.
Policing such isolated social islands fosters a cycle of mutual distrust, generating a divisive “us vs. them” mentality. For many in these communities, the police are the sole representatives of the state, fostering stereotypes and resentment. Bonilla-Silva (2014) describes how such dynamics reinforce the racialized social system, where state practices contribute to the social reproduction of racial hierarchies. Furthermore, police violence against racialized individuals in Portugal has been documented in international human rights reports, compounded by reports of far-right groups within the security forces. These conditions highlight a significant state failure on racial matters.
The Cultural War over the Police State
While we await judicial proceedings in the case of Odair Moniz’s death, another discussion has emerged. In summary, Portugal faces an endemic racism problem affecting opportunities for racialized populations, who generally confront the intersection of economic, educational, and gender-related issues. Although white social groups may share some of these challenges, racialized groups face additional disadvantages due to “race.” Portugal also has issues with the rapid and haphazard urban integration of racialized groups, leading to territories where poverty and crime are disproportionately associated with these communities. Consequently, policing efforts, compounded by resentment and distrust as well as racism within segments of the security forces, have sparked a surge in police violence against racialized individuals.
Thus, poverty, social exclusion, urban segregation, and police violence underlie these events, fueling popular outrage. However, as this outrage increasingly manifests as vandalism—absent an organized structure and peaceful leadership—it loses the capacity to garner widespread empathy, as it impinges upon fundamental and primary rights within the rule of law, such as the right to security and private property.
Hence, the “cultural war” over a “police state” or “security state” emerges from chaos. André Ventura’s – radical right Chega party leader – recent calls for a protest supporting the police, framing it as “cleaning the streets” of “criminals,” echo Brazil’s Bolsonaro and his supporters, embodying the mantra, “A good criminal is a dead criminal.” By organizing a pro-police demonstration, Chega openly aligns with a surveillance state model that prioritizes “law and order” over constitutional governance—a step towards a state that surveils citizens beyond constitutional limits. Public support for this stance has been evident on social media, as people trade freedom for order, recalling Alexis de Tocqueville’s warning that in times of chaos, people are prone to sacrifice freedom for the promise of order.
Meanwhile, for the cultural war to thrive, two opposing poles are necessary. Radical elements within the Left, associated with the Bloco de Esquerda party, have seized upon these events to encourage a racial revolution. While motivated by a desire to rectify racial injustices, this rhetoric parallels the radical right’s, both potentially threatening social cohesion and the “common ground” essential for future generations. Social changes addressing racial dynamics should not take a revolutionary approach, which may ultimately intensify racial divisions and compromise democracy.
Thus, it is within democracy and the hard-won social-liberal principles that we must pursue the republican ideal of effective equality—not authoritarian “equality” under radical poles, but the equality promised by constitutional ideals under the banner of human rights. Achieving this requires justice in Odair’s case and others like his, alongside public policies that, while slower than revolutionary impulses, restore the rule of law, social peace, and constitutional norms—enabling us to address what we’ve thus far swept under the rug.
Conclusion
The case of Odair Moniz and the ensuing public response illustrate a deep-seated cultural and social rift in Portugal, revealing unresolved tensions around race, security, and the role of the state. This incident aligns with James Davison Hunter’s concept of culture wars, where moral divisions sharpen into polarized conflicts, eroding shared social foundations. In Portugal, these conflicts intersect with a colonial legacy that perpetuates systemic exclusion and racial disparities, creating an environment ripe for populist rhetoric.
As seen in André Ventura’s reaction, populist figures often exploit such moments, promoting a “law and order” narrative that taps into public fears, mirroring strategies observed in other countries. This populist stance risks shifting Portugal toward a security state model that emphasizes control over democratic principles. On the other side, radical responses advocating racial revolution pose their own challenges, as they could polarize society further and jeopardize social cohesion.
Ultimately, meaningful progress requires that Portugal confront these issues within a democratic framework, advancing policies that address structural racism and urban inequality while upholding the rule of law and human rights. Only by fostering genuine social inclusion and resisting polarizing impulses can Portugal hope to rebuild its social contract on a foundation of equality and shared values.
References
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield.
Fanon, F. (2008). Black Skin, White Masks. Grove Press.
Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. Basic Books.
Klein, E. (2020). Why We’re Polarized. Simon & Schuster.
Maeso, S. R. (Ed.). (2021). O Estado do Racismo em Portugal. Edições 70.
Mbembe, A. (2001). On the Postcolony. University of California Press.
Mbembe, A. (2019). Necropolitics. Duke University Press.
Morris, F., Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. Pearson Longman.
Rodrigues, C. U., & Leal, J. (2009). Portugal não é um país pequeno: Contar o “império” na pós-colonialidade. Edições 70.
Rodrigues, S. R., & Araújo, M. (2019). Racism and Racialization: Experiences in Portugal. In Lentin, A., & Titley, G. (Eds.), Racism and Media (pp. 113–126). Routledge.
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.
Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument. CR: The New Centennial Review, 3(3), 257–337.
Kenes, Bulent. (2024). “Islamist Parties and Power in Democratic Nation-States: A Comparative Analysis of Six Muslim-Majority Countries.” ECPS Book Reviews. European Center for Populism Studies. October 30, 2024. https://doi.org/10.55271/br0020
In “Islamist Parties and Power in Democratic Nation-States: A Comparative Analysis of Six Muslim-Majority Countries,” authors Ihsan Yilmaz and Syaza Shukri argue that Islamist parties, at their core, are political entities that prioritize practical governance over strict ideology when necessary, leaving them vulnerable to voter rejection if they fail to address economic and social issues effectively. This adaptability underscores the book’s central argument that policy efficacy often takes precedence over Islamist rhetoric, shaping the evolution of Islamist parties within democratic contexts. While it occasionally includes a wealth of historical details that may seem excessive, the book’s nuanced approach offers a valuable resource for understanding the intersections of Islamism, Islamist populism, authoritarian Islamism, and democracy on a global scale.
In the book titled Islamist Parties and Power in Democratic Nation-States: A Comparative Analysis of Six Muslim-Majority Countries, authors Ihsan Yilmaz and Syaza Shukri explore the multifaceted strategies of Islamist parties operating within democratic and semi-democratic settings across various Muslim-majority countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey. The book examines how these parties adapt ideologically and pragmatically to maintain influence, highlighting a shift from traditional opposition roles to coalition-building and power-sharing with secular or non-Islamist entities. The authors underscore that while Islamist parties share a religious foundation, their approaches to governance and democracy are diverse, challenging simplistic views that position them solely as anti-democratic.
Yilmaz and Shukri aim to provide a nuanced understanding of how these parties manage power, respond to crises, and navigate issues like minority rights and foreign policy, particularly in today’s globalized and interconnected political landscape. The introduction of the book under the title of “Islamist Parties Operating in Democracies,” sets the stage by examining the multifaceted nature of Islamist movements, defining them as entities aiming to incorporate Islamic principles into political and social realms. The authors clarify that while these groups are often perceived as monolithic, they are, in fact, a “diverse array of voices” with varying ideological and strategic priorities shaped by unique regional contexts.
One key strength of the introduction is its contextual framing of Islamist parties not just as ideological entities but as pragmatic actors responsive to “evolving conditions and societal expectations.” Yilmaz and Shukri discuss how these groups, while rooted in shared religious values, exhibit adaptability by forming coalitions and engaging in “power-sharing and coalition-building” with secular or even oppositional parties, particularly when in governance roles. This approach marks a significant departure from previous literature, as the authors aim to present Islamists as dynamic participants in democratic systems rather than static opponents to democratic principles.
Furthermore, the introduction highlights the book’s comparative methodology, which sets it apart from similar works that typically focus on a single region. By juxtaposing cases from countries like Turkey, Indonesia, and Tunisia, the authors aim to draw broader insights into “the complex dynamics” of Islamist governance. Yilmaz and Shukri suggest that understanding these dynamics is crucial for a “nuanced understanding” of Islamist politics that moves beyond reductive assumptions. Thus, the introduction promises a rich comparative analysis, shedding light on the strategic adaptability of Islamist parties and their potential to balance ideological goals with pragmatic governance in diverse political settings.
Islam and Politics
In Chapter 2 which is titled “Islam and Politics in Democratic Muslim-Majority Countries,” Yilmaz and Shukri present an insightful analysis into the complexities of Islamism and its intersection with democratic politics across diverse Muslim-majority nations. By grounding the discussion in scholarly debate, they explore how Islamist movements navigate between mainstream and extremist strands and examine the adaptive strategies employed by these parties in response to their unique political environments.
The chapter explores a critical dichotomy within Islamism, distinguishing between mainstream Islamists who participate in elections and seek gradual reform through democratic means and more extremist groups that often reject democratic processes. This distinction underlines the authors’ main argument about the adaptability of Islamist parties, emphasizing that while many engage in democratic processes, others lean toward authoritarian tendencies. This adaptation, as the authors argue, is driven by both political and socio-economic pressures, shaping Islamist strategies across different contexts.
Moreover, Yilmaz and Shukri delve into the ideological tensions within Islamist politics, such as the potential for majoritarianism and religious hegemony. They caution that unchecked Islamism could risk eroding minority rights and compromising democratic principles, especially in polarized societies. The authors support this claim by discussing the experience of Turkey under the Justice and Development Party (AKP), where populist tendencies and majoritarianism have raised concerns about the preservation of democratic institutions.
Finally, the chapter addresses the broader implications of Islamist governance and the complex role of political Islam. By examining case studies in countries like Tunisia, Indonesia, and Morocco, the authors provide a robust framework for understanding how Islamist parties balance religious principles with governance. This nuanced examination makes Chapter 2 a foundational overview for readers, highlighting both the potential and challenges of Islamism within democratic contexts.
PAS and Malaysia
In Chapter 3, Yilmaz and Shukri provide a comprehensive examination of Malaysia’s Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) under the title of “Seven Decades of PAS in Malaysian Politics,” tracing its strategic evolution across the nation’s politically complex landscape. The authors explore PAS’ adaptability and pragmatism within Malaysia’s semi-democratic environment, highlighting how PAS has shifted from conservatism to moderate pluralism and, recently, to ethno-religious populism.
The chapter outlines PAS’ historical journey, from its foundation in 1951 as an offshoot of UMNO, focused on Malay-Muslim identity, to its modern status as a dominant Islamist party. PAS’ relationship with UMNO, marked by both rivalry and cooperation, underscores the party’s flexibility. The authors note that PAS has shifted between opposing UMNO’s secular nationalism and forming alliances under banners of “Muslim unity,” depending on political needs. Yilmaz and Shukri point to PAS’ success in adapting its ideology to suit changing political climates, illustrating its willingness to collaborate across the political spectrum for electoral gains.
According to the book, PAS’ governance of Kelantan since 1990 serves as a case study in implementing an Islamist agenda within a multicultural society. Despite advocating for “shariazation” policies, PAS has shown restraint at the federal level, balancing Islamic values with the realities of Malaysia’s diverse demographics. This pragmatic approach, the authors argue, has allowed PAS to maintain its influence, especially during its brief time in federal power from 2020-2022.
Further, the authors discuss PAS’ strategic response to global and national crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, which bolstered its populist appeal through welfare measures. Yilmaz and Shukri conclude that PAS’ electoral flexibility and populist tactics have solidified its position among conservative Malay-Muslims, marking it as a key player in Malaysia’s evolving political landscape. The chapter demonstrates how PAS’ resilience and adaptability, despite operating within Malaysia’s semi-authoritarian framework, have contributed to its growing strength in Malaysian politics.
PKS and Indonesia
Chapter 4 of the book offers a nuanced analysis of Islamism within Indonesia’s multiparty political system under the title of “PKS in Indonesia’s Multiparty System,” by spotlighting the evolution of the Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) and its role as a major Islamist party. The chapter contextualizes PKS within Indonesia’s post-1998 democratization efforts, focusing on how the nation’s rich cultural diversity and democratic constitution impact the moderation of Islamist agendas. Yilmaz and Shukri highlight PKS’s pragmatic approach, noting its blend of Islamic values with democratic ideals as it navigates Indonesia’s secular and religious pluralism.
The authors emphasize that PKS has achieved influence without strictly seeking to impose sharia law, contrasting with more radical movements like Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI). PKS’s stance on social justice, anti-corruption, and minority rights demonstrates a commitment to Indonesia’s Pancasila foundation, balancing Islamic identity with pluralist values. This adaptability has allowed PKS to participate in coalition governments while maintaining a distinct Islamist identity.
The chapter also explores PKS’s responses to regional and global Islamist trends, highlighting that PKS favors a moderate stance on Islamic solidarity, promoting peaceful international relations and opposing extremist ideologies. However, as the authors note, PKS faces rising pressures from conservative Islamic populism, which challenges Indonesia’s secular state model. They point to the complex balancing act of PKS as it negotiates between religious values and national priorities amid Indonesia’s diverse electorate.
Chapter 4 presents PKS as an example of Islamist pragmatism within a democratic framework, stressing its role in maintaining Indonesia’s status as a moderate Muslim-majority nation. The analysis showcases PKS’s strategic positioning within Indonesia’s political landscape, where moderation often proves more sustainable than radicalism.
Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and Pakistan
In Chapter 5 of the book, authors Yilmaz and Shukri provide an in-depth exploration of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), one of Pakistan’s most influential Islamist parties. This chapter, which is titled “A Faithful Force: Jamaat-E-Islami and Islamist Politics in Pakistan,” examines JI’s evolution from a supporter of military regimes to a unique voice advocating social development within an Islamic framework. Describing JI as a “faithful force,” the authors highlight the party’s struggle to reconcile its foundational principles with the realities of ‘Pakistani democracy,’ illustrating both its successes and limitations in influencing national politics.
Initially, JI supported Pakistan’s military leadership, particularly during General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, which advanced the Islamization process in Pakistan. The authors emphasize how JI’s alliance with Zia enabled it to push for Islamic laws, giving JI a rare moment of influence. However, as the chapter reveals, JI’s strict Islamist stance limited its broader appeal, especially as it encountered Pakistan’s diverse political landscape and increasing calls for pluralism.
Yilmaz and Shukri delve into JI’s organizational structure, describing it as both a strength and a “double-edged sword.” JI’s internal hierarchy, according to the authors, deeply rooted in discipline and loyalty, provides a solid foundation, yet its rigid framework hinders adaptability. Despite its “commitment to democratic principles” and holding intra-party elections, JI has struggled to expand its influence beyond its core supporters, often failing to capture significant electoral success on a national level.
The authors explore JI’s stance on the controversial blasphemy law and its impact on Pakistan’s democracy, particularly in relation to minority rights. JI’s call for the law’s strict enforcement has complicated its image, as it aligns the party with hardline interpretations of Islam that conflict with Pakistan’s aspirations for a more inclusive society. While JI advocates for “social justice, anti-corruption, and anti-imperialism,” its approach has been criticized for not sufficiently addressing the needs of Pakistan’s minority communities, a factor that limits its broader political appeal.
In discussing JI’s ideological adaptability, the authors argue that JI has recently shifted towards a “second-generation Islamism,” with an emphasis on social development and community welfare. The chapter notes JI’s active involvement in charitable work through its Al-Khidmat Foundation, an outreach strategy that has helped it maintain influence despite its limited political successes. This evolution highlights JI’s pragmatic side, as it aligns its goals with broader social issues while retaining an Islamic identity.
Yilmaz and Shukri conclude that JI’s trajectory exemplifies Pakistan’s complex relationship with Islam and democracy, where Islamist parties face the challenge of preserving religious identity while adapting to democratic norms. They suggest that while JI has struggled to secure a dominant political position, it remains a potent force due to its strong organizational base and grassroots support. Ultimately, Chapter 5 sheds light on the “delicate balance” between faith-based politics and the realities of Pakistan’s evolving democratic landscape.
PJD and Morocco
In Chapter 6, titled “Islamist PJD and the Monarchy in Morocco,” the authors delve into the dynamics between Morocco’s monarchy and the Justice and Development Party (PJD), focusing on Morocco’s unique Makhzen system. This system, led by the king as emir al-mu’minin or “commander of the faithful,” establishes him as both a secular and religious authority, allowing the monarchy to manage Islam as an integral part of Morocco’s national identity. The chapter emphasizes how this framework has been crucial in tempering “the potency of political Islamism” and limiting the PJD’s influence, even as it formed a government following its 2011 electoral success.
The chapter examines the PJD’s decade in power, a tenure punctuated by moments of compromise and concession. Initially, the party enjoyed significant popular support, riding the wave of Arab Spring reforms that included expanded parliamentary power. However, as the chapter illustrates, the PJD quickly encountered the limits of its influence. The authors highlight how the monarchy’s interventions in key government functions, especially in “sensitive roles and veto powers,” underscored the persistence of monarchical authority, often stifling the PJD’s ability to implement its agenda fully.
The COVID-19 pandemic further strained the PJD’s position, contributing to its electoral decline in 2021 and symbolizing the end of its era of Islamist governance in Morocco. This chapter argues that the monarchy’s symbolic Islamic leadership, combined with its political authority, successfully framed itself as the true custodian of Moroccan identity, relegating the PJD to “a second-generation Islamist party forced to work within the system.” This analysis reveals that the PJD’s journey reflects the complex interplay of religious and political authority in Morocco, where Islam is strategically woven into the fabric of governance, ultimately ensuring that power remains centered in the monarchy.
Ennahda and Tunisia
Chapter 7, titled “Ennahda as Tunisia’s Muslim Democratic Party,” delves into the rise, evolution, and challenges faced by Tunisia’s Ennahda party, highlighting its remarkable adaptability within the country’s political landscape. Initially, Ennahda emerged from Tunisia’s conservative Muslim roots, but, in the wake of the Arab Spring, it evolved into what the authors describe as Tunisia’s “Muslim Democratic Party.” This transformation underscores Ennahda’s pragmatism and its attempt to blend religious principles with democratic ideals. After winning Tunisia’s first democratic elections in 2011, Ennahda adapted its stance to suit a diverse political landscape, opting for “a practical kind of national reconciliation”with secular parties, which became crucial for political stability.
The authors highlight Ennahda’s ideological moderation, particularly when it decided not to impose Sharia as the foundation of the 2014 constitution. This choice, according to Yilmaz and Shukri, reflected Ennahda’s understanding of “the importance of Maqasid al-Sharia over specific rules,” showcasing the party’s evolving position on Islamic law to resonate with a broader national identity. The shift was further reinforced during the 2016 Tenth General Congress, where Ennahda officially prioritized politics over religious preaching, effectively becoming “a conservative political force capable of handling governance.”
The chapter also sheds light on the recent strain in Tunisian democracy, exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis, which impacted Ennahda’s reputation and led to widespread disapproval. Ennahda’s subsequent absence from the 2023 elections reflects a shift in its strategy, possibly spurred by President Kais Saied’s consolidation of power. In sum, Chapter 7 paints a nuanced picture of Ennahda’s transformation and challenges, illustrating its continued struggle between ideological values and the demands of a pragmatic political approach in Tunisia’s ever-shifting political terrain.
AKP and Turkey
Titled “Islamist Populist AKP and Turkey’s Shift Towards Authoritarianism,” Chapter 8 of the book presents an in-depth analysis of Turkey’s Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, exploring its journey from “Muslim democrat” roots to an authoritarian populist regime. Initially, the AKP championed democratization, economic reform, and EU membership; however, its trajectory shifted post-2011, notably after the “Gezi protests of 2013” and the controversial 2016 coup attempt. These events, according to the authors, paved the way for a clampdown on dissent, particularly targeting journalists, activists, and opposition politicians, marking a stark turn towards authoritarianism.
Erdogan’s leadership has progressively consolidated power, transforming Turkey’s democratic infrastructure into what the authors describe as a “competitive authoritarian regime.” With the 2017 constitutional referendum, the office of the prime minister was abolished, granting the president sweeping executive powers, leading one observer to note that “Erdogan [became] the virtually unassailable ruler of Turkey.” By diminishing checks on presidential authority, Erdogan’s AKP harnessed Islam and nationalism to foster a narrative that secures his base while casting opposition voices as foreign-controlled threats to national unity.
In this chapter, Yilmaz and Shukri also examine the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet), highlighting its instrumental role in promoting the AKP’s vision of Islam as a component of Turkish identity. This vision extends internationally, where Turkey navigates a complex geopolitical landscape. According to the authors, through selective alliances, including with Russia and China, the AKP leverages religious and nationalist rhetoric to mitigate Western criticism, particularly regarding human rights issues. Yet, its economic policies, based on unorthodox monetary approaches, have led to high inflation and decreased living standards. The authors note that Erdogan’s insistence on low-interest rates, justified by Islamic teachings against usury, has led to what the text calls an “accelerated currency devaluation” that further strains Turkey’s economy.
In sum, Chapter 8 paints the AKP as a party that, while initially promising democratic reform, has instead pursued populist authoritarianism. This has strained Turkey’s democratic structures and polarized its society, positioning Erdogan as a powerful, divisive figure whose policies reflect both the aspirations and challenges of modern Turkish Islamism.
Trajectory of Islamist Parties
In Chapter 9, the authors overview “Trajectory of Islamist Parties” and synthesize the book’s key findings, examining how various Islamist parties navigate the balance between Islamism and democracy. The chapter delves into how Islamist parties, when allowed political participation, engage in governance yet often struggle with the tension between God’s sovereignty and popular sovereignty. This complex relationship has led to a diversity of outcomes, ranging from authoritarian shifts in Turkey under the AKP to democratic engagement in Malaysia, Morocco, and Tunisia.
The authors highlight the significance of “strategic interaction theory,” which suggests that an Islamist party’s moderation is contingent upon its relationships with secular forces and the military. “Credibility of signals sent by the Islamist party” is crucial in establishing trust with non-Islamist actors, although, as in the AKP’s case, prolonged power can erode democratic practices. The chapter notes that the AKP’s “immoderation was the result of dismantling institutional checks and balances” due to political crises like the Gezi protests and the 2016 coup attempt.
Through comparative analysis, the authors argue that some Islamist parties adapt to electoral losses, as seen in Tunisia and Morocco, where they have “accepted defeat albeit with some resistance.” However, once in power, these parties tend to favor pragmatism over strict adherence to religious principles to sustain governance. This adaptability is essential, particularly in Muslim-majority secular states like Indonesia, where the “balance between Islamic identity and democratic diversity” is necessary for political survival.
The authors suggest in brief that Islamist parties are, at their core, political entities that prioritize practical governance over ideology when necessary, making them susceptible to voter rejection if they fail to deliver on economic and social issues. This adaptability underscores the book’s central argument that policy efficacy outweighs Islamist rhetoric, shaping the evolution of Islamist parties within democratic frameworks. While it occasionally includes abundance of historical details that may seem excessive, the book’s nuanced approach provides an insightful resource for understanding the intersections of Islamism, Islamist populism, authoritarian Islamism and democracy on a global scale.
Ihsan Yilmaz & Syaza Shukri. (2024). Islamist Parties and Power in Democratic Nation-States: A Comparative Analysis of Six Muslim-Majority Countries. Palgrave Macmillan. 313 pp. Hardcover: EUR 139.09. ISBN-10: 9819743427, ISBN-13: 978-9819743421.
In exploring the socio-political dynamics behind white Evangelicals’ support for Donald Trump and right-wing populism in the United States, Professor Marcia Pally of New York University identifies what she calls a “double loss” experienced by this group. She explains that white Evangelicals face both economic and societal losses—challenges shared by many Americans—which are further intensified by their distinct struggles as a religious community. This “double loss,” Pally argues, is coupled with a “double suspicion” of government and “outsiders”: a widespread American distrust of centralized authority, minorities, and new immigrants, paired with a doctrinal suspicion rooted of priestly and other authorities in Evangelical religious beliefs.
In a thought-provoking interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Marcia Pally of New York University delves into the socio-political dynamics driving the support of white Evangelicals for Donald Trump and right-wing populism in the United States. Highlighting what she describes as a “double loss” experienced by this demographic, Professor Pally explains how both economic and societal losses—shared by many Americans—are compounded by the unique religious challenges facing white Evangelicals. This sense of loss, she argues, is accompanied by a “double suspicion” of government and of “outsiders” (minorities and new immigrants): a general American wariness of centralized authority, alongside a doctrinal distrust of priestly and other authorities and of “outsiders’ rooted in Evangelical religious teachings.
Throughout the interview, Professor Pally unpacks the role of white Evangelicals in American right-wing populism, tracing their political engagement to a deep-seated suspicion of government and of “outsiders” and to a perceived erosion of cultural influence. She elaborates on the phenomenon of “Christian nationalism,” a relatively recent term describing a political movement that uses particular readings of Christianity to justify nationalist goals. However, she notes, Christian nationalism is not truly a form of Christianity but rather a form of nationalism that taps into the anger that arises from significant socio-economic losses and cultural marginalization.
Professor Pally also addresses how Trump’s rhetoric and policies—particularly on immigration and national identity—resonate with white Evangelicals, drawing on long-standing cultural anxieties about “outsiders” and threats to community. Finally, she explores the global implications of Trump’s potential re-election, predicting that right-wing populist movements around the world would likely adapt his strategies and rhetoric to their own contexts.
In this wide-ranging conversation, Professor Pally provides a nuanced understanding of the political and cultural forces shaping the white Evangelical electorate and their continued support for Donald Trump’s populist rhetoric in the United States.
Professor Marcia Pally is an expert in theology and political culture, teaches at New York University and was awarded the Mercator Professorship in the Theology Faculty at Humboldt University, where she is an annual guest professor.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Marcia Pally with some edits.
Populism as a Response to Duress: Loss, Threat, Fear or Anxiety about Change
What key differences do you observe between left- and right-wing populisms in the US, in particular the role of Evangelicals in American right populism, and how do these movements draw differently from America’s religio-cultural history? Could you elaborate on the American religio-political background from which populist beliefs emerge, and explain how this historical and cultural trajectory influenced Trump’s election in 2016?
Professor Marcia Pally: That’s a series of very complex questions. Let me take them step by step. You asked about the differences between left-wing and right-wing populism. Let me begin by saying that, following prominent research, I’ve developed a minimal core definition of populism. Then we can talk about left, right, strong and weak variants. The core definition of populism is that it’s a response to duress: loss, threat, fear of loss or anxiety about changes in economic situations, ways of life, technology, demographics, gender roles, etc.
When these losses or fears accumulate, people naturally shift their focus outward. They move away from their usual preoccupations—family, friends, schools, teams—and focus instead on identifying a “them” who is perceived to be causing harm to “us.” This shift to an “us versus them” mentality is a normal human response. It’s not specific to Europe, America or any particular ideology—it’s a species-wide reaction to perceived threats.
The third prong in this response to duress is identifying “them.” Populist movements—especially right-wing ones—seek to identify those they see as causing the harm. This identification usually draws from culturally familiar “others,” which can differ from culture to culture or even subculture to subculture. For instance, in the US, we don’t hear much about the Roma people because they play a negligible role in American history. But in other parts of the world, the Roma people have been historically singled out as a “them” responsible for certain fears or harms.
The “them” in the “us versus them” dynamic draws from historical and cultural ideas about society–who is “in” and who is “out”– as well as beliefs about the proper role and size of government.
To sum up, we can define populism as driven by duress, leading to an “us versus them” binary, where the “them” is identified based on long-standing cultural and historical factors. The key difference between left-wing and right-wing populism lies in who the “thems” are. Right-wing populism traditionally identifies the “them” as outsiders—new immigrants, religious and racial minorities and sometimes a corrupt government.
Left-wing populism, on the other hand, doesn’t usually target the government, as the left often views democratic governments as representatives of the people and legitimate agents of governance. Instead, left-wing populism tends to focus on economic exploitation, rather than identity politics, and identifies “them” as those responsible for economic inequality rather than as racial, ethnic or religious minorities. So, one key difference is that the right is more suspicious of government, while the left sees it as a potential agent of positive change.
I should also note that populism is not a static concept; it exists on a continuum. On one end, you have softer forms of populism, which align more closely with the normal agonistic aspects of democratic processes. For example, Bernie Sanders or Martin Luther King Jr. could be considered proponents of “soft” populism, which stays within the realm of democratic debate.
As you move along the continuum, populism can grow stronger, characterized by a much sharper “us versus them” binary and a diminished tolerance for ambiguity. In softer populism, someone can be an ally on one issue and an opponent on another. For instance, a corporation might support climate change action but oppose raising the minimum wage, and soft populism would recognize this complexity as part of politics.
In stronger populism, however, the “us versus them” division becomes much more rigid, often framing the struggle as a battle between good and evil, with existential stakes. This can lead to more extreme and uncompromising solutions.
The second part of your question, about cultural history and its impact, was quite broad. Could you narrow it down so I can address it more specifically?
The Problems People Face Are Often Real and Justified
Can you elaborate on the role of Evangelicals in American right-wing populism?
Professor Marcia Pally: Sure. I’m going to break this down by distinguishing between white Evangelicals and Evangelicals of color, because their histories in the US are very different. Evangelicals of color have a rich and vibrant history that really deserves its own study. Since my research focuses on white Evangelicals, I’ll focus on them here.
White Evangelicals—and their ancestors—have been coming to the US since the 17th century. They’ve contributed to and participated in the development of the country and contributed to three of the most foundational aspects of American political culture.
First, there’s covenantal political theory, which views the governed as a covenanted community. In this theory, sovereignty rests with the people, not the king or a ruler. If the leader—what we might now call the President or Prime Minister—violates the covenant with the governed, it is seen as legitimate to remove them. This is a productive heritage, and the ancestors of today’s Evangelicals played a significant role in introducing this idea to the United States.
Second, they contributed to republicanism—with a small “r”—which comes from Aristotelian thought. It emphasizes that citizens run the polis or state. This idea also centers around community engagement and governance, with sovereignty rooted in the people themselves.
Third, Evangelicals played a role in shaping liberalism, which, while less focused on the community aspect, emphasizes individual opportunity. However, like the other two traditions, liberalism maintains a strong suspicion of any government or ruler that abuses power. This suspicion runs through all three aspects: A leader who violates the covenant with the people; a tyrant who attempts to take control of the republic; and a ruler who tries to constrain individual freedoms.
Evangelicals, like other immigrants, contributed to all three of these foundational elements of American political culture. Additionally, two other important factors shaped their current position on the right wing of American politics.
First, their doctrinal belief that all governments are flawed and imperfect—none embody the Kingdom of God—leads them to be wary of authority. Each person, they believe, must determine how to live a moral life and foster a moral society, reinforcing their suspicion of centralized authority.
The Evangelicals we’re discussing are Protestants, heirs of the Protestant Reformation, which emphasized the individual conscience in developing a moral life and society. They are skeptical of priestly authority and instead trust the individual’s conscience. This, again, amplifies their wariness of government. This may foster the fear that the government could violate their covenant, their republic, their liberal rights and their doctrinal obligation to uphold the moral life. This suspicion also extends to outsiders who might interfere with their way of life.
This skepticism can be positive: a healthy distrust of government can guard against authoritarianism, bolster democracy and promote individual opportunity. Their strong sense of community has been a key factor in local development and community engagement. This commitment to community and localism is part of a long tradition in the US, especially within Evangelical circles.
However, under duress, things change. The usual focus on community and democratic localism can shift outward, leading to suspicion and fear of outsiders. Under pressure, the commitment to community may flip into an “us vs. them” mentality, where outsiders are perceived as threats to the community. Similarly, a healthy suspicion of autocratic government can morph into a blanket distrust of all government. Under stress, people tend to look for a “them” to blame for their problems, and nuanced thinking can give way to simplistic explanations.
Under these conditions, a suspicion of autocracy turns into a general suspicion of government, except when government is used to constrain outsiders. This shift makes it difficult for society to function effectively—if government is distrusted and outsiders are seen as threats, collaboration and compromise are stifled. If the government itself is seen as inherently suspect and if outsiders—who often bring talent, innovation, and entrepreneurialism—are also viewed with suspicion, a final tragedy emerges. This shift in perception, from community cohesion to distrust of outsiders and from a healthy skepticism of tyrants to a blanket suspicion of all government, leads to a loss of nuance in understanding the original sources of duress.
In today’s interconnected global economy, with its complex networks of transportation, communication and technology, problems such as economic hardship or changes in ways of life often have multiple, intertwined causes. This complexity can be overwhelming, leaving individuals feeling powerless to address the issues. In this context, the “us vs. them” mentality offers a simple explanation by blaming an identifiable group for the strain.
However, this appealing simplification can prevent people from recognizing the more intricate, systemic causes behind the challenges they face. In my research, I have found that the problems people experience are often very real and justified—people are generally aware when they are being impacted. The tragedy is that, if they can’t properly identify the true causes of their struggles, they may misdirect their frustration and fail to address the root issues.
Nothing Trump Said Is New in the American Cultural or Political Context
Former US President Donald Trump with a serious look as he delivers a speech at a campaign rally held at the Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre, PA – August 2, 2018. Photo: Evan El-Amin.
We know that it is not only Trump but other Republicans as well addressed economic and way-of-life duress but what made Trump’s policies so effective and ‘persuasive’ in garnering the votes? In what ways does the evangelical sense of cultural and political marginalization influence their embrace of Trump’s rhetoric and policies on immigration and national identity?
Professor Marcia Pally: This is a complex question but let me address it step by step.
First, it’s crucial to recognize that nothing Donald Trump said was new in the American cultural or political context. His identification of the “deep swamp,” the insider elite in Washington and the so-called elite media or “fake news,” is not new. It’s an expression of the long-standing suspicion of government in the US. As I’ve mentioned, this suspicion has a healthy, democratic side but can also morph into a general distrust of government. Trump was able to tap into this long-standing element of American political culture.
Similarly, regarding outsiders—whether new immigrants, religious minorities like Muslims or occasionally even anti-Semitic themes—Trump was able to activate these entrenched cultural anxieties. When you ask why he was so effective, it’s because he tapped into sentiments that had existed for a long time. In the 2015–2016 campaign, he experimented with different slogans to see what resonated, and when he received applause for certain themes, he kept using them.
When a political message touches on a long-standing concern—one that feels familiar or “right” to people—it’s likely to gain traction. Trump successfully tapped into both anti-government and anti-outsider sentiments and he continued to use those themes because they worked. But it’s important to emphasize that these ideas were not new.
For example, “America First” was not Trump’s invention. Woodrow Wilson used the phrase in 1916 in his efforts to keep the US out of World War I. Senator William Borah from Idaho also used it to argue against US involvement in the League of Nations after the war.
Similarly, “Drain the Swamp” was not Trump’s creation either—it was a campaign promise used by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
Now, for the second part of your question regarding evangelicals, could you clarify what specifically you’d like me to follow up on?
In what ways does the evangelical sense of cultural and political marginalization influence their embrace of Trump’s rhetoric and policies on immigration and national identity?
Professor Marcia Pally: Thank you for that. Let’s return to our core definition: duress and the “us vs. them” shift through culturally familiar themes.
The pressures that white Evangelicals face are real and legitimate concerns. White Evangelicals experience the same duress many Americans do. There has been a loss of purchasing power since the 1980s, a decline in unionization and the disappearance of jobs for which Americans had been trained, alongside insufficient training for new jobs emerging from new technologies. Health care, housing, education, day care, senior care are all expensive for middle- and working class- Americans. Rapid technological advancements and changes in gender roles have also contributed to the sense that life today is harsher and more difficult than it was for their parents or grandparents.
There’s a growing sentiment that life has become less fair. People work hard, yet they lose their jobs or find themselves underemployed and communities are devastated when factories close or, more significantly, when technological changes increase productivity, reducing the need for workers. These are legitimate, very real hardships and neither political party did much to address them—until the Obama and Biden administrations, which took several productive steps, though not enough.
In addition to these economic hardships, Americans face “way of life” losses. By this, I mean the sense that one’s standingas respectable, middle-class individuals is being eroded or undermined. They feel powerless to change this, as policies are made by distant decision-makers who seem out of reach and unaccountable. These complaints are quite real.
On top of that, white Evangelicals have suffered a demographic loss. In 2004, they made up about 23–25% of the population; today, they are roughly 13%. They are the most aged of all religious groups in America, with an average age of around 56, and there is a growing fear of losing cultural influence in the US.
White Evangelicals once held more “soft power,” or cultural sway, in American life. As society has become more secular, urbanized and socially progressive, they’ve seen a decline in their influence. These demographic and cultural losses are felt as real and painful, compounding the economic and social changes that many in the middle and working classes are experiencing.
In summary, Evangelicals face a “double loss”: the economic and societal losses many Americans endure and the unique losses faced by their religious group. This double loss is paired with a “double suspicion” of government and “outsiders”—both the general American wariness of centralized authority and “others” (minorities, new immigrants) and the religious, doctrinal suspicion of priestly and other authorities.
This combination of double loss and double suspicion, particularly under duress, creates a volatile situation. When people are under pressure, they look for a “them” to blame and they turn to familiar explanations for their very real difficulties—ones that are culturally familiar, understandable, and resonate with their lived experiences.
You underline that in late 2019, the influential, mainstream evangelical publication, Christianity Today, ran an editorial calling for Trump’s removal from office. Yet in the 2016 presidential election, 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump. How do you explain this strong bond despite forceful Evangelical reservations?
Professor Marcia Pally: It’s important to remember that Americans, in general, are suspicious of authority and evangelicals are doubly so. While Christianity Today is an influential magazine, an editorial it publishes doesn’t dictate how evangelicals across the country will respond. Evangelicals are likely to make up their own minds, based on their individual assessments of the situation, their personal sense of duress, loss or threat, and their views on the root causes of these challenges.
I’m not at all surprised that a major, influential magazine would criticize Donald Trump and declare him unfit for office, while at the same time, a substantial portion of evangelicals make their own decisions, grounded in their own perspectives and evaluations.
Christian Nationalism Is Not a Form of Christianity, but a Form of Nationalism
Christian singer Sean Feucht hosts a “Worship Protest” on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during the COVID-19 pandemic on October 25, 2020. Photo: Nicole Glass.
Can you elaborate on the concept of “Christian nationalism” and how it has been employed by White Evangelicals to justify their support for Trump and right-wing populism?
Professor Marcia Pally: Christian nationalism is a relatively recent term and it’s an important one, developed by colleagues of mine who have done excellent work. However, I’m not convinced that white evangelicals are actively using Christian nationalism. It might be more accurate to say that Christian nationalism is using white evangelicals. Let me explain.
First of all, Christian nationalism is not a form of Christianity; it is a form of nationalism. The core of it—the noun—is nationalism.
Christian nationalism aims to implement specific political, economic and social policies. It is a political position, not a faith tradition that aligns, for instance, with the teachings in Matthew 25, which calls for caring for “the least of these.” Rather, Christian nationalism is a political ideology that its proponents claim is justified by their particular readings or interpretations of Christianity.
Adherents of Christian nationalism argue that their political stances are rooted in their understanding of Christian doctrine and the Bible. However, it’s crucial to note that many Christians in the US have vastly different interpretations of Christianity. These Christians are working tirelessly to promote other understandings of the faith. This includes 20–25% of white evangelicals, whose voices are often underrepresented in mainstream media. They are actively advocating for alternative interpretations of the Bible and the Christian doctrine.
It’s also important to point out that Christian nationalism is not a uniquely white evangelical invention or “brand.” The movement extends far beyond white evangelicals, encompassing individuals from the broader religious right, including Catholics and mainline Protestants. So, while some white evangelicals may identify with Christian nationalism because they align with its “us vs. them” themes, it is a much broader political movement that goes beyond just one group.
How do you think right-wing populism will be affected globally if Trump gets elected on November 5?
Professor Marcia Pally: Right-wing movements around the world communicate with one another. Of course, this is not unique—left-wing movements, centrist movements, governments and NGOs also communicate globally. This is to be expected.
Given that right-wing populist movements exchange ideas and strategies, closely observing each other’s successes and failures in order to learn from them, if Trump is re-elected in November, I expect right-wing groups and leaders—or those aspiring to leadership on the right—to examine the strategies, rhetoric and promises of Trump’s campaign. They will likely try to adapt and apply these approaches within their own political contexts.
As Austrians head to the polls on Sunday, Professor Reinhard Heinisch contends that “If you don’t want the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in government, you might actually hope they come in first.” He explains this paradoxical statement by noting, “If the FPÖ comes in first, there’s a much greater probability that no other party would want to join a government led by someone as radical as Herbert Kickl. The Conservative Party (ÖVP) would have several options available—they could form a coalition with either the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and a smaller party, or with the FPÖ. But why would the ÖVP want to be the junior partner in a coalition under Kickl when they could be the senior partner in a coalition with the SPÖ?”
As Austrians head to the parliamentary elections on Sunday, September 29, 2024, the political landscape is tense, with the far-right, anti-immigration Freedom Party (FPÖ) potentially poised to achieve an unprecedented success. Although the FPÖ is unlikely to secure an outright majority in the 183-seat Nationalrat (National Council), the implications of their potential rise to power have sparked widespread debate and concern.
In a timely interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), ProfessorDr. Reinhard Heinisch, a leading expert on Austrian politics from the University of Salzburg, provides critical insights into the possible outcomes of this election. Professor Heinisch offers a paradoxical yet intriguing perspective: “If you don’t want the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in government, you might actually hope that they come in first.” He elaborates on this by explaining that if the FPÖ wins, there is a greater chance that other parties, particularly the Conservative Party (ÖVP), will refuse to join a coalition led by such a radical figure as FPÖ lider Herbert Kickl. “The ÖVP could form a coalition with the Social Democrats (SPÖ) instead, avoiding the complications of being a junior partner under Kickl,” Professor Heinisch notes.
However, Professor Heinisch also highlights the risks if the ÖVP comes in first and the FPÖ follows closely behind. In this scenario, the likelihood of an ÖVP-FPÖ coalition increases, with potentially significant implications for Austria and the European Union (EU). Professor Heinisch warns that Kickl, unlike some other far-right leaders who moderate once in power, has a clear agenda to fundamentally alter Austria and its position within the EU. “I take him seriously when he speaks about his goals,” Professor Heinisch asserts, pointing to Kickl’s past actions and statements that suggest a deep commitment to his radical agenda.
The interview with Professor Heinisch delves into the historical factors that have shaped the FPÖ, the party’s impact on Austria’s political dynamics and the broader European implications of its rise. Heinisch’s analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the potential consequences of the upcoming election, making it essential reading for anyone interested in the future of Austrian and European politics.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Reinhard Heinisch with some edits.
FPÖ Poised to Emerge as Leading Party in Sunday’s Elections
Professor Heinisch, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: Can you elaborate on the historical factors that have contributed to the rise of populist radical right movements in Austria? How far back can we trace these influences?
Professor Reinhard Heinisch: That’s a very good question. The Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) is a populist radical right party, formed after World War II. However, it inherited a tradition that dates back to the Austrian Empire and the monarchy. Because Austria was not part of the German Empire during the reunification process in the 19th century, some people in Austria became German nationalists who wanted the German-speaking regions of Austria to join Germany. This sentiment laid the groundwork for what would later become the Freedom Party.
The FPÖ was founded after World War II and represented the aspirations of Austrians who identified themselves as Germans, including a significant number of former Nazis. Many of these former Nazi party members, once allowed to vote, did not align with the dominant conservative (Catholic) or socialist/social democratic parties. This led to the creation of a new party—the FPÖ—which was a German nationalist party that initially never exceeded more than 5% of the vote. It was a minor player in a political system dominated by two major parties: the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), a Christian Democratic party and the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ), which together controlled 95% of the electorate.
Over two generations, as the impact of the war receded, the FPÖ underwent a period of liberalization, attracting new members. In the early 1980s, it even partnered with the Social Democrats in government. However, the party was internally divided and during this time, a charismatic young leader from one of Austria’s provinces, Jörg Haider, recognized that future success depended on transforming the FPÖ from a nationalist, radical right party into a populist party.
A populist party, as Haider understood, positions itself against the elites, claiming that they have robbed ordinary people of their sovereignty. Under Haider’s leadership, the FPÖ rapidly grew, moving from 5-6% of the vote to 27%, largely on the strength of its populist appeal. Populist parties, even those on the right, are often less dogmatic than other radical right parties. For example, the FPÖ was initially pro-European integration, then turned against it; it was initially anti-Catholic, but later defended Europe against Islam. The party was highly flexible, adapting its platform to address societal grievances and attract voters.
Austria’s integration into Europe and the accompanying issues of borders, identity, immigration, globalization and European integration became increasingly important to the FPÖ. This focus allowed the party to capitalize on voter discontent with the dominant parties, particularly during times of political change, uncertainty and insecurity. Events such as the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the war in Yugoslavia—during which Austria, as a border country, experienced significant immigration—further fueled the FPÖ’s rise.
By 2000, the FPÖ had gained 27% of the vote and joined a conservative-led government, which caused a stir in Brussels and led to sanctions against the Austrian government. This was the first time a radical right populist party had become a junior partner in government. However, the FPÖ, as an opposition party, was ill-equipped to govern and its voters quickly became disillusioned. The party split, imploded and the government ended prematurely. After another round of elections, the coalition continued briefly before imploding again. The party split into a more moderate faction and a fundamentalist faction led by Haider. However, after Haider’s death in a car accident, his faction essentially disappeared.
The FPÖ reemerged and moderated itself when seeking office, but radicalized when rebuilding in opposition. In 2017, the FPÖ, once again seeking office, formed a government with the conservatives under the leadership of Sebastian Kurz, a young leader from the People’s Party. However, this government also ended prematurely due to the infamous Ibiza video, in which the FPÖ leader was seen offering influence to someone posing as a Russian oligarch. This scandal led to the collapse of the government and the FPÖ returned to opposition, where it had to reinvent itself once more.
Thanks to issues like the pandemic and problems within the government, the FPÖ rebuilt itself impressively and is now in a position where it is likely—or at least highly probable—that it will emerge as a leading party in the upcoming elections on Sunday, September 29 or at least finish as a close second. That, in a nutshell, is the situation.
FPÖ Takes Inspiration from Viktor Orbán’s Hungary
Protesters gather outside as the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) joins the coalition government in Vienna, Austria, on December 18, 2017. Photo: Shutterstock.
To what extent do socioeconomic issues like unemployment, immigration, economic inequality and globalization contribute to the appeal of the populist radical right in Austria? How do populist attitudes and attitudes based on populist radical right and left host ideologies affect citizens’ conceptions of democratic decision-making?
Professor Reinhard Heinisch: The Freedom Party (FPÖ), if we imagine political contestation along two axes—the socioeconomic and the sociopolitical—traditionally aligns more to the center-left on socioeconomic issues. This alignment has enabled them to form coalitions with the Social Democrats on economic matters. However, on sociocultural issues, they are quite far to the right, which currently gives them a unique selling position.
Both factors, socioeconomic and sociocultural, are important, but Freedom Party voters are probably more concerned with cultural issues, particularly questions of identity and immigration. You cannot completely separate these concerns from socioeconomic factors because the Freedom Party engages in welfare chauvinism. They often mobilize against immigrants or asylum seekers using socioeconomic arguments, such as advocating for cuts to subsidies and benefits for non-citizens, while emphasizing support for native Austrians. This approach is sometimes echoed by the Conservatives, making it a broader discourse that encompasses both socioeconomic and sociocultural issues.
Structurally, the overarching concern among Freedom Party voters is a fear of change and a sense of decline in their future prospects. This anxiety is encapsulated in the party’s election slogan, “Fortress Austria,” which speaks directly to these fears. What makes Austria unique is its historical difficulty in defining national identity, particularly in relation to Germany. In the past, German-speaking Austrians often considered themselves as Germans living in Austria-Hungary, where “Austria” referred to the Habsburg Empire’s territory, not to an ethnicity. It wasn’t until after World War II that Austrians began to see themselves as distinct from Germans.
Given this complex identity, Austrians often define themselves through lifestyle, traditions and customs. In the context of globalization and immigration, these customs and traditions feel particularly under siege. For example, in Vienna, the Freedom Party has mobilized support by highlighting issues such as schools no longer serving pork schnitzel due to the dietary restrictions of Muslims and Jews. While this might seem trivial, these identity issues resonate strongly with those who view their way of life as an authentic expression of Austrian culture. This divides the population, with elites and educated people defining themselves differently from those who see lifestyle as central to their identity.
This debate is not particularly intellectual, but it significantly affects Austria. The Freedom Party, however, is not as radical as the Alterantive for Germany (AfD) in Germany. Unlike in the past, the Freedom Party today does not philosophize about the “Germanness” of Austria. Instead, it is more pragmatic, drawing inspiration from Viktor Orbán’s Hungary and aiming to create an Austrian version of that model, rather than engaging in debates about national identity.
The Freedom Party Poses a Particular Challenge to the Conservatives
You argue that radical right fringe parties often act as agenda setters, with main parties responding by accommodating and adopting their most salient issues. How do you think radical right fringe parties affect the main parties in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)?
Professor Reinhard Heinisch: Well, I think it’s important to distinguish between Central Europe—those countries that were under communism—and those that were not. The main issue in Eastern European countries that were once communist is the contestation over cultural issues. There is very little debate over economic policy because the only consensus is on European Union (EU) integration and foreign investment. There’s not a significant difference in what center-left and center-right parties can offer their voters in economic terms, which is why center-left parties in Eastern Europe are often weak and underdeveloped. Where we do see substantial debate is around identity issues. Many unresolved identity issues exist and centrist conservative parties in these countries must constantly guard their right flank. Fringe parties often mobilize people on identity issues, positioning themselves to the right of mainstream parties. This is why we see so much identity-based populism in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
In contrast, Austria has a more developed party system that spans economic and social fault lines. However, identity issues still play a significant role and the discourse around identity is particularly intense. On the right, we have the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in Austria and while there are smaller parties trying to establish themselves, they may not make it into Parliament this time. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Greens and a small liberal party occupying the left.
The contestation on the identity axis often influences the socioeconomic debate. Traditional parties like the Social Democrats would prefer to focus on social issues, but they are constrained by internal divisions. They must appeal to both progressive urban voters and more traditional constituencies, which often splits the party. The Conservatives face a similar problem, having experienced a split that led to the formation of the small The New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS) party.
The radical right poses a particular challenge to the Conservatives, pulling them further to the right. The future of democracy in Europe may well depend on how Conservatives handle this challenge. In Austria, the typical response has been co-option—embracing the radical right and bringing them into the fold. This strategy has led to the Freedom Party’s implosion on three occasions, but it has also validated the Freedom Party’s agenda. When the Freedom Party makes a comeback, they can point to the Conservatives and say, “We’re not saying anything different from what they said five years ago.”
So the question is: What are the risks of validating these parties versus trying to neutralize them through co-option? The verdict is still out, at least in the Austrian context.
As a Hard Eurosceptic Party, the FPÖ Would Advocate for Leaving the EU
How did the radical-right populist Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) construct its sovereignty claims, and how did the mainstream right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) adopt these claims? In doing so, how did the ÖVP significantly narrow the gap with the far-right FPÖ on the national and economic dimensions of sovereignty and largely renounce its previously pro-European and anti-sovereigntist positions?
Professor Reinhard Heinisch: The Freedom Party (FPÖ) is a hard Eurosceptic party. We distinguish between hard and soft Euroscepticism. Hard Euroscepticism refers to a stance where a party, if it had the opportunity, would advocate for leaving the European Union. However, the FPÖ knows this is a difficult and still a minority position, as two-thirds of Austrians want to remain in the EU, even if Austria is not a particularly enthusiastic member state.
To navigate this, the FPÖ hedges its bets, a strategy we described as “equivocal Euroscepticism” in an article in the Journal of Common Market Studies. They push their critique of the EU to the brink but stop short of calling for an outright exit. Instead, they vaguely advocate for major reforms and restoring sovereignty to nation-states. The FPÖ aligns itself with European groups like the “Patriots for Europe,” which includes parties like the Rassemblement National (RN) in France, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and figures like Viktor Orbán. They are comfortable in this coalition and aim to weaken the EU as much as possible.
For the FPÖ, sovereignty means that decisions should be made within Austria. They advocate for weakening international judicial bodies like the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Courts, arguing that any international involvement should be strictly voluntary and based on national decision-making. This understanding of sovereignty is almost exclusivist and they push it as far as they can. For example, regarding the Sky Shield initiative—a missile defense system being developed by Austria, Switzerland, Germany and others—the FPÖ claims it’s a backdoor attempt to join NATO, illustrating their strict interpretation of sovereignty.
In contrast, the Conservatives (ÖVP) are fundamentally pro-European. While they might exhibit what we call “soft Euroscepticism,” this typically involves negotiating hard on behalf of national interests, as seen with the “frugal” alliance of countries. The Conservatives are far from the FPÖ’s stance, although they have shifted from their earlier, more enthusiastic pro-European position.
Historically, the ÖVP was the driving force behind Austria’s accession to the EU, even branding themselves as the “Europe party” in Austria. They were the main architects of Austria’s EU membership. However, over time, the ÖVP has moved away from this position. While they are still where most Austrian parties are in terms of EU support, they have significantly distanced themselves from their early 1990s stance. Today, the most pro-European party in Austria is NEOS, a small liberal party that consistently defends the EU. Meanwhile, the ÖVP often adopts a stance of blaming Brussels when things go wrong, while taking credit for EU successes.
Austria: From Islam-Friendly to Islamophobic
Activists from the Identitarian Movement Austria block the access road to the Hungary-Austria border at Nickelsdorf on October 17, 2015. Photo: Johanna Poetsch.
Austria was one of the first European states to officially recognize Islam in 1912. How has the rise of right-wing populism and party competition changed Austria’s policies toward Islam?What role did FPÖ play in this change of policy toward Islam?
Professor Reinhard Heinisch: Yes, that’s a very interesting question. Austria has historically had a progressive relationship with Islam, dating back to the monarchy. Islam has been a fully recognized and equal religion, sanctioned by the courts and rooted in the inclusion of Bosnian Muslims in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Traditionally, the Austrian military even had imams, rabbis and Catholic priests. These protections have been carried over and reinforced by the Islam Law of 1912, making it difficult for anyone to weaken the role of Islam in Austria.
Interestingly, Austrian Conservatives and other political parties historically defended the role of Islam and the autonomy of religious institutions. Austria has a tradition of autonomous interest associations, where the state allows these groups to self-govern within their areas of jurisdiction. This applies to labor markets as well as to religious institutions. For instance, religious communities in Austria have the autonomy to organize their own school curricula, appoint teachers, imams and other religious leaders, all within the framework of their contract with the government.
Initially, religion wasn’t a major issue for the FPÖ. Their focus was more on immigration rather than religion. For quite some time, the FPÖ even maintained strong, positive relationships with several Arab countries, such as the ties between Jörg Haider, the FPÖ leader and figures like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Even after 9/11, Austrians, including the FPÖ, differentiated between Islam and terrorism, seeing them as two separate issues.
However, as the FPÖ began competing with a splinter party led by Haider, they sought new ways to differentiate themselves. This led to an increasing focus on Islam and Islamophobia began to take root. The existing Islam Law became a focal point of controversy, and identity issues were increasingly linked to it.
At some point, these issues were picked up by the Conservative Party (ÖVP), which was locked in competition with the radical right, particularly in areas with larger concentrations of immigrants. Gradually, these ideas went mainstream. Meanwhile, the Greens and Social Democrats distanced themselves from the issue of religion, leaving it to the Conservatives, who were more traditionally aligned with religious matters.
While in a coalition government with the Social Democrats, the Conservatives began rewriting the Islam Law, largely under pressure from the radical right. Around this time, several Islamist terrorist attacks occurred in different European countries, heightening the sense of insecurity and driving a securitization of the new law. The focus shifted toward “Austrianizing” Islam, which included requirements for official translations of the Quran, preaching in German and school curricula reflecting these changes. The Islamic community was pressured to be more proactive in cooperating with government authorities, as outlined in the new version of the Islam Law.
By the 2016 election campaign, when Sebastian Kurz emerged as the strongman of the ÖVP, the question of Islam and “political Islam” became a central campaign issue for both the Conservatives and the FPÖ. Ironically, the Conservatives amplified this issue so much that the FPÖ had to remind voters that they were the first to raise these concerns. Since then, the ÖVP has continued to use the issue of Islam, even establishing a committee and a website to investigate “political Islam,” though the exact nature of this remains unclear. It became a political tool for them, although recently they seem to have stepped back from this focus, possibly realizing it benefits the radical right more than themselves. However, there remains a faction within the Conservative Party that continues to see Islam as a key issue and uses it opportunistically when they believe it can garner votes.
President’s Potential Actions Remain a Significant Unknown That Could Influence the Outcome
Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen during an interview with Russian television in Vienna on April 26, 2019. Photo: Shutterstock.
How do you assess the significance of the September 29 elections for the populist radical right in Austria? What are the key factors that could influence their performance this time? Most pundits in the media argue that FPÖ could make a comeback and can win elections on Sunday? What is your take on the elections in terms of the potential success of populist parties?
Professor Reinhard Heinisch: I want to start with a paradoxical statement: If you don’t want the Freedom Party (FPÖ) in government, you might actually hope that they come in first. Let me explain this.
If the FPÖ comes in first, there’s a much greater probability that no other party would want to join a government led by someone as radical as Herbert Kickl. The Conservative Party (ÖVP) would have several options available, as they could form a coalition with either the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and a smaller party or with the FPÖ, but why would the ÖVP want to be the junior partner in a coalition under Kickl when they could be the senior partner in a coalition with the SPÖ?
Kickl has very far-reaching ideas about transforming the state, heavily influenced by the Hungarian model, which are not aligned with the interests of the ÖVP. This would likely result in constant conflict, with the ÖVP being forced to explain the radical actions of the FPÖ, as they have had to do in the past. ÖVP leader Karl Nehammer has ruled out such a coalition so many times that it seems almost impossible for him to go back on that promise—unless he is forced out, which I don’t see happening.
If the ÖVP comes in first and the FPÖ is a close second, the likelihood of a coalition between the ÖVP and the FPÖ increases. In that scenario, Kickl might not insist on becoming Chancellor since his party didn’t win, and he could remain the head of the faction in Parliament while playing both an opposition and government role. The FPÖ is not monolithic; there are members who could be appointed to government positions. In fact, in two Austrian states, including Salzburg, the FPÖ is already in coalition with the Conservatives, so there are experienced individuals who could step up at the national level.
Regardless of what happens, the FPÖ would need to enter a coalition, which would likely dilute its agenda. However, if the FPÖ were to secure the Chancellorship and the Foreign Ministry, it would have significant implications for the European Union. Although Austria is not a major power, a government led by the FPÖ, alongside other like-minded governments such as those of Viktor Orbán in Hungary or Robert Fico in Slovakia, could complicate EU policymaking, particularly on issues like sanctions against Russia, which the FPÖ opposes, or the Green Deal. The more governments embrace FPÖ-like positions, the more difficult it becomes to achieve consensus on critical European policies.
At this stage, I see the radical right as spoilers rather than as architects or agenda setters, at least not on the European level. They can disrupt important initiatives and use certain issues as bargaining chips to extract concessions. The FPÖ could potentially leverage Austria’s role in the EU, although I don’t see that as a likely scenario.
One unknown factor that could play a significant role is the Austrian President. The President has powers comparable to those of the French President, although he typically does not exercise them. However, President Alexander Van der Bellen, who is in his second term and has a popular mandate, has already announced that he would not appoint Kickl as Chancellor and that he would insist on a pro-European government. These declarations could factor heavily into the calculations of the different parties. Since Van der Bellen is from the Green Party and not aligned with the parties likely to emerge on top in the elections, his potential actions remain a significant unknown that could greatly influence the outcome.
FPÖ’s Success Would Be Seen as a Positive Signal by Putin
Media outlet Politico argues that ‘most worryingly, an FPÖ win would establish a populist, Russia-friendly Central European bloc stretching from Ukraine’s border with Slovakia and Hungary to Austria’s frontier with Switzerland, making it easier for President Vladimir Putin to sow discontent at the heart of Europe.’ Do you think a win by FPÖ will create for Putin to make more inroads to EU?
Professor Reinhard Heinisch: I would say yes, but with some qualifications. For this scenario to fully materialize, the FPÖ would need to gain 50% of the vote, which I don’t see happening. Additionally, I don’t see any coalition partner the FPÖ could align with that would fully support a pro-Russia stance. Even the Conservatives have defended Ukraine and criticized Russia, so the FPÖ wouldn’t be able to push this agenda on its own.
However, the election or success of a pro-Russian party, or a party friendly to Russia, would certainly be seen as a positive signal by Putin. It would be another piece in the puzzle for Russia, absolutely. If this trend continues, it could indeed lead to closer alignment with Putin.
That said, the upcoming US election is likely to be a much bigger issue on the global stage and will likely overshadow whatever happens in Austria. Given the lengthy negotiations that typically follow Austrian elections, it’s possible that the US election will be over before a new Austrian government is even formed. While the potential for increased Russian influence is there, the FPÖ would need to become much stronger to significantly impact EU-Russia relations. There would also be considerable pushback within Austria against such a shift.
FPÖ Leader Kickl: The Law Must Follow Politics
Some in Austria’s establishment believe that Herbert Kickl, the leader of FPÖ, would inevitably moderate should the FPÖ gain power, à la Giorgia Meloni, the leader of the far-right Brothers of Italy, who has taken a more pragmatic course than most expected since becoming Italy’s prime minister two years ago. Do you think we can witness a ‘Melonization of Kickle’ should FPÖ win the elections?
Professor Reinhard Heinisch:Generally, I’m not an alarmist, and I’ve always viewed the radical right as a more heterogeneous group. I should also disclose that one of the radical right leadership figures was a student of mine and I’ve known her for a long time. I’m not suggesting that we’re dealing with pure evil here.However, I do think we should take people at their word. I’m very much persuaded that when people make certain announcements, they mean what they say. When it comes to Kickl, we don’t know much about him, which is surprising for a political figure with his longevity and standing. He has no close allies within the party and we can’t look into his soul.
That said, he is one of the best communicators in Austrian politics. He’s extremely clever and was once known as the brain behind the previous party leader, the architect of many of the hard-right slogans. He skillfully peddles conspiracy theories and uses them to his advantage, but he’s also extremely disciplined. Kickl can tailor his message and say tough, often troubling things with a calm and reflective demeanor.
I believe he has an overarching agenda, one that involves fundamentally changing Austria and the European Union, if given the chance. I don’t think he’s simply interested in power for its own sake. Unlike other leaders who are content with a bit of glory and power, Kickl seems to have a mission. I take him seriously when he speaks about his goals.
If given the opportunity, I think he would go as far as he could to implement his agenda. If not, he might easily shift his stance and claim that his intentions were misunderstood. His brief tenure as Minister of the Interior was quite chilling; for instance, he once stated that “the law must follow politics,” rather than politics adhering to the Constitution. This gives us some insight into his mindset.
So, I believe it’s legitimate to be concerned about the extent of power Kickl might attain. He has surrounded himself with ideologically driven individuals who have become quite dogmatic. He has also used Nazi-era terminology, such as describing himself as a “Volkskanzler” (People’s Chancellor) and claims to represent a silent majority of Austrians. Despite the FPÖ garnering only around 27% of the vote, and survey after survey showing that the majority of Austrians are opposed to the Freedom Party being in government— with Kickl consistently ranking at the bottom of public trust indices—his discourse creates a distinctly different impression.
Kenes, Bulent. (2024). “Saffron Republic – Hindu Nationalism and State Power in India.” ECPS Book Reviews. European Center for Populism Studies. September 22, 2024. https://doi.org/10.55271/br0019
The book edited by Thomas Blom Hansen and Srirupa Roy offers a critical examination of the rise and entrenchment of New Hindutva as a dominant force in Indian politics, providing an in-depth analysis of its implications for democracy, social cohesion, and the secular fabric of the nation. By critically examining the ideological foundations and practices of New Hindutva, the authors reveal the complexities and contradictions inherent in its project of constructing a Hindu majoritarian state. Ultimately, Saffron Republic serves as an essential resource for understanding the broader implications of Hindu nationalism’s ascendancy, particularly its impact on the erosion of democratic principles, the marginalization of minority communities, and the reconfiguration of Indian national identity. The book’s scholarly rigor and interdisciplinary approach make it an indispensable contribution to contemporary debates on populism, nationalism, authoritarianism, and the future of democracy in India.
The book Saffron Republic – Hindu Nationalism and State Power in India, edited by Thomas Blom Hansen and Srirupa Roy, examines the phenomenon of contemporary Hindu nationalism or ‘new Hindutva’ that is presently the dominant ideological and political-electoral formation in India. There is a rich body of work on Hindu nationalism, but its main focus is on an earlier moment of insurgent movement politics in the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast, new Hindutva is a governmental formation that converges with wider global currents and enjoys mainstream acceptance. To understand these new political forms and their implications for democratic futures, a fresh set of reflections is in order. This book approaches contemporary Hindutva as an example of a democratic authoritarianism or an authoritarian populism, a politics that simultaneously advances and violates ideas and practices of popular and constitutional democracy. Therefore, this volume is crucial for understanding the ideological and political transformations within India since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Narendra Modi came to power in 2014.
The book seeks to explore and explain key questions surrounding the rise of Hindutva and its impact on India’s electoral democracy. It examines the causes and consequences of the ascent of Hindu nationalist organizations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) within a competitive democratic framework. The book also investigates the transition from nationalist mobilization to authoritarian populist governance, questioning what changes when Hindu nationalism becomes the mechanism of rule rather than protest. Additionally, it delves into how civilizational boundaries are defined, the nature of the Indic identity, and what constitutes the Indian way of life—a central concept in civilizational discourse. The book further explores how the core tenets of Hindutva have become ingrained in everyday common sense and widespread sentiment, enabling the BJP to maintain and expand its influence across northern, central, and western India for over three decades.
The authors, Hansen and Roy, structure the book around four key themes: rule, articulation, inclusion, and violence, each representing a facet of New Hindutva. The discussion of “rule” highlights how the BJP, since coming to power in 2014, has engaged in practices of institutional capture and bypass, filling key positions with ideologically loyal individuals and undermining democratic checks and balances. The theme of “articulation” explores how Hindutva has become embedded in the social and spatial fabric of India, particularly in regions where anti-minority sentiments have been normalized. The “inclusion” theme examines the strategic incorporation of marginalized groups into the Hindutva fold, while “violence” addresses the central role of anti-Muslim violence in the project of Hindu nationalism.
The opening chapter of Saffron Republic, titled “What Is New about ‘New Hindutva’?” by Thomas Blom Hansen and Srirupa Roy, offers a deep exploration of the evolution of Hindu nationalism into a dominant ideological force in contemporary India. Hansen and Roy argue that New Hindutva marks a shift from a movement-based identity project to an institutionalized form of governance embedded within state structures. The chapter traces the transition from the insurgent mass mobilizations of the 1980s and 1990s—often centered around temple-building and religious identity—to the present-day governmental formation known as New Hindutva, which has gained significant institutional power and mainstream acceptance.
The authors emphasize that contemporary Hindu nationalism under New Hindutva differs markedly from its earlier versions. While cultural and religious identity remain central, the movement now also prioritizes economic and foreign policy initiatives. Hansen and Roy contend that New Hindutva embodies a form of democratic authoritarianism or authoritarian populism, paradoxically advancing and undermining democratic principles simultaneously. This governance style utilizes the mechanisms of constitutional democracy to legitimize and entrench its power, while gradually eroding the foundational norms of democratic governance.
The chapter reflects on the scholarly engagement with Hindu nationalism over the decades, noting that earlier studies primarily focused on the movement’s role in social engineering and identity formation. In contrast, the current scholarly focus has shifted to understanding how Hindu nationalism, now embedded in state power, seeks to transform India into a Hindu state. This transformation has led to the consolidation of Hindutva ideology across various societal domains, effectively blurring the distinction between a secular democracy and a majoritarian Hindu state. Overall, this chapter provides a compelling framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of New Hindutva, offering valuable insights into its ideological underpinnings and its efforts to reshape Indian society and politics. The authors’ analysis is both thorough and timely, making it an essential read for anyone interested in the current political landscape of India.
In Chapter 2, “New Hindutva Timeline: September 2013–October 2020” by Ashwin Subramanian, provides a detailed timeline of key events that have shaped the trajectory of New Hindutva, focusing on the period from September 2013 to October 2020. Subramanian highlights significant policy changes, legal reforms, and major incidents that have reinforced the BJP’s ideological project. This chronological overview serves as a useful reference for understanding the political and social milestones of Hindutva’s ascent to power.
In the chapter titled “Normalizing Violence: Lessons from Hindu Nationalist India,” Amrita Basu offers a compelling analysis of the evolving nature and growing normalization of violence under Hindu nationalism in contemporary India. Basu highlights how the RSS and its affiliates, which once orchestrated communal riots through carefully engineered rumors, now rely on decentralized acts of violence fueled by grassroots Hindutva sentiment. This shift reflects a broader societal acceptance of violence, particularly against religious minorities such as Muslims and Christians, as well as Dalits, women, and intellectuals who challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.
Basu argues that this normalization is deeply rooted in the current political environment, where the BJP under Modi has effectively blurred the lines between state and religion. By promoting leaders who endorse violence and enacting laws that implicitly encourage it, the BJP has created a climate where violence is not only tolerated but also justified as a defense of Hindu identity. Basu emphasizes that this violence serves to enforce upper-caste dominance and align Hindu nationalism with Indian nationalism, thereby redefining the boundaries of citizenship and nationhood. The chapter effectively illustrates how this modality of violence impacts not only the immediate targets but also the broader social fabric, signaling to minorities and dissenters that their place in society is conditional on their adherence to Hindu norms. Basu’s analysis is crucial for understanding the implications of Hindutva violence on the reconstitution of social identities and the erosion of democratic principles in India.
In Chapter 4, “Hindutva Establishments: Right-Wing Think Tanks and the Mainstreaming of Governmental Hindutva,” Srirupa Roy examines the transformation of Hindu nationalism into a governing ideology since the BJP’s rise to power in 2014. Roy highlights the pivotal role of right-wing think tanks in this shift, arguing that they have been instrumental in legitimizing and embedding Hindutva within India’s political mainstream. These think tanks function by translating Hindutva themes into the language of governance, connecting nationalist actors with existing power structures, and using strategic visibility and secrecy to advance their agenda. Roy also discusses the concept of “civilizational power,” used by these think tanks to subtly reframe Indian identity around Hindu values while marginalizing non-Hindu communities. This approach allows Hindutva to present itself as both modern and rooted in tradition, appealing to a broad spectrum of the Indian elite. The chapter offers a critical analysis of how Hindu nationalism has moved from the fringes to the center of Indian politics, raising concerns about the implications for democratic governance. Roy’s insights provide a deep understanding of the institutionalization of right-wing populism in contemporary India.
In Chapter 5, titled “New Hindutva and the ‘UP Model,’” Srirupa Roy and Thomas Blom Hansen present a revealing interview with journalist Neha Dixit and filmmaker Nakul Sawhney, exploring the institutionalization of Hindu nationalist ideologies in Uttar Pradesh under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. Dixit and Sawhney discuss the normalization of anti-minority violence, the politicization of law enforcement, and the consolidation of a Hindu majoritarian state in the region. The chapter illuminates how previously fringe practices, such as the “Love Jihad” narrative, have become formalized, and how state power is used to target dissenters, particularly Muslims, Dalits, and other marginalized groups. The interview highlights the growing complicity of the police in enforcing Hindutva agendas, the suppression of free speech, and the normalization of media censorship and self-censorship. These insights underscore the broader implications of the “UP Model” as a microcosm of authoritarian populism in India, raising critical concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and civil liberties under the guise of governance.
In Chapter 6, “The Making of a Majoritarian Metropolis: Crowd Action, Public Order, and Communal Zoning in Calcutta,” Ritajyoti Bandyopadhyay explores the historical processes that have transformed Calcutta into a majoritarian city, where Hindu dominance over urban space has become normalized. The chapter traces the marginalization and ghettoization of Muslims following the Partition of India in 1947 and examines how these developments laid the groundwork for the rise of Hindutva in the city. Bandyopadhyay argues that communal zoning and the systematic exclusion of Muslims from key areas have created a “majoritarian common sense” that shapes everyday urban life. The chapter reveals how long-standing societal divisions and tacit violence have facilitated the contemporary rise of Hindutva, making it an integral part of Calcutta’s socio-political landscape. The chapter offers a critical approach on how historical segregation and the normalization of communal identities continue to influence urban governance and electoral politics in the city today.
In Chapter 7, “Social Segregation and Everyday Hindutva in Middle India,” Thomas Blom Hansen provides a nuanced exploration of how Hindutva ideology has been deeply embedded in the everyday life and social structures of northern and western India, particularly in the city of Aurangabad. Through longitudinal fieldwork, Hansen examines the historical and contemporary processes that have led to the spatial and social segregation of Muslims and Hindus, highlighting how the rise of Hindu nationalism has co-opted and amplified pre-existing social divisions. The chapter emphasizes the role of industrial growth in reinforcing these divisions, as Muslims and Dalits were systematically excluded from economic opportunities, further entrenching their marginalization. Hansen argues that Hindutva’s success lies in its ability to adapt to local contexts, merging historical narratives of conflict with contemporary political agendas. This chapter offers a nuanced analysis of how Hindu nationalism has permeated the socio-economic and cultural fabric, as well as the everyday life, of middle India.
In Chapter 8, titled “‘Mitakuye Oyasin – We Are All Related’: Hindutva and Indigeneity in Northeast India,” author Arkotong Longkumer explores the intersection of Hindutva ideology with indigenous traditions in Northeast India and its international dimensions. Longkumer examines how Hindutva seeks to co-opt indigenous identities by aligning them with Hindu cultural and religious frameworks, thereby integrating them into a broader Hindu universe. The chapter delves into the strategic use of indigenous symbols, land, and rituals to strengthen Hindu nationalist narratives, particularly through organizations like the RSS, RIWATCH, and the International Center for Cultural Studies (ICCS), which operate both domestically and internationally. The ICCS, for example, is involved in fostering connections between Hindu nationalism and indigenous movements globally, promoting the idea that Hinduism shares common ground with various indigenous and pagan traditions around the world. This alignment is presented as a form of cultural nationalism that supports a universalizing narrative of Hindutva, while simultaneously challenging the distinctiveness of indigenous practices. Longkumer provides critical insights into how these international linkages reinforce Hindutva’s ideological expansion and cultural appropriation, complicating the relationship between indigenous identities and the homogenizing impulses of Hindu nationalism.
In Chapter 9, “From Castes to Nationalist Hindus: The Making of Hinduism as a Civil Religion,” Suryakant Waghmore explores how Hindutva has transformed Hinduism into a civil religion that merges religious identity with nationalist ideology. Waghmore critiques the common distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva, arguing that Hindutva has not only survived but thrived by integrating caste into a broader nationalist project. The chapter emphasizes how Hindutva strategically co-opts elements of Hinduism, particularly by downplaying caste hierarchies and promoting Hindu solidarity against external threats, such as Muslims and Christians. This transformation aims to create a unified, modernized Hindu identity that aligns with the values of nationalism, equality, and progress. However, Waghmore notes the inherent contradictions in this project, as caste remains deeply entrenched in Hinduism’s social fabric.
In Chapter 10, “When Hindutva Performs Muslimness: Ethnographic Encounters with the Muslim Rashtriya Manch,” Lalit Vachani provides a critical analysis of the RSS’s Muslim outreach initiative through the formation of the Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM, Muslim National Forum). Vachani argues that the MRM’s primary function is not genuine inclusion but rather a performative strategy aimed at projecting a sanitized, compliant version of Indian Muslims that aligns with the RSS’s Hindu nationalist agenda. This chapter highlights how the MRM stages symbolic acts of Muslim participation in Hindu cultural practices to create a narrative of “inclusive Hindutva,” while simultaneously reinforcing the marginalization and secondary citizenship of Muslims. Vachani emphasizes that these performances are primarily designed for a Hindu audience, serving to legitimize the RSS’s broader majoritarian projects and deflect criticism. The chapter exposes the instrumentalization of Muslim identity within the framework of Hindutva, highlighting the complexities and contradictions inherent in the RSS’s outreach efforts.
In Chapter 11, “Violence after Violence: The Politics of Narratives over the Delhi Pogrom,” Irfan Ahmad critically examines the terminology used to describe communal violence, specifically focusing on the events of February 2020 in Delhi, which he argues should be accurately termed a “pogrom” rather than a “riot.” Ahmad challenges the pervasive nationalist epistemology that often equalizes Hindu and Muslim violence, thereby obscuring the significant power imbalances between these communities. He contends that this false equivalence perpetuates a biased narrative that overlooks the systematic nature of anti-Muslim violence in India. By engaging with historical and contemporary examples, Ahmad illustrates how this nationalist framework shapes both academic discourse and public perception, ultimately contributing to the ongoing marginalization of Muslims. The chapter is a powerful critique of the ways in which language and narrative are manipulated to serve political ends, emphasizing the need for precise terminology to understand and address the root causes of communal violence.
In Chapter 12, “Development: India’s Foundational Myth,” Mona Bhan critically explores the Indian government’s abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A in August 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its semi-autonomous status. Bhan argues that this move was justified under the guise of promoting development, yet it is deeply rooted in a settler-colonial agenda aimed at erasing Kashmir’s Muslim-majority identity. The chapter challenges the myth that Kashmir is economically backward and dependent on India, revealing how this narrative has historically been used to legitimize Indian occupation and control. Bhan delves into how development has been weaponized as a tool of demographic warfare, with the intent to displace Kashmiri Muslims and alter the region’s cultural and religious landscape. Through a detailed examination of the economic, political, and ecological impacts of India’s policies in Kashmir, the chapter exposes the broader implications of India’s authoritarian turn under the Modi regime, which seeks to transform Kashmir into a Hindu-majoritarian state.
Although it contains editorial weaknesses, such as unnecessary and lengthy details about the weird speaking style of a Hindu peasant who built a shrine on land that a Muslim saint (pir), who frequently appeared in his dreams, claimed to belong to him in the past, Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi’s Chapter 13, titled “Pratikriya, Guilt, and Reactionary Violence,” offers a critical examination of the 2002 Gujarat pogrom. The chapter focuses on the politics of narrative, particularly the use of terms like “riot” and “pratikriya” (natural reaction) to downplay the severity of anti-Muslim violence. Ghassem-Fachandi argues that such terminology obscures the organized and premeditated nature of the violence, reframing it as a spontaneous response to the Godhra train incident. This narrative shift, he suggests, absolves Hindu perpetrators while placing collective blame on the Muslim community. The chapter also explores the broader socio-political implications, highlighting how this framing facilitated Narendra Modi’s rise to power by exploiting communal tensions and solidifying a majoritarian Hindu identity in Gujarat. Ghassem-Fachandi contends that the lack of public discourse on guilt and accountability has entrenched social divisions and normalized violence in the state’s political landscape.
Overall, Saffron Republic offers a critical examination of the rise and entrenchment of New Hindutva as a dominant force in Indian politics, providing an in-depth analysis of its implications for democracy, social cohesion, and the secular fabric of the nation. The contributors to this volume illuminate how Hindu nationalism have evolved from a fringe movement into a governmental ideology, now deeply embedded within state structures and mainstream political discourse. Through a comprehensive exploration of various regional and national contexts, the book highlights the pervasive influence of Hindutva on India’s socio-political landscape, including the normalization of violence, communal segregation, and the strategic manipulation of narratives that obscure state complicity in acts of violence.
By critically examining the ideological foundations and practices of New Hindutva, the authors reveal the complexities and contradictions inherent in its project of constructing a Hindu majoritarian state. Ultimately, Saffron Republic serves as an essential resource for understanding the broader implications of Hindu nationalism’s ascendancy, particularly its impact on the erosion of democratic principles, the marginalization of minority communities, and the reconfiguration of Indian national identity. The book’s scholarly rigor and interdisciplinary approach make it an indispensable contribution to contemporary debates on populism, nationalism, authoritarianism, and the future of democracy in India.
Thomas Blom Hansen & Srirupa Roy. (2022). Saffron Republic – Hindu Nationalism and State Power in India. Cambridge University Press. 330 pp. $99.99, ISBN: 978-1009100489, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009118873
Pretorius, Christo. (2024). “Populism in Ireland: Sinn Féin and the Alternative to Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil’s Political Dominance.” Populism & Politics (P&P). European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS). September 4, 2024. https://doi.org/10.55271/pp0039
Abstract
This article seeks to investigate populism in Ireland, but more specifically the populist left-leaning party Sinn Féin. Although having a checkered past, in the last decade the party has seen a surge in popularity as the alternative voting option. Up until now academic literature discussing the populist nature of Sinn Féin often struggles to define it as such, and so, using political psychology and a clear definition of populism, this article not only categorizes the party as a populist, but also discusses its history and what effect it has had (or lack thereof) on its popularity in the leadup to the last few elections. Furthermore, the article concludes by investigating why the momentum the party had as the alternative choice slowed down, and how this vacuum allowed other fringe populist parties to see greater success during the 2024 elections.
Keywords: Populism, Ireland, Sinn Féin, Irish elections
On the periphery of Europe is the small island nation of Ireland – often overlooked due to its much larger, and arguably more internationally important neighbor, the United Kingdom (UK). Despite this overshadowing, Ireland is no less important when studying the rise of populism on the European continent. Having faced numerous issues since the 2008 economic crisis, particularly with the provision of healthcare, housing, and more recently immigration, dissatisfaction with the two historically important rival parties – Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil – has boosted the popularity of the populist alternatives. One such party on the left of the political spectrum is People Before Profit – Solidarity (PBP-S), contrasted by the parties Aontú and Independent Ireland on the right. However, the best-case study for the growth of populism in the lead up to the joint 2024 European Parliament and local elections is Sinn Féin – a controversial left-leaning populist party who has a long history of relevance in the Republic, but only recently has begun shaking off its connection to the Irish Republican Army (IRA), a paramilitary organization seeking Irish reunification with Northern Ireland.
Delving into the history of Sinn Féin will highlight why a generational divide exists between voters, and why the party is considered controversial. Building on this, the article will primarily focus on Sinn Féin’s populist rhetoric and campaigning using political psychology to analyze how they have used emotionally provocative language to sway the electorate to vote for them. As PBP-S and Aontú failed to make any significant gains in the 2020 and 2024 elections, they will only briefly be looked at. The new Independent Ireland party, founded as of December 2023, does however require a longer investigation at the end of this article, as they managed to gain one seat in the EU Parliament elections in 2024. Finally, while independent politicians are politically relevant in Ireland, this article will focus solely on Irish political parties. Analyzing independents in depth would require a separate, dedicated piece of work.
Historical Context of Sinn Féin
It might seem odd to those outside of Ireland that to understand modern Sinn Féin one must first return to 1913 when Ireland was still a part of the UK. In this year the Irish Volunteers, a paramilitary organization of Irish nationalists and republicans, was founded in direct response to the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force (Martin, 2013: 1-4). Whilst the latter sought to oppose domestic self-government on the island, the Irish Volunteers sought to secure and maintain the ‘rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland’ (Martin, 2013: 4). After a failed military coup in 1916 by rebels, who were predominantly Irish Volunteers, widespread dissatisfaction with British rule began to emerge across the island, both in the response to the British execution of the revolutionaries, but specifically to the Conscription Crisis of 1918 which sought to impose a British military draft within Ireland during the First World War (WWI) (Irish Times, 2017; Laffan, 1999: 122-168).
Sinn Féin, founded in 1905 as a conservative party advocating for a dual monarchy with the UK, saw many of its members join the Irish Volunteers during the 1916 Easter Rising, resulting in the Irish Times (1917) dubbing it the ‘the Sinn Féin Rebellion.’ Various republicans across the political spectrum flocked to the party thereafter, and in 1918 Sinn Féin changed political direction – now committed to achieving an independent Irish republic (Laffan, 1999: 4). The first post-WWI (and post-Rising) election in 1918 saw Sinn Féin win a landslide victory with 46.9% of the vote on the island, whilst in the north only securing 19% of the vote (de Bromhead et al., 2020: 890). In 1919, the independent Irish state sought by the rebels of 1916, became a step closer to reality with the formation of the elected Irish assembly named the Dáil Éireann (Farrell, 1971).
Figure 1: A 1918 electoral map of Ireland. Green are Sinn Féin seats, orange are Unionist seats and white represents the Irish Party (RTÉ, 2015).
Following the brutal Irish War of Independence, peace negotiations between the members of the Dáil and the British government concluded in 1921 with a treaty that saw the partition of the island between the republican south and the unionist north, the latter of whom was to remain within the UK (Saorstát Eireann, 1922). Amongst other terms, Ireland would also remain within the British Commonwealth under a Dominion status, similar to that of Canada, and required members of the Dáil to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch. Both Sinn Féin and its military wing, the IRA, was split on whether or not to accept the treaty. More hardline elements argued that the fight should continue until the entire island was free from British rule and recognized as a free and independent republican nation. However, a narrow vote of 64 votes to 57 saw the treaty ratified in the Dáil, resulting in a nearly yearlong bloody civil war between the pro-treaty IRA (reorganized as the ‘Defense Forces’) and the anti-treaty IRA. Sinn Féin had been marred by the civil war as anti-treaty politicians abstained from partaking in the Dáil, whilst pro-treaty politicians founded the new political party Cumann na nGaedheal (which would later merge with two other organizations in 1933 to form Fine Gael). Sinn Féin disintegrated thereafter, losing all relevance once its anti-treaty leader, Éamon de Valera, left the party to found Fianna Fáil – primarily abandoning their abstentionist stance towards the Dáil (Laffan, 1999: 441).
A surprise victory by Fianna Fáil in 1932 put the remaining IRA on the backfoot, as initially Fianna Fáil legalized the organization and freed all the post-civil war prisoners, but ultimately refused to dispute the partitioned north and failed to declare a republican Ireland (Coogan, 2008: 29). De Valera criminalized the IRA once again in 1936 following high profile murders, but at this stage the organization was a shadow of its former self (Laffan, 1999: 448). During the 1930’s the more left-leaning IRA had founded their own rival organization, the Republican Congress, and the fascist right-wing members joined with Cumann na nGaedheal and their ‘Blueshirts’ modelled on the Italian fascist paramilitary militia nicknamed the ‘Blackshirts’ (Laffan, 1999: 448). IRA numbers decreased even more significantly when a large majority of its republic seeking members left the organization once Fianna Fáil introduced a republican constitution in 1937, abolishing the Oath of Allegiance to the British monarchy, introducing an elected president as head of state, and making a territorial claim to Northern Ireland (Constitution of Ireland, 1937).
Although the remaining members of the IRA were unified by the goal of ending the partition in Northern Ireland, they were on the fringes of both the left- and right-wings of the political spectrum. As is evident by members leaving to form their own political parties in the previous decade, in the aftermath of the Second World War the IRA was struggling to maintain its numbers and believed political organization was necessary to rebuild. Its leadership voted and passed the resolution instructing IRA members to join the irrelevant Sinn Féin party, and repurpose it as the political party of the IRA (Maillot, 2015: 128). With such a wide range of political beliefs amongst its remaining members, the party’s nearly sole political priority was that of reunification. Thereafter, the IRA began conducting armed operations in Northern Ireland, initially receiving political support from the south which most evident in the election of four new Sinn Féin TDs to the Dáil in 1957 (Maillot, 2015: 10).
This militaristic momentum was ultimately lost by the 1961 election with the introduction of internment without trial, both in Northern Ireland and the Republic. The failed military campaign was called off and the IRA became dominated by new, younger, left-leaning members, which cumulated in the election of the Marxist Cathal Goulding as Chief of Staff. These left-wing members split from Sinn Féin to establish the Worker’s Party following disagreements over how to frame the struggle for unification in Northern Ireland. The more traditional Northern ‘Provisional IRA’ sought to frame the conflict through a nationalist and religious lens, as Catholic Irish against Protestant British, whilst the socialist/communist ‘Official IRA’ of the Republic sought to frame it through class warfare, and believed unification could be solved through political means (Gregory, 2010; Maillot, 2015: 169). The Provisionals would continue in the same year to conduct a thirty-year armed campaign against what they described as a British occupation of Northern Ireland, today known as ‘the Troubles.’ The conflict only officially ended in 1998 with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, claiming the lives of roughly 3,532 individuals, with the IRA being responsible for more than half this number (CAIN, n.d.).
Figure 2: Distribution of Catholics, at ward level, across Northern Ireland in 2001 (Prasannan, 2003).
Methodology
Defining ‘populism’ is often a difficult endeavor. For this article the widely accepted ‘the people’ vs ‘the elite’ narrative used by populist parties will be the primary qualifier to defining a party as populist. This theory argues that populists present “‘the people’ as a morally good force and contrasts them against ‘the elite,’ who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving” (ECPS, n.d.). Investigating how modern Sinn Féin use this type of language against their rivals, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, will therefore be paramount in establishing them as one such populist party. But what type of language can be considered populist, especially when one man’s populist can be another man’s regular definition of a politician? In this case, the use of emotionally charged language will be used as the basis for investigation, primarily built on the ideas of political psychology that study the affect that emotions have of political mobilization (Aytac et al., 2024). Guillem Rico, Marc Guinjoan and Eva Anduiza’s article of how anger is mobilized will be the baseline for judging whether or not a statement or claim is populist (Rico et al., 2017). In their words: “Anger is linked to the perception that a frustrating event is certain, externally caused, and unfair… chiefly, the external attribution of blame and its fierce moral and confrontational outlook” (Rico et al., 2017: 445).
Using this foundation, we can deduce that Sinn Féin’s populist messaging revolves around being anti-establishment and anti-corporate, most evident in blaming the previous Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil governments for Irelands political issues by being ‘beholden to corporate interests’ (Sinn Féin, 2019). This article will only consider discourse that explicitly highlights an ‘us’ vs ‘them’ narrative as populist, meaning that which does not only state something a former government did, but actively generalizes and paints the opposition as the enemy in some manner. The following example highlights what this means: “In addition, the maintenance grant was cut and restricted under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments during the economic downturn and no sufficient attempts have been made by either party to restore them. Our third-level education system is simply not accessible to all. It is becoming less accessible to many on the basis of financial means” (Sinn Féin, 2020: 36).
In this paragraph arguing for free education in Sinn Féin’s 2020 manifesto, it is clearly stated that the party believes that previous governments are at fault for making education less accessible. However, while some may consider there to be populist undertones to this paragraph, there is no explicit discourse used that can be considered as emotionally charged. Compared to this paragraph from the same manifesto: “Without a government policy that is framed by climate justice and a just transition, the leadership and direction of climate action will become the plaything of bankers and corporate investors. They will be concerned with only one thing, how to make a buck out of the crisis. That is what they do, and it is killing the planet” (Sinn Féin, 2020: 25).
We can clearly see that it uses a strong anti-establishment and anti-corporate message to evoke an emotional response by broadly claiming corporations only wish to make money from crises. This supports the previous definition of ‘anger’ which includes ‘moral evaluations constitut[ing] a key component of the populist belief system’ (Rico et al., 2017: 449). To this end, an appendix will be included at the end of this article to show which pieces of texts were considered to be populist. Some researchers may argue that Sinn Féin’s manifestos and campaigns contain more (or less) populist language, but the key issue is that it is present in the first place—and, as will be shown, to a much greater extent than in the other two mainstream political parties in Ireland.
When investigating the demographic details of supporters for populist parties, exit polls often provide the best answer. Yet, to support this information, this article will also delve into the opinion pieces written by party supporters as they often give a more personal and grounded view on what issues they find pressing, and why they urge other voters to vote the same way. This is yet another attempt to gauge the emotions that populist parties tap into during their campaigns. Readers must be made aware that Ireland has a unique system of voting which is termed the ‘single transferable vote’ (STV), which is even used for the European Parliamentary elections. In summary, this voting system allows individuals to rank politicians on the ballot and, in theory, seeks to ensure that the electorate has at least some representation in government (Electoral Reform Society, n.d.).
STV most often results in coalition governments, sometimes even excluding the party with the most votes if they fail to form a coalition with the various other parties and independent politicians elected to parliament. An extreme example of this was the first Irish inter-party government following the 1948 general election which saw a grand coalition of five different political parties, and independent politicians, all led by Fine Gael to keep de Valera and his Fianna Fáil party out (McCullagh, 1998). Here, Fianna Fáil was six seats short of a majority, and up to then had been winning successive elections since 1932. For this reason, the popular vote is often gauged by the first preference of voters, not by the coalition government that claims majority in the Dáil.
The Popular Populist Leftist Party
Sinn Féin’s populist anti-establishment and anti-corporate messaging is clearly seen in the party’s manifestos. Particularly looking at when Mary Lou McDonald took over the party, there are blatant examples such as in the 2019 EU election manifesto: “EU banking policy, which is driven by unelected officials, favors banks and corporate elites at the expense of ordinary people;” the 2020 general election manifesto: “Without public broadcasting, we will be left with billionaire media moguls pushing their own agenda, drawing up blacklists of journalists and stifling debate and investigation of economic and political power;” and the 2024 EU election manifesto: “There are two competing visions for the future of the European Union. One is of an EU that continues to enlarge, becomes more centralized and bureaucratic, more militarized, lacks transparency, is under undue influence from corporate interests and lobbyists, and seeks to take ever more powers from Member States. Sinn Féin’s vision, in contrast, is for a European Union that works better for the people of Europe, that focuses on common challenges which we are best dealing with collectively – the cost-of-living crisis, food security, regional development, and climate change.”
Counting the number of times, we see the clear use of emotionally provocative and ‘us’ vs ‘them’ language being used, 10 instances can be found in their 16 paged 2019 EU Parliament election manifesto, 19 instances in their 110 paged 2020 general election manifesto, and three instances in their 27 paged 2024 EU Parliament election manifesto (See Appendix). Comparatively, there was no similar language used in both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael’s manifestos from the same time (See Manifesto section in the bibliography for sources).
Manifestos only provide one avenue of investigation, their annual Ard Fheis, or annual party conference, is rife with emotionally charged discourse that portray Sinn Féin as the best party for the people to fight back against a corrupt elitist government. Take this example from McDonald’s speech in 2021: “I know you have had it with governments giving tax breaks to millionaire executives while homeless children eat dinner off cardboard on the street. Governments for the developers and bankers, for the cozy club and the insiders. It’s time now for a government for you and your family” (McDonald, 2021). Similarly, in 2023: “We ask for our chance. The others have had theirs. The longer they remain in power the worse things get. I’m asking you to back Sinn Féin. To back change and the future that you and your family deserve” (McDonald, 2023)
Such discourse builds into the larger political campaign that seeks to win votes by tapping into the ‘angry vote,’ the vote that seeks to disrupt the status quo, or as one voter puts it: “to send a message to the establishment” (Frayer, 2024). The younger generation played a key role in Sinn Féin’s strategy, which naturally involved leveraging social media to boost their popularity. Through various platforms, they were able to sustain the narrative that they represented the best chance for real change:
Figure 3: Screenshot example of Sinn Féin’s populist rhetoric in Facebook posts (Sinn Féin, 2024).
Sinn Féin in a Post-Troubles Ireland
Clearly meeting the definition of populism, Sinn Féin’s use of emotionally provocative language attracts angry voters. However, the party is still affected by its historic links to the IRA. For instance, during his 2017 trial over his involvement in the killing of David Byrne a year earlier, Sinn Féin Teachta Dála (TD) Jonathan Dowdall was found guilty of membership in the IRA (BBC, 2017). Sinn Féin had already begun distancing itself from Dowdall after his resignation from the party in 2014—a move he attributed to bullying but could be seen as the party proactively managing the issue (Fegan, 2015).
On February 10, 2018, in a further attempt to shake off its bloody past, Mary Lou McDonald succeeded the controversial Gerry Adams, an individual who may have been a leading member of the IRA, despite his continuous denial of these allegations (O’Neill, 2019). McDonald differs from other leading members of Sinn Féin as she is a career politician with seemingly no ties to the paramilitary organization and was once part of Fianna Fáil but left the party due to policy differences and a strong support for Irish Unity – the latter issue of which she seemed to be undecisive about during Brexit (McCormack, 2020). More recently, during a televised national RTÉ’s Prime Time leaders’ debate a month before the 2020 election, McDonald was confronted with a question regarding a murder investigation that the victim’s family strongly claims was perpetrated by the IRA (BBC, 2020b). In the same election, after finding out he had been elected to the Dáil, Sinn Féin’s David Cullinane celebrated by ending his speech with: “Up the Republic, Up the ‘Ra. Tiocfaidh ár Lá” – the latter translating to ‘our day will come,’ a popular IRA slogan, alongside the show of support to the IRA that “Up the ‘Ra” displays (McGee & Leahy, 2020).
Since the Good Friday Agreement and their decision to end its support for the IRA’s armed struggle, Sinn Féin’s popularity has been steadily increasing (Adams, 1996). Within the national elections Sinn Féin obtained 2.55% of the vote in 1997, 6.5% in 2002, 6.94% in 2007, 9.94% in 2011, and 13.85% in 2016. The targeting of ‘those left behind’ has been the cornerstone of their campaigning in the post-2008 political climate, as affordable housing and accessible healthcare became the pressing issues over the last decade (Brennan, 2023).
Despite lingering links to the IRA, modern support for Sinn Féin comes from three primary sources. Staunch grassroot supporters of the party still have the primary goal of a united Ireland, dissatisfied that Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. The Irish Times investigated how these supporters viewed the change of leadership in 2018, and found they were excited by the prospect of McDonald offering a fresh new perspective, as long as policy remained the same – “…Irish unity, reconciliation, a shared republic, a big change in social conditions” (McGee, 2018). In an election exit poll conducted by The Irish Times, RTÉ, TG4 and University College Dublin after the 2020 general election, it was found that new Sinn Féin voters were predominantly younger, aged between 18-35, showing the effectiveness of Sinn Féin’s described strategy of ‘playing down the paramilitary legacy but without irking the republican base’ (Boyce, 2024; Collins, 2020). This could explain how the party can draw younger generations to vote for the party, as they do not have the same connection to ‘the Troubles’ that older generation might have, whilst retaining their ultimate goal of reunification. Polls and opinion pieces highlight that younger people feel let down by the continued dominance of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in Irish politics – with housing and cost of living being the dominant pressing issues for this generation (IPSOS, B&A & The Irish Times, 2024; Haverty, 2022; Irish Times, 2022; Taylor, 2024). Finally, ‘those left behind’ also includes the working class that support the party’s leftist policies and have been one of the long-time supporters of Sinn Féin. The Think Ireland 2024 election poll provides concrete evidence of this as 61% of Sinn Féin voters described themselves as working class – the second highest group of working-class voters, right behind the ‘other right’ voters (Cunningham, 2024).
Sinn Féin During the Irish 2020 General Elections – The Time for Change?
In the lead up to the Irish general election of 2020 the fallout from Brexit had been one of the dominant political situations, but surprisingly it had very little impact on the campaign trail (Murphy, 2021). Instead, domestic issues—namely housing and healthcare—were the primary focus for all Irish parties. In healthcare, waiting times for appointments and admittance to inpatient hospital beds were at an all-time high, having increased year by year since 2016 (Department of Health, 2019). Housing is an issue resulting from rising rent and house prices. In 2020 the Irish Times explained: “Since 2012, house and apartment prices in Dublin have risen by 90 percent and 80 percent respectively (a little less in the country at large), while wages have increased by only 18 percent” (McWilliams & Taylor, 2020). Too few new housing builds, high prices for lower-priced apartments, all compound this issue (Tedin & Faubert, 2020).
The Irish general election of 2020 took place on February 8, roughly a month before the country-wide Covid-19 lockdown (Carroll, 2020). In a surprising turn, Sinn Féin received 24.5% of first preference votes, more than Fianna Fáil (22.2%) and Fine Gael (20.9%), and was set to form a majority coalition government if they could find allies to do so (Robertson, 2020). Ultimately Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, together having 72 of the 81-seat required for majority, formed a coalition alongside the Green Party. This kept Sinn Féin from governing, much to the party’s outrage and protests (BBC, 2020a). But why did Sinn Féin surge in popularity in this particular election?
The tipping point came from young people, especially those in the 18-35 year demographic that voted primarily with the housing issue in mind (Collins, 2020; Ní Aodha, 2020). This, coupled with dissatisfaction with how Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil had been running the country since the financial crisis, offered Sinn Féin an opportunity as the alternative vote. One analysis indicates that in the leadup to the election, the decision of RTÉ to initially exclude Sinn Féin in the televised Leader’s Debate, coupled with the refusal of the other two parties to form a coalition with Sinn Féin in case they gained enough votes, help to form a self-fulfilling prophecy that Sinn Féin was being excluded by the ‘old boys club’ of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael’ (BBC, 2020b; Brennan & McConnell, 2020). The issues, the generational shift, coupled with the traditional left-leaning voting base of Sinn Féin, all paved the way for the party to receive the most first preferential votes in the election. The question now was whether they could keep this momentum going into the 2024 EU Parliament and local elections.
Sinn Féin and Europe Before 2024
Sinn Féin’s stance towards European integration started in 1967 with deep distrust – believing that Ireland should align itself with ‘the third world’ rather than the “inward-looking, protected, monopoly dominated group of rich industrial countries.” They also believed: “If Ireland joined the [common market] with Britain we would thus have to recognize the territorial frontiers of the United Kingdom. Yet the Constitution lays claim to part of the territorial area of the UK. Is the Dublin Government wiling to abandon also its claim for a politically united Ireland?” (Irish Left Archive, 2011).
By the 2004 European Parliament elections Sinn Féin had softened their approach to a ‘Eurocritical, not Eurosceptic’ stance. They supported EU expansion, but ensured voters knew the party stood ‘for change in the EU,’ placing emphasis on nation’s rights to self-determination and promising to ‘argue our case for a United Ireland and for an end to all military occupation in the EU’ (Sinn Féin, 2004). They also highlight: “Critical engagement is not an anti-European approach. Indeed, Irish republicanism has its origins in a broader European democratic movement. Today Sinn Féin continues to build cooperative links with like-minded democratic movements throughout Europe and beyond.”
The 2024 election continues this trend, but by now Ireland is firmly committed to the EU, a fact Sinn Féin realizes in a post-Brexit landscape: “It is time for the EU to focus on what matters to workers and families: the cost-of-living crisis, improving wages and conditions, regional development, and economic development. It’s time for the EU to play its part in advocating for and planning for Irish unity” (Sinn Féin, 2024). It should be no surprise that the second item mentioned in the manifesto is ‘Standing up for Irish Unity’ and a call for the ‘EU institutions to become advocates for Irish reunification, consistent with their position on Cyprus.’
Sinn Féin can be seen using populist language once again in their manifesto for the joint 2024 European Parliament and local elections, but this time to a lesser extent than previous elections. Of the three instances of populist language being used to aggravate voters, all three have a stark anti-corporate, anti-elitist message (Sinn Féin, 2024). The media campaign online mirrors this:
Figure 4: Examples of Sinn Féin’s populist rhetoric in the leadup to the elections (Sinn Féin, 2024).
One video posted by Sinn Féin explicitly states that Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, and the Green Party are ‘the party of homelessness, the party of rising house prices, rising rents, the party of institutional investors and vulture funds,’ and Sinn Féin is the one to ‘deliver tens of thousands of genuinely affordable homes’ if you vote for them (Sinn Féin, 2024).
Sinn Féin During the Joint 2024 EU Parliamentary Elections and Local Elections – Steady as She Goes?
In the lead-up to the 2024 election, Ireland’s national public service broadcaster, RTÉ, highlighted that the key issues facing Ireland in 2024 are health, housing, migration, cost of living, the economy, and climate change (Cunningham, 2023). Sinn Féin’s 2024 European Parliament manifesto continues to address these challenges while also highlighting other issues considered important to Ireland at the European level, including Irish neutrality, Ireland’s stance on the Israel–Hamas conflict and the Ukraine war, human and workers’ rights, migration, and the environment (Sinn Féin, 2024).
During the same election, voters would be asked to vote in the local elections, which would see individuals elected to local government positions across the country. Unlike the 2020 general elections which saw a turnout of 62.88%, the 2024 elections only had 50.65% of the population turn up to vote (European Parliament, 2024; International Foundation for Electoral Systems, n.d.). Sinn Féin managed to secure 11.8% of the first preference votes in the local elections, compared to Fine Gael’s 23%, and Fianna Fáil’s 22.9%, a performance nearly echoed by the EU Parliament elections which saw the parties receive 11.8%, 29.6%, and 16.6% respectively (RTÉ, 2024). To Sinn Féin this came as a shock, with party member Matt Carthy stating during a radio interview: “There was a sense over the last number of weeks that there was a drop coming. To be quite frank nobody saw these results” (Halpin, 2024a). Despite the results Sinn Féin still managed to have two candidates elected to the European Parliament where they opted to join The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL Group with other leftist European populist parties such as the Italian Five Star Movement and France’s La France Insoumise (European Parliament, 2024).
Commentators point to one leading cause of Sinn Féin’s less-than-stellar performance: immigration (O’Doherty, 2024; Pogatchnik, 2024). On November 24, 2023, three children and one woman were injured in a knife attack outside a Dublin school (Kwai & Satariano, 2023). Although Irish news outlets did not identify the man, rumors quickly spread online that he was an Algerian immigrant, escalating into a call to action that resulted in “tens of millions of euro worth of criminal damage” following an anti-immigration riot (Foy, 2023; Lally et al., 2023). Subsequently, there was the ongoing removal of “tent cities,” where migrants had gathered in tents due to the ongoing housing crisis and the government’s inability to find accommodation for the 1,780 unhoused migrant men as of May 14 (Figure 4) (Ehl, 2024). Taoiseach Simon Harris of Fine Gael supported these removals, stating: “We do not live in a country where makeshift shantytowns are allowed to just develop” (Halpin, 2024a). Reportedly, Sinn Féin failed to “reflect the concerns of ordinary people on immigration,” with reports suggesting that McDonald warned party members not to post anything contrary to her immigration stance, which remained unclear for a long time (Halpin, 2024b). Immigration became one of the key issues leading up to the 2024 elections, exacerbated by the housing crisis and the UK’s hardline immigration stance, which saw 80% of new applicants crossing the border from Northern Ireland (Finnegan & Conlon, 2024). UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed this was due to the successful deterrent effect of his Rwanda deportation plan.
Figure 5: Asylum seekers’ tents near the International Protection Office and Refugee Legal Service on Lower Mount Street, Dublin, Ireland, on July 7, 2023. Photo: Derick P. Hudson.
However, this is not the only reason support for Sinn Féin has declined. Since the 2020 election, Sinn Féin has flip-flopped on many of its policy positions, losing “angry” supporters as a result of the decisions they made. Beginning with the coalition talks post-election, Sinn Féin alienated many grassroots voters by considering the possibility of forming a government with either Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil (Allen, 2023). This, combined with increased interaction with businesses, has led many to comment that their policies have been drifting economically more toward the center, thereby alienating their traditional left-leaning supporters (Brennan, 2023; Weckler, 2022). The party’s focus on the “wrong” social issues has also been problematic. They supported the “Family” and “Care” referendums, which aimed to modernize two articles within the constitution (39th and 40th) to be more vague about what constitutes a family unit and to remove a reference to a woman’s role within the home (University College Dublin, 2024). Before the referendum, Sinn Féin vowed to re-run them should they fail, but they did not anticipate that both acts would be resoundingly rejected, with 67% and 74% of voters casting a “No” vote on the amendments, respectively (O’Connell, 2024).
Adding to this, despite accusing “billionaire media moguls of pushing their own agenda, drawing up blacklists of journalists, and stifling debate and investigation of economic and political power,” Sinn Féin has pursued a campaign of silencing critics, including The Irish Times and its political correspondent, Harry McGee, as well as the national broadcaster RTÉ (The Journal, 2023). The international community responded directly, with several journalist organizations and academics signing a joint letter to Sinn Féin and McDonald expressing their concerns about censorship (Reporters Without Borders, 2023). Additionally, Sinn Féin overestimated its success in the 2024 elections and fielded too many candidates, causing a split in the vote (McClafferty, 2024). These issues combined led supporters to turn to other populist options, namely PBP-Solidarity, Aontú, and Independent Ireland.
The Alternative to the Alternative Vote
Immigration has become the word du jour and many voters during the 2024 election that would have voted for Sinn Féin decided to turn to parties who are unapologetic in their hardline stance against immigration. Self-described as ‘a “comfortable alternative” to Sinn Féin,’ Independent Ireland was founded to focus on rural voters, but quickly became the right-wing populist party that attracted anti-immigration voters alongside Aontú (Ryan, 2023). The populism in both party’s stances on migration is clear: Independent Ireland states “We will secure Ireland’s borders by enforcing our immigration laws and end profiteering by vested interests at the expense of the Irish taxpayer” (Independent Ireland, n.d.); Whereas Aontú, ‘The Only Party Listening To The People,’ wish to solve the issue by tackling the various other crises facing Ireland, compensating communities where asylum seekers are moved into, and enforce stronger border control policies that will include more deportations (Aontú, n.d.).
Of the three alternative populist parties, only a candidate from Independent Ireland was elected to the EU Parliament, but divisions and criticisms quickly started to appear as MEP Ciaran Mullooly opted to join the liberal Renew Europe group (Independent Ireland, 2024). On a local level Independent Ireland preformed the best, gaining 2.8% of the first preference vote in their first election year, compared to PBP-S’ 1.2% and Aontú’s 2.1%. Overall, all three parties have seen an increase of seats on a local level, with each party now having 23, 13, and 8 seats respectively. Sinn Féin also gained 21 seats for a total of 102 during the local election, but with only 11.8% of the first preference votes, clearly their momentum from 2020 has slowed down (Irish Times, 2024).
Whether or not Sinn Féin will experience a resurgence in next year’s general election remains uncertain. Their historical connection to the IRA is now nearly irrelevant to most younger voters, and it appears that any news of Sinn Féin’s ties to the paramilitary organization primarily affects older voters who have a living connection to the violence. This generational divide is evident in a letter exchange between Irish Times readers discussing younger voters’ preference for Sinn Féin (Irish Times, 2022).
As for the other populist parties in the nation, while politically irrelevant and on the fringes for now, they stand to gain the most from Sinn Féin’s loss. Independent Ireland’s Ciaran Mullooly’s decision to join a pro-European parliament group despite the party’s Eurosceptic stance has raised the eyebrows of many, which might negatively affect the party’s ability to win over disgruntled voters in the next election. PBP-S continually fails to make any headway during elections, although left-leaning working-class voters may cast their lot in with PBP-S should they decide to stop supporting Sinn Féin. Most of all, Aontú stands to gain the most, offering disgruntled voters a new alternative to the alternative Sinn Féin, and attracting working class voters away from Independent Ireland, particularly given that The Think Ireland 2024 election poll suggests that this group predominantly support ‘other right’ parties (Cunningham, 2024).
However, Sinn Féin shouldn’t be counted out just yet, as they currently hold the majority in the Northern Irish Assembly—an unprecedented result that may drive further election promises in the Republic advocating for reunification (Pogatchnik, 2024). If Sinn Féin successfully refines its policies and regains public support, it could have a chance at making gains in the upcoming general election, reversing its currently declining popularity in polls, which now place them behind Fine Gael for the first time since September 2021 (REDC & Business Post, 2024). That said, Fine Gael’s response to immigration could explain their rise in the polls, a trend that might continue into the next election if the momentum persists (Clarke, 2024). While predicting the results of the next election may be futile, it is certainly one to watch closely.
Appendix: Populist Language Used in Sinn Féin’s Manifestos
2019 European Parliament Election Manifesto
Quote
Page
“Our MEPs now need to continue that fight – for communities, for ordinary working people and families.”
4
“In contrast, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael belong to the Right-wing EPP and ALDE groups which want to create a Superstate centralizing power in Europe far away from ordinary people. These groups are also determined to create an EU army with more military spending rather than investing to tackle the cost of living and provide quality public services. They are advocates of austerity and beholden to corporate interests.”
5
“Sinn Féin reject increased militarization and related spending and will fight for ordinary people.”
5
“It is only by voting for Sinn Féin that you will get credible and effective MEPs who will fight for ordinary Irish people’s interests in Europe, challenge vested interests and insiders and work for a radically and progressively reformed European Union.”
5
“EU banking policy, which is driven by unelected officials, favors banks and corporate elites at the expense of ordinary people.”
7
“The ECB’s quantitative easing programme is pumping billions into the banks to the benefit of corporations and major polluters.”
7
“Sinn Féin is opposed to PESCO and to Irish money being used to fund companies who are exporting arms and fueling conflicts around the world.”
10
“We call for a State Aid exemption for rural areas in light of Brexit and urge the reduction of bureaucracy so that a greater portion of EU funding for things like broadband actually reaches the intended beneficiaries instead of being pocketed by middlemen.”
10
“Local fisheries are suffering while profit-driven super-trawlers controlled by multi-nationals devastate our environment, fish stocks and coastal communities.”
11
“Sinn Féin MEPs oppose the Commission’s proposal to invest in militarization by plundering Regional Development Funding.”
11
2020 General Election Manifesto
Quote
Page
“In that time, we have had Governments for the wealthy, Governments for the privileged, Governments for the property developers, Governments for the banks. Sinn Féin believes that it’s time that we had a government for the people.”
3
“Successive governments have delivered for their friends and cronies. They have delivered for big business, for vested interests and for golden circles. In Government, Sinn Féin will deliver for the people.”
4
“Sinn Féin wants to be in Government to deliver for ordinary, working people. But we don’t want to be part of the system. We want to change the system.”
4
“Sinn Féin will take on the cartel-like beef processing sector that is pushing family farms out of business, reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) so that it supports the farmers who need it the most and ensure farmers are assisted in the transition towards a greener, more sustainable agriculture sector.”
13
“Without a government policy that is framed by climate justice and a just transition, the leadership and direction of climate action will become the plaything of bankers and corporate investors. They will be concerned with only one thing – how to make a buck out of the crisis. That is what they do, and it is killing the planet.”
25
“Without public broadcasting, we will be left with billionaire media moguls pushing their own agenda, drawing up blacklists of journalists and stifling debate and investigation of economic and political power.”
30
“Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and Labor are the yes men of Europe. Whatever Brussels and Frankfurt propose, they support. Their MEPs are the EU’s representatives in Ireland, promoting the agenda of the EU institutions rather than the interests of people in Ireland in the EU.”
44
“It is time to stand up for Ireland and the interests of all of the people who share this island. It is time to end the Brussels power grab, to reign in the Commission, and return powers to the member states. It is time to halt the attack on the wages and conditions of working people and to promote a basic threshold of decency for all. It is time to rebuild our public services and defend our public utilities.”
44
“Sinn Féin will build a fairer and more democratic European Union that works for the people of Europe, not for the EU insiders, middlemen and corporate interests.”
44
“Sinn Féin are determined that ordinary people in working class and rural communities must be protected from criminals… “Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil before them have abandoned working class and rural communities to organized crime gangs. They both starved the Gardaí of the resources they need to protect communities and they both failed to tackle garda corruption. They have not taken the necessary steps to ensure consistent and appropriate sentencing by judges. They are both soft on crime.”
69
“Sinn Féin in Government will demand probity and accountability from all who hold positions of power and responsibility. We will take on white collar crime and we will uphold the common good.”
71
“To make matters worse, the Fine Gael Government, supported by Fianna Fáil, have hitched their wagon to costly, risky Public Private Partnerships. This is despite the fact that we know they do not provide value for money. The Government knows this too, which is why we have no published reports on the value for money of these initiatives.”
91
“Sinn Féin in Government would not tolerate such abuse of political power, and our proposals set out to restore confidence in politics and ensure that those in power are working for the people and not for money or the vested interests of the golden circle establishment.”
96
“The public have lost confidence in the Dáil, this must be a priority focus for political reform.”
96
“For years, the insurance industry has pursued an aggressive campaign to portray sky-high premiums as the result of claims and fraud. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have served the industry by peddling their spin.”
104
“It is only a decade since the banks of this state crashed our economy. Poor regulation, an arrogant banking class, and a parasitic relationship between the banks and Government of the time created a dangerous climate for customers, taxpayers, and our democracy.”
105
“It is time the banks gave something back to the Irish people. Government must be vigilant and hold the banks to account.”
105
“Sinn Féin will challenge the arrogance and contempt for customers that persists at the core of our banking system. We do not believe that banks should exist only to increase their profits and deliver handsome dividends and bonuses for their managers. Banks should exist to support Irish society, its customers and businesses.”
105
“The effects of the economic crisis and property crash still live with us today. Our housing and property sector should have been rebuilt in the interests of citizens, renters and homeowners. Instead, Fine Gael rolled out the red carpet to vulture funds and international investors, allowing them to hoover up assets from distressed families and buy up commercial property in our towns and cities. They have allowed these vultures and funds to transfer wealth out of Ireland to hidden international investors using low-tax arrangements.”
106
2024 European Parliament Manifesto
Quote
Page
“There are two competing visions for the future of the European Union. One is of an EU that continues to enlarge, becomes more centralized and bureaucratic, more militarized, lacks transparency, is under undue influence from corporate interests and lobbyists, and seeks to take ever more powers from Member States.”
5
“We have already seen worrying levels of de-regulation brought in with these crises used as an excuse. Lessons that had been learnt about the need for regulation of the financial sector seem to have been forgotten. Some like Fine Gael are openly pushing for further rules to help vulture funds and banks. Only Sinn Féin can be trusted to stand up to this agenda.”
13
“Focus to be placed on those large corporate interests that are responsible for the climate crisis rather than undue burdens being imposed on ordinary citizens.”
— (2011). “The Case Against the Common Market: Why Ireland Should Not Join.” Irish Left Archive. January 24, 2011. https://www.leftarchive.ie/document/408/ (accessed on July 13, 2024).
— (2019). Fighting For Ireland, Ag Troid Ar Son Na Héireann; All Ireland In Europe/Éire Ar Fad San Eoraip: Sinn Féin European Election Manifesto 2019. Sinn Féin.
— (2020b). “Irish election: Sinn Féin criticises ‘disgraceful’ Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.” BBC. February 14, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51508380 (accessed on July 27, 2024).
— (2024). “Homelessness hits record high of 14,000! Voting for Sinn Féin in the Local and European elections is the first step to getting a change of government that will fix this housing disaster. Because the longer Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Greens stay in government the worse this is going to get.” Sinn Féin. May 31, 2024. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1171661350920330 (accessed on July 13, 2024).
Aytac S. E.; Carkoglu A. & Elci E. (2024). “Populist Appeals, Emotions, and Political Mobilization.” American Behavioral Scientist, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240343
de Bromhead, A.; Fernihough, A. & Hargaden, E. (2020). “Representation of the People: Franchise Extension and the ‘Sinn Féin Election’ in Ireland, 1918.” The Journal of Economic History. 80(3), pp. 886-925. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050720000376
Murphy M.C. (2021). “Brexit and the Election: The Issue That Wasn’t.” In: Gallagher M., Marsh M., & Reidy T. (ed.). How Ireland Voted 2020: End of an Era. Palgrave Macmillan: Switzerland.
Ní Aodha, G. (2020). “How did they do it? Sinn Féin’s historic 24% win was built on learnt lessons and a fed-up electorate.” The Journal. February 12, 2020. https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-comeback-5001379-Feb2020/ (accessed on July 24, 2024).
Rico, G.; Guinjoan, M. & Anduiza, E. (2017). “The Emotional Underpinnings of Populism: How Anger and Fear Affect Populist Attitudes.” Swiss Political Science Review. 23(4), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12261
— (2019). Fighting For Ireland, Ag Troid Ar Son Na Héireann; All Ireland In Europe/Éire Ar Fad San Eoraip: Sinn Féin European Election Manifesto 2019. Sinn Féin. https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2019/EU_Manifesto1.pdf
