Professor Cornelia Woll, President of the Hertie School in Berlin and a leading expert on international political economy.

Professor Woll: J.D. Vance’s Speech Was ‘Quite a Hypocritical Statement’

by AuthoritarianismEconomicsEditor’s ChoiceExtremism & RadicalisationHomeInterviews

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.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

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’s To Vima newspaper, 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, Germany.

Dr. Ziller: Terror Attack in Munich Likely to Sway Voters More Than J.D. Vance’s AfD Endorsement

by Editor’s ChoiceExtremism & RadicalisationHomeInterviewsMigration

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.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

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.

A man clasps his hands in prayer during the opening ceremonies of President Donald Trump’s "Keep America Great" rally at the Wildwoods Convention Center in Wildwood, New Jersey, on January 28, 2020. Photo by Benjamin Clapp.

Professor Ingersoll: The Theocratic Blueprint of Christian Nationalism, Reconstructionism, and Catholic Integralism Behind Trump’s Agenda

by Editor’s ChoiceExtremism & RadicalisationHomeInterviews

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.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

3D illustration: Lightspring.

The Economic Meaning and Consequences of Trump’s Trade Tariff Wars

by CommentariesEconomicsEditor’s ChoiceHome

Populist US President Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed favorite word, “tariff,” has far-reaching implications beyond simple taxation. In this insightful analysis, Professor Eser Karakaş dissects the economic distortions and welfare costs associated with protectionist trade policies. He examines how tariffs disrupt relative price structures, reducing efficiency and shifting wealth from consumers to producers, ultimately leading to net societal losses. Drawing on economic theory and Mancur Olson’s “Logic of Collective Action,” Karakaş explains why seemingly irrational tariff policies persist in political decision-making. He further explores Trump’s tariff war with China, its impact on global trade, and how it could weaken the US economy in the long run.

By Eser Karakas*

After being elected US president, Donald Trump declared that his favorite word in English was “tariff.” Tariffs refer to taxes and duties imposed on all goods and services subject to international trade. It is evident that the prices of tariffed goods and services will rise in the markets where they are offered to consumers. However, from an economic perspective, the most crucial issue is the change in the relative price structure between these goods and services and their substitutes, or more technically, the distortion of the relative price structure. This distortion in relative prices has significant implications for both efficiency and distribution. It can disrupt the natural functioning of markets, leading to inefficiencies in resource allocation and creating different economic consequences for specific industries and consumer groups.

At a certain stage in their careers, professional economists often share a well-known joke among themselves. Students who begin their economics education take a two-semester Introduction to Economics course in their first year of university. This course is built around a fundamental textbook, and the higher the quality of this book, the stronger the foundation for the student’s career in economics.

During our youth, Paul Samuelson’s textbook was widely used. Today, Gregory Mankiw’s book is the primary choice in many universities. Daron Acemoglu has also authored a highly contemporary and comprehensive introduction to economics textbook. However, for the author of these lines, the personal preference remains Mankiw.

As students progress, the level of economics courses becomes more advanced, leading to graduate and doctoral studies. A thesis is written on a specific field of economics, an academic career begins, and over time, one moves toward becoming a professor. As the years pass, one realizes that if the Introduction to Economics textbook studied in the first year of university was well-taught and well-learned, it provides significant insights into understanding global economic issues. In fact, I would go even further—half-joking, half-serious—and say that this book alone is often sufficient.

Let’s approach the meaning of the word “tariff” (customs tariff), which Trump has claimed to be his favorite, through a first-year Introduction to Economics textbook. However, towards the end of the article, I will reflect on the concept of tariffs through Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action and take the discussion to a more advanced level within the framework of endogenous growth theory.

Now, let’s consider Trump’s tariff policies. For instance, imagine he imposes a 30% tariff on automobiles produced in the EU, affecting brands like BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and Citroën. In the US market, importers of EU cars will pass on this additional tariff to consumers as much as they can, making EU-manufactured vehicles approximately 30% more expensive. As a result, the relative price structure between US-made and EU-made automobiles will be distorted. 

This distortion will have economic costs in terms of both efficiency and distribution. Because the most important factor in economics is the maximization of consumer surplus. However, the imposition of tariffs will reduce the surplus of US automobile consumers while increasing the producer surplus of domestic car manufacturers. This transfer of surplus (from consumers to producers) will grow even larger as tariff rates increase. Let’s not forget, surplus means welfare; therefore, as consumer welfare decreases, producer welfare increases.

As I mentioned above, the economic consequences of tariffs are not merely distributive. In other words, the issue is not just the transfer of consumer surplus or welfare from consumers to producers. Tariffs introduce significant efficiency costs to the extent that they distort relative prices. The practical implication of these efficiency costs is that the decline in consumer surplus (welfare) exceeds the increase in producer surplus (welfare). This is inevitable and results in an absolute welfare loss for society as a whole—including consumers, producers, and the state.

Just like balancing a shopkeeper’s ledger, when evaluating the effects of tariffs, one side should account for the increase in producer surplus and the tax revenue generated by tariffs (government revenue)—these represent the gains for certain segments of society. On the other side of the ledger, one must include the reduction in consumer surplus or overall consumer welfare. Theoretically, the losses will outweigh the gains. In other words, tariffs have a net negative impact on overall societal welfare. This decline represents the efficiency cost arising from the distortion of relative prices due to tariff policies. 

Therefore, as early as the 18th century, Adam Smith’s phrase “laissez-faire, laissez-passer” emphasized the need to allow the free movement of goods and services in international trade. It was argued that tariff barriers inevitably have negative effects on welfare, and thus, such restrictions should be avoided.

Trump’s statement, “I will close the US budget deficit by significantly increasing tariffs,” is narrowly correct, as it would lead to higher public revenues. However, on a broader scale, it is incorrect because, despite the increase in government revenue, overall societal welfare would decline due to these tariffs. At this point, we can ask a fundamental question: Although the welfare effects of tariffs—largely negative—have been well understood in economic theory for many years, why are they still implemented, at least to some extent, in every country and economic union, even if not as aggressively as Trump suggests?

Today, even the European Commission, which adopts a more liberal and Smithian stance on tariffs compared to the United States, imposes a Common Customs Tariff (CCT) on third countries and uses these revenues to finance a significant portion of the EU budget. However, it should be noted that these tariff rates are not at levels that would cause substantial welfare losses. Nevertheless, economic theory operates under the same fundamental principles everywhere and at all times.

Let’s delve a bit deeper into the negative effects of high tariffs with an example. Suppose the US imposes high tariffs on automobiles originating from the EU. As a result, American consumers will purchase fewer automobiles. Due to the distortion of relative prices, they will shift their consumption preferences toward domestically produced vehicles. However, it should not be overlooked that, thanks to these tariffs, US automakers, freed from import competition pressures, will be able to raise their prices and generate profits beyond normal levels. Additionally, as the competitive pressure from EU automobiles diminishes, the quality of US-produced cars may also decline. This situation presents a striking example of the distributive effects of tariffs.

Readers of this article can compare the quality and quantity of the Turkish automotive industry before and after the 1996 Customs Union and recall the welfare, efficiency, and distributional effects of tariffs and their removal (with a low common external tariff). As a result, due to the high tariffs Trump intends to impose on EU-origin automobiles, US consumers will be forced to purchase fewer and lower-quality vehicles at higher prices. Meanwhile, US automakers will be able to sell more expensive and lower-quality cars in greater numbers compared to the pre-tariff period. The winners and losers of this process are evident. The overall society experiences a welfare loss, and demographically, the number of those who lose from this policy far exceeds the number of beneficiaries.

So why, despite this reality, do political movements—such as the US Republican Party, even if not Donald Trump himself—dare to make such politically irrational decisions as they have to go an election? Could seemingly irrational actions, both politically and economically, actually be more rational than they appear? This question has long intrigued economists throughout the history of economic thought. However, one of the most significant contributions to this issue came from the renowned American economist Mancur Olson (1932–1998). Olson was a key figure in the public choiceschool of economics, which applies the fundamental philosophy of methodological individualism to group decision-making processes in a highly effective manner. Economists have coined the term “Olson Paradox” to describe his theory. In this brief article, I do not intend to delve deeper into this concept.

In the case of tariffs imposed on EU-manufactured automobiles, which I have attempted to outline above, the number of individuals experiencing welfare loss far exceeds those benefiting from the policy. However, despite their numerical superiority, these affected groups struggle to organize collective action to protect their interests. In fact, from a theoretical perspective, such collective action is nearly impossible. This is because an individual member of the large group suffering welfare loss seeks to maximize their potential gains from the group’s collective success while contributing as little as possible to the effort. This creates a paradox: the larger the group, the stronger the incentive for each individual to minimize their contribution. As a result, coordination costs rise, further discouraging collective mobilization. Consequently, due to this reluctance to bear even minimal costs, collective action fails to materialize.

In contrast, the small group that benefits from increased welfare faces minimal coordination costs. Their gains are larger and more tangible, making collective organization much easier. When considering the mechanisms of political financing in the United States, it becomes clearer which groups will take the lead in campaign donations and lobbying efforts. The logic of collective action is riddled with paradoxes, yet understanding these dynamics is crucial for making sense of the political and economic processes we experience today.

Now, let’s turn to the broader issue of Trump’s tariff wars and their impact on international economics. Earlier, we used the EU automobile industry as an example. Here, I would like to focus on the Chinese economy and its consumer goods sector as another key example.

The world’s annual value-added production—or global income, if you prefer—is approaching $120 trillion. The US economy, with a population of 350 million (compared to a global population exceeding 8 billion), accounts for more than a quarter of this global production. In the US, per capita income is approaching $100,000, whereas in China, it stands at approximately $15,000 at current exchange rates. This disparity in per capita income is crucial to our analysis. At this stage, in my view, Trump makes a critical mistake by imposing high tariffs on Chinese goods. But why do we see this decision as misguided—not only from the perspective of economic theory but also for the US economy itself? There are several reasons for this.

As long as Chinese consumer goods entered the US market tariff-free, an American worker with $100 in their pocket could walk into a mall and leave with a large basket of consumer goods. From an economic perspective, this means that even if nominal wages (in dollar terms) remained constant, the real wages of American workers would increase significantly due to cheaper goods. This scenario would have also benefited American employers, as the pressure to increase wages would have eased, allowing the US economy to gain efficiency in global competition. It is difficult to understand the logic behind a policy that deliberately increases the cost of wage goods within the US, thereby forcing monetary wages to rise inevitably. Beyond this, the services sector—which produces non-tradable services—would have also gained significant momentum as a result of rising real wages.

There is also the dimension of controlling and shaping the Chinese economy in this equation. As mentioned earlier, China remains a low-income economy in per capita terms, despite its massive population of just under 1.5 billion people. Given this reality, China is highly susceptible to significant employment challenges, making it a country prone to labor market instability in such a scenario.

As long as the US consumer goods market remained open to China with zero tariffs, the vast and wealthy American market’s high demand for consumer goods would have naturally shaped China’s economic priorities. In such a scenario, not only would China have had an interest in a cooperative US administration, but it would also have been compelled to prioritize consumer goods production to meet US demand. It is crucial to remember that, like every economy, China operates under the principle of limited resources. This means that the Chinese government, in its effort to create employment for its massive population, would have had to align its economic structure—at least partially— with the consumer goods demand of the US economy.

You may recall Trump’s fixation on bicycles, frequently questioning, “Why don’t we manufacture bicycles like we used to, instead of importing them from China?” This raises an important question: Within the framework of comparative advantage theory, which applies to the US economy as well, and considering the reality of limited resources, does it make sense for the US to allocate even a small portion of its labor and capital to bicycle production—an industry whose production techniques have remained largely unchanged since the 19th century? Would such a decision be economically rational for a nation with far more competitive and high-value industries?

One doesn’t need to be a Nobel laureate to recognize that eliminating tariffs on Chinese imports would create comparative economic structures that ultimately benefit the US. Instead of focusing on bicycle manufacturing or internal combustion engine cars, the US government should prioritize high-tech industries, driving economic expansion through endogenous growth (Paul Romer, 2018, Nobel Prize). By boosting national income at an increasing rate, the US government could then redistribute this growing wealth using the Hicks-Kaldor compensation principle, effectively mitigating social discontent and ensuring broad-based economic prosperity.

Paul Romer, half-joking yet half-serious, suggests that as long as major mistakes are avoided, the economy could continue growing for five million years. However, Trump appears to be doing the exact opposite—and is likely to continue on this path. These policies will have severely negative effects on both efficiency and income distribution within the US. Moreover, and perhaps equally significant, they will weaken the US in global economic relations, particularly with China, leading to relative economic decline and shifts in the balance of power. For now, I’m far from convinced—but let’s wait and see. Maybe they know something we don’t.

(*) Dr. Eser Karakas is a retired Professor of Economics from the University of Strasbourg, where he taught Law and Economics and the Economics of Public Issues at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques. He is also a member of the Advisory Board at ECPS. His primary research interests include public economics, public choice, public finance, European finances, public policy, law and economics, and good governance.

Melting icebergs along Greenland's coast. Photo: Shutterstock.

Understanding Climate Skepticism: A Rhetorical Analysis of Climate Communication by PiS, AfD, and SD

by ArticlesEditor’s ChoiceEnvironment & ClimateHomePopulism & Politics (P&P)

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE

Please cite as: 

Lewis, Morgan. (2025). “Understanding Climate Skepticism: A Rhetorical Analysis of Climate Communication by PiS, AfD, and SD.” Populism & Politics (P&P). European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS). February 6, 2025. https://doi.org/10.55271/pp0047



Abstract

Two major global challenges of recent decades are climate change and populism. While there is a strong scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, social science research highlights how climate change and policy reforms have provoked significant backlash within populist discourse. Despite the clear intersection of these phenomena and the threats they pose to modern democracy, limited literature explores this relationship. This article examines the mechanisms by which right-wing populist (RWP) parties promote climate skepticism or hostility to climate policies. Focusing on the Law and Justice Party (PiS) in Poland, the Sweden Democrats (SD), and Alternative for Germany (AfD), this study conducts a rhetorical analysis of their climate communication to investigate how RWP positions align with shifting ideological and electoral contexts. The research employs Scott Consigny’s (1974) rhetorical situation framework and integrates Wodak’s (2015) interdisciplinary approach to populism, establishing a novel methodology for analyzing populist rhetoric. Findings reveal that RWP parties deploy rhetorical strategies such as framing an antagonism between the “elite” and “the people,” prioritizing national self-interest over climate concerns, and using anti-intellectual rhetoric. However, notable differences in rhetorical strategies emerge among the parties due to varying ideological and political contexts, demonstrating the adaptability of populist rhetoric around its ideological ‘center’. This study highlights the interplay between ideological and rhetorical facets of populism in shaping climate communication. By offering a nuanced understanding of how RWP parties engage with climate discourse across contexts, this research provides a foundation for further exploration of climate communication within populist narratives.

Keywords: Climate change, climate skepticism, right-wing populism (RWP), climate communication, anti-intellectualism, Euroscepticism

 

By Morgan Lewis*

Introduction

Contemporary international relations have been increasingly dominated by two salient challenges over recent decades: populism and climate change (Buzogány & Mohammad-Klotzbach, 2021). As right-wing populism (RWP) is on the rise, it has become an increasingly formidable presence in European politics, epitomized by results such as the Brexit referendum and strong electoral performances by Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) in 2024 (Angelos & Nöstlinger, 2024), French National Front (RN) (Forchtner & Lubarda, 2022), and Swedish Democrats (SD) (Diehn, 2022). 

This notable rise in RWP is paralleled by a climate crisis the genesis of which lies at the heart of our economic system. Climate change, as a paradigmatic example of a crisis that demands cosmopolitan and internationally orchestrated action, is contrasted by the fragmentary and nationalist discourse of RWP parties (Mudde, 2004; Huber, 2020). Thus, the global mushrooming of RWP and its congruence to climate skepticism and hostility to action poses a serious threat to global climate targets, as evidenced in a recent report by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which found that rising populist opposition to climate policies is jeopardizing plans to achieve net zero emissions (Campanela & Lawrence, 2024). 

Indeed, as the more confrontational and transformative decisions on climate change increasingly lie fore front of political debate, understanding how RWP parties promote climate skepticism and/or hostility to action through their rhetoric is essential for generating an appropriate response that allows for a continuation (and acceleration) of decarbonization efforts (Lockwood, 2018). Despite the importance of understanding RWP climate communication, the specific rhetorical mechanisms through which this occurs remains largely unexplored (Lockwood, 2018; Marquardt et al., 2022). It is this lacuna in the relevant literature that forms the basis of this thesis. 

Literature Review

RWP is a longstanding feature of European politics and has attracted considerable interest from social scientists and political commentators. This has been engendered by the recent uprising of RWP movements across Europe (Sandrin, 2021; Ortu, 2014; Greven, 2016; Abromeit, 2017). While the impacts and potential ramifications of the growth of RWP across Europe have been heavily debated, there is a noticeable dearth of literature on how RWP parties promote climate skepticism and/or hostility to action on climate change. The most current literature suggests that climate skepticism is associated with conservative ideological positions, with many studies findings a correlation to institutional distrust, a preference for a small state, and the belief that environmentalism is stereotypically feminine (Huber, 2020; Atanasova & Koteyko, 2017; Jylha et al., 2020). In line with this, the literature on right-wing environmental communication also details how right-wing actors cast doubt over climate science to legitimize normative claims about climate change for ideological and political purposes (Carvalho, 2007; McCright & Dunlap, 2008).

However, few accounts directly interrogate the nature of the relationship between populism and climate skepticism. Mudde’s (2004) article interprets populism broadly as a ‘thin-centered’ ideology in which the fundamental cleavage in society is framed as between a ‘corrupt elite’ and ‘pure people,’ evoking a sovereign demos. More recent scholarship has conceptualized RWP as being marked by themes such as democratic backsliding and the erosion of institutions of the ‘liberal order,’ such as feminism or pacifism (Moghissi, 2016; Klein, 2018). The congruence of RWP and hostility to climate action is argued to be a consequence of both the ideological composition of RWP, which frames the ‘climate agenda’ as elitist and antithetical to national interest, and the changing structural conditions in many countries that have ‘left behind’ portions of the population. Indeed, within this framing, climate policies are conveyed as further extension of these processes of modernization and globalization that reflect the interests of an elite class that do not serve the population at large (Lockwood, 2018). Many recent examples illustrate this point, such as the AfD’s opposition to the Green New Deal, arguing it would harm farmers (Chatham House, 2024), and the Spanish Vox party’s claims that climate policies are part of a globalist agenda aimed at damaging Spain while benefiting China (Mathiesen, 2022). 

However, there are severe limitations to the current literature on this connection between RWP and climate skepticism. Limited research has examined the specific rhetorical devices used by populist parties to promote these views, despite their importance in understanding the dynamics of this relationship. Moreover, much of the literature does not differentiate between distinct RWP parties, often treating them as part of a broader regional or global phenomenon. An exception is Gemenis et al. (2012), who, after surveying 13 RWP parties across 12 EU countries, concluded that “party positions on this issue [anthropogenic global warming] are clearly anti-environmental.” My research addresses these cleavages in the literature, and in doing so will contribute to the literature by establishing a framework to better understand the linkages between the expansion and deepening of populist rhetoric in political discourse and climate skepticism and/or hostility to climate action. To best do this, I will analyze how this rhetoric is shaped by domestic political contexts, how these rhetorical devices differ between party contexts, and the implications for future climate change communication in the context of continued RWP electoral success. 

Methods and Structure

Regarding the chosen method for this study, I will undertake a qualitative, comparative analysis of three European populist parties. The relevant primary data I will be assessing will be speeches, interviews, or statements regarding climate change/climate policies, with a broader investigative framework also considering party manifesto transcripts and member magazines. Secondary sources will include monographs and academic journals. Due to language barriers, much of my primary data will be translated or collected via English-speaking media outlets/journals. 

This choice of methods is appropriate for two reasons: first, as I intend to perform a rhetorical analysis to inductively examine populist climate communication, a quantitative research approach is unnecessary as I am not seeking to quantify or provide a value for how populist leaders espouse hostility to climate policies. Second, a comparative research design enables me to assess RWP parties in relation to one-another, providing more insight into how domestic political contexts affect rhetorical choices as-well as mitigating the danger of individual examples reducing the more general applicability of my results (Clark et al., 2019).

I will be examining Poland’s PiS, Germany’s AfD, and Sweden’s SD. I have chosen these European parties as they provide a broad range in terms of the vehemence of their opposition to climate mitigating policies, with all members categorized as either ‘denialists/skeptical’ or ‘disengaged/cautious’ on their climate policies by Schaller and Carious’s (2019) study. Moreover, I have selected all European parties, with all three operating within EU states that share similar constitutional structures as this allows me to gain greater insight into the similarities and differences of populist rhetoric in broadly similar contexts.

My research project will be structured as follows: Section two will outline my methodology, through which my qualitative framework will be employed to answer my research question. Through doing so I will elucidate Consigny’s ‘rhetorical situation,’ an assessment of Wodak’s interdisciplinary interpretation of populism, and an analysis of the association between nationalism, climate change and RWP. Section three will implement a rhetorical analysis of each chosen political party. Section four, following the rhetorical analysis, will discuss the results and outline the implications of this research.

Methodology

In this section, I will outline the methodology employed in this thesis. By examining Scott Consigny’s theory of the rhetorical situation, I will demonstrate why this theoretical lens is the most suitable for the analysis. Additionally, I will evaluate and justify the selected methodology for studying populism, which aligns with Ruth Wodak’s interdisciplinary approach, highlighting its effectiveness for analyzing RWP positions on climate policy. Finally, this section will conclude with a summary of the intersection between populism, nationalism, and climate change.

The Rhetorical Situation

This study will use Scott Consigny’s notion of the rhetorical situation – referring to a determinate situation fueled by a problem – as a theoretical prism to inform and frame the later rhetoric analysis (Consigny, 1974). This framework provides an excellent foundation for interpretively understanding the rhetoric of the chosen right-wing populist (RWP) parties as it considers both the context and constraints that shape the construction of rhetoric, and the creative agency of the speaker to shape audiences’ perspectives in indeterminate situations. 

According to Consigny, there are three core aspects of the rhetorical situation: i) The Exigence/Urgency: which is a problem than can be modified by the audience; a defect of the status quo to which the rhetor responds. ii) The Audience:those with the capacity to act on the speaker’s message and mediate change. iii) Constraints: The limitations that shape the rhetorical situation and influence how the speaker responds, these can encompass cultural, social, historical, political, and technological factors.

Consigny’s theory initially came as an instructive intermediary between two theories of rhetorical political analysis: the positivist approach of Bitzer (1968) which emphasizes the importance of the situation in compelling the speaker to act on an exigence; and the constructivist approach of Vatz (1973) who emphasizes the agency of the speaker in actively shaping the situation through rhetoric. These origins of birth provide the strength of this framework for this thesis as its epistemological underpinnings balance the dual concerns of the poststructuralist and positivist rhetorical traditions that preceded it. Thus, by considering both the agency of the speaker to maneuver within their context, and the constraints created by their context, this approach offers a more complete understanding of how rhetoric is formulated and its implications (Consigny, 1974). 

Martin (2013) describes how overall, rhetorical analysis can be understood as an examination of how political actors’ ‘appropriate’ situations through interventions in which they deploy ideas that reorient the audiences’ perspective (Martin, 2013). Rhetoric, in this framework, can be considered akin to projectile-like ideas that move outward and displace the surrounding context (Consigny, 1976; Vatz, 1973). This is particularly useful for analysis of climate policy since how an audience comprehends climate change/policy is central to gaining the mass momentum required to reach net-zero. 

The importance of rhetoric in climate communication is supported by the most recent literature. As Nordensvard and Ketola (2021) note, the ambiguity surrounding climate change creates considerable space—what Consigny identifies as the ‘existential dimension’—for rhetors to creatively restructure the situation and reshape the electorate’s perspectives on climate change and policy. This is done as the rhetors—in this case, politicians—select argumentative structures (what Consigny identifies as ‘topics’) that are germane to the situation, enabling them to determine the form of persuasion that best fits the particularities of the issue (Lanham, 1991). Therefore, the actor can creatively resituate the situation, granting them considerable agency to construct narratives relating to the exigence—in this case, climate change and policy. 

This theoretical lens is also uniquely suited for assessing populist ideology, which is operationalized via a communication style that relies on established ideological focal points, namely nationalism and anti-elitism, which form a restricted core morphology (Mudde, 2004; Canovan, 2001). Accordingly, within this study, this theoretical framework will allow us to comparatively assess the narrative frames or ‘topics’ used by RWP party politicians, while also accounting for the contextual and structural constraints faced by each party and the creative agency of each actor. Thus, this interpretative approach emphasizes the value of historical and cultural context while also considering the rhetor’s agency to navigate their situation.

This framework of analysis is superior to other forms of hermeneutics for this analysis. An oft-used approach in reference to RWP is Critical Discourse Analysis as it provides an approach that embeds language in power and social inequality, thus utilizing a broader theoretical scope (Fairclough, 2013; Krotofil & Motak, 2018). However, as a mechanism for rhetorical meaning-making it is too broadly focused, taking as its object the “general domain of signs and symbolic exchanges [while] rhetoric specifies quite determinate techniques, devices and strategies” (Martin, 2022: 170). Consigny’s rhetorical situation rigorously assesses how language is used to influence an audience by identifying which rhetorical strategies are being employed, creating a more focused framework for comparative political analysis.

Having established a theoretical framework for rhetorical political analysis, I can move on to outlining a methodological understanding of populism.

How to Analyze Right-Wing Populism: An Interdisciplinary Approach

The contemporary literature on populism has posed significant methodological questions regarding how it should be interpreted, as De Cleen (2012: 1) notes, “one of the most used and abused terms inside and outside academia is undoubtedly populism.” The central focus of populist movements is regarded broadly as an emphasis on the inadequacy of the ‘corrupt governing elite’ to effectively respond to ‘general will’ of the ‘pure people’ (Huber at al., 2020; Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2012). However, the marked increase in the prominence of populism globally has brought about significant debate on the potential causes and implications of its recent resurgence (Abromeit, 2017). These methodological debates have resulted in a significant breadth of literature on how to evaluate RWP, which I will now interrogate to demonstrate the applicability of this thesis for studying RWP.  

Scholars such as Jagers & Walgrave (2007) define populism as a political communication style devoid of any coherent or consistent ideological content or principles that guide it, the essence of which exists in its performative rhetoric and communication. This rhetoric appeals to abstract notions of ‘the people’, villainizes the establishment, and embellishes certain emotional tropes (Moffit, 2016; Nordensvard & Ketola, 2021). 

Others such as Laclau (2006) shift the focus to the ontology of populism, arguing that populism represents a method of articulating those demands via a performative structuring logic that discursively constructs collective identities between groups. Another dominant school of thought in the literature focuses on the ideologically substantive aspects of populism (Freeden, 2017; Stanley, 2008). In this view, populism is conceived as a ‘thin-centered’ ideology which views of politics as an “expression of the volonté généale (general will) of the people” (Mudde, 2004: 543). Thus, populism is interpreted as an existing ideology, which operates through a severely restricted but identifiable morphology that utilizes a small number of core concepts oriented around ‘people-centrism,’ anti-elitism and often an inclination toward authoritarianism (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2012). 

In view of these competing methodologies, truly interdisciplinary approaches to analyzing populism have been lacking (Marquardt et al., 2022). Recent literature has sought to remedy these blind spots. Following this, populism will be interpreted in line with Wodak’s discourse-historical approach, outlined in The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean (Wodak, 2015). This study interprets RWP as a dynamic mixture of both style (the rhetorical devices being deployed) and substance (the ideological focal points around which RWP operates). Wodak’s approach establishes a methodology for studying populism that acknowledges the ideological content of RWP discourse, without reducing it to a “frivolity of form, prose and style” (Wodak, 2015: 3) which would downplay important aspects of how RWP resonates with the audience (Pels, 2012). This methodology for populism creates an interpretation of populism that “does not only relate to the form of rhetoric but to its specific contents” (Wodak, 2015: 1). 

Wodak’s interpretation is well-equipped for this thesis because it acknowledges how populism is both a form of communication and an ideology, which utilizes rhetorical devices to mobilize political support around certain ideas. Populist modes of communication thus help to “form expectations [and] shore up confidence” (Beckert & Bronk, 2018: 1-2), by helping guide people’s sensemaking facilities around the climate issues. Moreover, her study is primarily focused on Europe, therefore the ideological content she identifies is applicable to the ideologically ‘thick’ established politics of Germany, Poland and Sweden around which the ‘thin-centered’ populist ideology wraps itself. This enables a point of departure for my rhetorical analysis that is easily operationalized into a European context. One of the central content areas of populism identified by Wodak is nationalism. As such, this study will now turn to the intersection between nationalism, RWP and climate change to gain a more complete picture of its relevance for understanding climate skepticism. 

RWP, Nationalism and Climate Change: Patterns of Association

Wodak argues that, while there is no overarching explanation for the resurgence of RWP within Europe, certain phenomena transcend the ‘micro-politics’ of RWP, thereby providing a suitable framework for broader political analysis. The primary trend she identifies is the creeping ‘renationalization’ of EU politics (Wodak, 2015; Abromeit, 2017). As the ‘nation-state’ remains the dominant context for democratic political representation, populism operates via the vector of nationalism as the previously sharp distinction between nationalism and RWP becomes increasingly blurred (Brubaker, 2019; De Cleen, 2017). For Wodak (2015), RWP parties offer clear-cut answers for the electorate by constructing scapegoats and common enemies, as Pelinka (2013: 8) argues, “populism simplifies complex developments by looking for a culprit.” Which groups are selected depends largely on local political, economic, and historic contexts due to the adaptive plasticity of populist ideology. 

Contemporary RWP mobilizes less against a common enemy, and more against a (perceived) enemy from abroad by strategically selecting the ‘other.’ The ‘elites,’ in this view, play a key role as the secondary defining ‘others,’ who are represented as responsible for the modernizing trends that threaten the nation (De Cleen & Stavrakakis, 2017). These elites exist at regional and global stages, with organizations such as the EU and the United Nations being central to European RWP rhetoric (De Cleen & Stavrakakis, 2017). This results in a proclivity for conspiratorial thinking, with phenomena deemed to be damaging to the ‘nation-state’ being easily dismissible as elitist projects. Climate change here is reflective of a threat to the innately territorial and bordered nature of nationalism as a fundamentally borderless phenomenon. In this sense, the canopy comfort of a nationalist morphology encourages skepticism (Conversi, 2020; Ghosh, 2018). 

In summary, this section has outlined the theoretical framework of the rhetorical situation, its relevance for this study, and how it can be operationalized for analysis of RWP rhetoric. This section then explained the chosen methodology for populism, the usefulness of an interdisciplinary approach and the importance of nationalism as an ideological focal point for populist discourse. In sum, it has established a unique and valuable approach for analysis of RWP rhetoric.

Research and Analysis

Following the inductive question motivating this research, this study will now examine the selected RWP parties to uncover the rhetorical strategies they use to promote climate skepticism and/or hostility toward action on climate change. Drawing on our operational methodology for populism, the chosen primary and secondary sources are well-suited for analysis. To perform my analysis, I have accessed primary data through interview transcripts, conference statements, and parliamentary proposals/statements. Due to language barriers, a broader investigative framework will include quotes from online newspapers, articles, and academic journals.                        

This section outlines the context of each political party to inform the rhetorical political analysis, followed by an exploration of how the different rhetorical devices employed promote certain views on climate policy. This analysis is based on the notion that the statements made by various politicians within the chosen parties are interconnected, allowing the process of meaning-making to extend to the entire party.  

The Law and Justice Party (PiS)

Context

Poland is widely perceived as a laggard within the EU in terms of its climate ambitions. Identified as ‘disengaged/cautious’ by Carius & Schaller’s (2019) study of European climate agendas, the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) has prioritized economic development and energy security over climate protection (Biedenkopf, 2021; Lockwood, 2018; Judge & Maltby, 2017). Its strong opposition towards climate-friendly policies is illustrated through it being one of the last nations to put forth a decarbonization plan at the recent COP26 negotiations, after it reversed its decision to phase out coal by 2030 (Burki, 2021). Moreover, on a European level, its opposition to climate treaties such as the European Green Deal and the EU emissions trading scheme evidence its lack of ambition (Szulecki & Ancygier, 2015; KPMG, 2021). An important context for the PiS’s energy policies is Poland’s high reliance on indigenous coal supplies – which forms upwards of 70% of its energy supply (Notes From Poland, 2022). 

The PiS is an interesting case as it is the only selected party that has enjoyed complete political power after being elected in 2015, and again in 2019, while losing power in 2023, and enjoying the support of incumbent President Andrej Duda throughout (Cadier & Szulecki, 2020). Żuk & Szulecki (2020) argue that the PiS is a clear example of a RWP party, with an ideology that blends support for conservative ‘traditional’ values, nativist objection to immigration and nationalism (Kulesza & Rae, 2017). These form the ‘thick’ ideological bases around which the PiS construct a populist layer via a style of communication juxtaposing the ‘elites’ and Polish ‘people’ (Wodak, 2015).

Analysis 

These topics form the key narratives used by the PiS, acting as nodal points through which climate change rhetoric is oriented: i) Anti-intellectualism and scientific dissent over the existence of climate change. ii) Climate policy as elitist and a threat to national sovereignty and economic competitiveness

Scientific Dissent and Anti-intellectualism

A key layer of Wodak’s ideological micro-politics of populism is the construction of scapegoats and enemies via a discourse of an untrustworthy elite. This theme, as anticipated, was evident in PiS rhetoric with anti-elite frames being used to promote skepticism over the validity of climate science/climate policy (Faiola, 2016). Anna Zalewska, former PiS Minister of Education, when proposing the removal of anthropogenic climate change from school curriculums, claimed: “There is really no global warming because ice should melt in the Arctic, and it is growing. Why do they tell us otherwise? Because it’s cosmic money; ecologists earn such money on this warming” (via Nowak, 2016).

Furthermore, PiS leader and former deputy PM Jaroslaw Kaczyński has said that: “At least some of this so-called green policy is madness, [it is based on] theories without evidence” (Notes from Poland, 2021). He further argued that: “The climate is changing, but it’s not our fault. We’re not going to kill our industry just because some people in Brussels think they know better than us” (Reuters, 2018). 

Additionally, former PiS Minister of Foreign Affairs Witold Waszczykowski attempted to draw a more overt connection between pro-climate politics and Marxism, claiming that PiS’s predecessors acted “according to a Marxist model which has to automatically develop in one direction only—a new mixture of cultures and races, a world made up of cyclists and vegetarians who only use renewable energy” (Żuk & Żuk, 2018).

Disputing the viability of science and their motives is an important element of PiS discourse. 

Throughout the primary data, terms such as ‘Brussels,’ the ‘EU,’ ‘Ecologists’ and ‘Marxists’ were used interchangeably (based on the context) to denote an external and elitist enemy. Behind these quotes, a hidden ideology underpins RWP’s tendency toward conspiratorial thinking, which is the view that knowledge is always reflective of a form of power projection. Thus, by clearly defining the nation’s ‘enemies,’ the ‘people-elite’ dichotomy is re-emphasized while climate policy is presented as a means through which artificially constructed enemies exert power over the Polish nation (Wodak, 2015). 

This is exacerbated by the ambiguous and complicated nature of climate change, in addition to most climate communication being top-down from prestigious scientific institutions or government bodies which provides considerable space for RWP politicians to portray these issues as sinister elitist projects. This topic invokes nationalist and anti-EU sentiment as the foreign origins of climate policy is rhetorically foregrounded, inviting the audience to view climate policy and its proponents as similarly foreign. Pelinka (2013) observes that contemporary populist anti-elitism does not purely mobilize against an enemy, but a foreign enemy who are seen to be responsible for Europeanization and globalization. As noted by Laclau (2006: 648), “populism displaces the imminent social antagonism into the antagonism between the unified people and its external enemy.”

Another facet of this rhetoric topic is that it effectively illustrates what Wodak (2015: 2) identifies as the “arrogance of ignorance,” which refers to how RWP “appeals to common sense and anti-intellectualism [marking] a return to pre-modernist or pre-enlightenment thinking.” Phrases such as “some people in Brussels think they know better than us,”“because ice should melt in the arctic and it is growing” (see above quotations) communicate how expert views are framed as another mechanism through which elites seek to centralize authority to the disadvantage of the people (Brewer, 2016; Merkley, 2020).

Climate Policy as a Threat to Polish Sovereignty and Economic Competitiveness 

The EU’s institutions and political processes, while not the exclusive target of PiS, are typically in the firing line when attempts are made to undermine climate-friendly policies (Fuksiewicz & Klein, 2014). This rhetorical strategy occurs through a prism of national self-interest. As Wodak argues, the ‘renationalization’ of European politics is a core feature of RWP, with the nationalist leanings of PiS evidenced by the Health, Work and Family Programme (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, 2014), which stated: “We will not lead Poland into any voluntary arrangements increasing the extent of European integration that do not meet the criterion of being clearly beneficial for Polish interests.” This rhetorical topic is commonly operationalized around the notion that climate policy unjustly threatens Polish sovereignty, and in particular the long-term viability of the Polish coal industry (Biedenkopf, 2021). 

Krzysztof Szczerski, former PiS head of office, speaking on the EU’s Energy Union, stated: “Can it be called anything else than the death of Polish coal?… So, we eliminate our own energy resource and become even more addicted to imports” (wPolityce, 2015). Furthermore, in 2018, at COP24, Andrzej Duda stated: “There is no plan to abandon coal in Poland. Coal is our strategic raw material. We have supplies for 200 years, and it is difficult to give up coal, thanks to which we have sovereignty.” He followed this by claiming: “As long as I am president, I will not allow anyone to murder the coal industry. It’s because we have such deeply ingrained traditions in this industry, of which St. Barbara’s Day is a part—a part that is actually included in the list of our heritage” (TVP World, 2018).

These quotations effectively demonstrate an important intersection between climate change and the nationalist ideology – resource nationalism. This phenomenon is evident in PiS rhetoric and is employed by many RWP parties as a strategy that sacralizes soil-rooted national resources as a suggested common good, despite the small proportion of people that reap the benefits of their exploitation (Conversi, 2020). As fossil fuels are often framed as part of Poland’s cultural heritage and a source of sovereignty and economic growth, not only is coal extraction justified, but any proposals threatening its viability are presented as a threat to collective Polish well-being. However, this discourse rarely addresses the inherent contradiction of the intergenerational national catastrophe that continued coal exploitation and associated emissions will cause (Kim, 2019).

This argumentative strategy links PiS rhetoric directly to my methodology, as national self-interests form the ideological substance around which the thin ideology of populism wraps itself. While more recent PiS rhetoric contains frequent references to their intent to overhaul the coal industry and make it harmonious with global climate ambitions, as stated by Andrzej Duda in 2018: “[The coal industry] must be kept, although it needs modernisation and reform” (TVP World, 2018). These can be viewed as attempts to reappropriate and manage the rhetorical situation in the context of the growing pressures to decarbonize through attempts to align Polish industry with modern climate commitments, despite the fanciful notion that Poland can achieve carbon neutrality while reliant on coal (Wójcik-Jurkiewicz et al., 2021). 

Closely linked to discourse on energy security, the PiS also invoked the supposed threat climate-friendly policies pose to Polish economic competitiveness. The PiS Party Programme (2014) stated: “The biggest obstacle in the field of electricity production is the climate policy imposed by the European Union” and went on to state they will not lead Poland into any European climate arrangements “which do not meet the criterion of being clearly beneficial for Polish interests”(Fuksiewicz & Klein, 2014). Dismissing climate policies for economic reasons constitutes what Forchtner & Lubarda (2022) identify as the imagined economic pragmatism existing in far-right political discourse. In this sense, the PiS objection to climate policies can be embedded in a wider theme within their rhetoric that challenges the suggested unfair economic arrangements brought by globalization and European integration (Marquardt et al., 2022). 

Although, seeming contrary to what was outlined in my above methodology, PiS rhetoric on the economic cost of climate policies is far from cohesive. This is demonstrated through statements such as that of Konrad Szymanski, Minister for European Affairs, who stated that: “We should take into account not only the costs of the transformation in themselves but also the costs of the lack of transformation…there is the impression that the lack of transformation generates zero costs for the economy” (Biedenkopf, 2021). While the majority of PiS rhetoric villainizes climate policy, these important exceptions to the rule demonstrate that PiS climate communication is not monolithic, with a range of differing constraints and contexts shaping the rhetoric of individual speakers. In this case, there is an acknowledgement of the gravity of the crisis, and the long-term benefits of climate action, differing from the short-term and reactionary rhetoric of many RWP parties (Antonio, 2019). This acknowledgment also has important implications for policy decisions, evidenced by the PiS support for developing smaller scale renewable energy forms, such as solar panels (Lockwood, 2018). 

In summary, analysis of this rhetoric shows how PiS discourse on climate change can be distilled into several key rhetorical devices that employ some of the central aspects of Wodak’s interpretation of populism. The PiS consistently frame climate policy as an elitist conspiracy, with anti-intellectual rhetoric utilized to invite the listener to view climate policy/science as a means of power projection and a threat, alluded to via references to ‘Marxists’ ‘ecologists’ or ‘Brussels’ which represent a foreign enemy to the rhetorical audience (Polish electorate). This topic intersects with the broader villainization of pro-climate policies and its proponents, with organizations such as the EU and/or UN cast as elitist in a Manichean worldview. Furthermore, PiS rhetoric portrays climate policy as a threat to Polish sovereignty and economic competitiveness via a discourse of resource nationalism. While several PiS actors have produced rhetoric that demonstrates an appreciation of the long-term economic benefit of integration, the majority remains insular and nationalist. 

Swedish Democrats (SD)

Context

The Swedish Democrats (SD) are the second largest party in the Swedish parliament (Riksdag) after gaining 20.5% of the vote in the 2022 Swedish general election, their best ever electoral performance (Diehn, 2022). A former pariah party associated with fringe neo-Nazi movements, the SD has seen an astonishing rise in recent years after denounced its extremist roots and pursuing more populist dimensions. The SD, through taking a broadly Eurosceptic and anti-establishment stance, has sought to profile itself as a party free from elitism and ideological constraints, and thus free to represent the true will of ‘the people’ (Mudde, 2004; Wodak, 2015; Tomson, 2020). The SD’s ideology, which is rooted in nativism, nationalism, and social conservativism, has also integrated climate change/climate policy into their broader populist frame as it becomes an increasingly salient political issue (Emilsson, 2018). 

The SD’s official stance is that climate change is a real and pressing issue; however, the party’s rhetoric has frequently disputed scientific findings and is categorized as “deniers and skeptics” in Carius and Schaller’s 2019 study (Vilhma et al., 2021). The SD was the only Swedish party not to vote in favor of ratifying the Paris Climate Agreement, and they have strongly opposed the government’s climate strategy, particularly regarding wind power development and environmental taxes, as illustrated by their 2019 vote against increasing the aviation fuel tax (Bierbach, 2019; Hofverberg, 2022).

An important context for the SD climate change rhetoric is Sweden’s history as a global leader in environmental politics. Sweden is ranked 5th on the Environmental Performance Index and, as Lockwood (2018) notes, Nordic political discourse at large contains less outright climate denial compared to Anglophone countries due to climate denial carrying less political capital, which can be considered a limitation on Swedish climate skeptical rhetoric (EPI, 2022; Bäckstrand & Kronsell, 2015). 

Analysis 

These rhetorical topics have been identified as the central argumentative structures used to promote climate skepticism and/or hostility to climate action: i) Climate nationalism and eco-populism; ii) Promoting ambivalence and challenging universalized forms of knowledge production; ii) Climate policy as a threat to traditional lifestyles.

Climate Nationalism and Eco-populism  

As climate change has been getting more space in SD discourse following extreme weather events, in particular widespread wildfires in June 2018, the SD have sought to manage this changing context – or ‘exigence’ – by utilizing a variety of rhetorical strategies. One such topic has been to acknowledge the crisis, while simultaneously denying Sweden’s responsibility to make drastic emissions cuts. 

This topic was evident in the SD 2022 manifesto, which stated: “Sweden does not contribute to reduced emissions by raising fuel prices and making it more expensive for companies to operate in Sweden if China can increase its emissions every year by more than what all of Sweden emits” (Party Programme, 2022: 24). Moreover, in a 2020/21 motion the SD claimed: “In many places, there is a lack of basic insight that Sweden or the EU alone can control global carbon dioxide emissions to a significant extent.” And that: “When the EU decided on the burden sharing, Sweden was given the most ambitious emission reduction requirements by all countries. This is strange in light of the fact that Sweden’s emissions of greenhouse gases per capita are already well below the average for industrialized countries” (Motion 2020/21: 727). 

This topic demonstrates an acceptance of the scientific consensus, while refocusing issues of climate reform onto developing nations, such as China, while framing Sweden as having already serviced its debt and ‘done its share’ (Wodak, 2015). This climate nationalist rhetoric has been identified by the literature as a key strategy of RWP actors to recenter discussions of decarbonization away from their nation by inviting the listener to view it as both ineffectual and unjust (Bang & Schreurs, 2010; Kashwan et al., 2022). As Dubash (2019) notes, the “turn toward nationalism…has created a short-term, looking-out-for-our-own mentality that is inimical to the global collective action needed to address climate change.” This rhetoric not only centralizes Swedish national interest, but also normatively reasserts the nation-state as the primary actor when setting climate policy by inviting the listener to view it as an issue to be addressed by siloed and self-serving nations, instead of intergovernmental institutions (Forchtner & Kølvraa, 2015). 

This embeds SD rhetoric firmly into my previously outlined methodology as it promotes a populist framing of ‘us versus them’ wrapped around a nationalist ideology. Sweden’s environmentally progressive context and the mainstream presentation the SD are trying to establish could have limited the effectiveness of more overt climate denial. However, this rhetorical strategy still establishes a discourse that is antithetical to the collective climate action that is needed (Margulies, 2021). 

This topic of climate nationalism closely linked to another rhetorical strategy to promote hostility to climate action identified in my analysis: eco-populism. While not anticipated in my methodology, the ecological inclination of RWP parties has been heavily discussed in recent literature (Forchtner, 2019; Sconfienza, 2022). This narrative was present in the SD’s 2018 manifesto which stated that: “Sweden alone cannot solve the world’s environmental problems, so we want to protect our unique natural environment and take our share of responsibility for the global challenges, while our environmental considerations are based on love and care for our own homeland” (Party Programme, 2018: 18).

The SD romanticization of the local environment is identified by Fochtner (2019) as a form of “ethno-nationalist imagery according to which ‘the people’ is rooted, and emerged from, a particular space.” By attributing value to the symbiotic relationship between the ‘nation’ and the ‘homeland,’ the SD promote a nature-nation-purity nexus. This rhetorical strategy crafts a narrative in which support for the local environment via domestic governance and traditions stands in opposition to global environmental issues such as climate change, which are supported by cosmopolitan institutions/elites and supported by a range of foreign traditions, considered as ‘other,’ embedding this topic into a populist frame (Sconfienza, 2022). As the audience is invited to view ecological purity as an important facet of Swedish nationalist imagery, the importance of a nationalist environmentalist frame is reified while less importance is placed on climate change and global climate cooperation, which is dismissible as a transient issue (Hultgren, 2015).

Promoting Climate Ambivalence and Challenging Universalized Forms of Knowledge Production

The SD’s approach to climate change is characterized by ambiguity, as seen in statements such as: “The debate among researchers is alive about the consequences of different levels of temperature increase” (Motion 2020/21: 727). This quote underpins how the SD seeks to sow doubt over the scientific consensus by emphasizing the ‘aliveness’ of the climate change ‘debate.’

Moreover, this argumentative structure demonstrates how the SD questions the notion of universalized mechanisms of knowledge production for political means. Marquardt et al. (2022) argue that RWP parties utilize not only anti-elitist and anti-cosmopolitan arguments but also question the forms of knowledge production and experience upon which climate action is based. This was illustrated by Josef Fransson, an SD Politician, who emphasized the benefits of CO2 emissions in a 2015 article, claiming: “The soil [will] become greener, and crops grow larger due to the plants’ greater access to carbon dioxide” (Hultman et al., 2020). More recently, SD politician Elsa Widding, when denying the severity of climate change, argued that: “The last time that was the case was in the 1960s when summers either stopped or became so short that we couldn’t produce a harvest” (The Local, 2022). 

Parallel to the SD, online far-right media within Sweden also employ these rhetorical tools to sow distrust around climate science, with media sites such as Nya Tider claiming “climate threat-sceptics have identified a series of basic problems with climate science as it is presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Among these are deviations from the scientific method, the accuracy of climate models, modelling of the carbon cycle and questionable data adjustments” (Björklund, 2018a). Promotion of ambivalence around the scientific method reflects how the Swedish far-right utilize these rhetorical topics to frame science and the scientific method as a tool of cosmopolitan, supranational institutions or secondary ‘others,’ dismissing these institutions and forms of knowledge production as both fallible and the product of a corrupt elite.

This constitutes what Jasanoff (2010) argues is the prioritization of subjective and local experiences over the apolitical and universal imaginary of bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The SD, by strategically creating tension between these competing epistemic worldviews – the local and the cosmopolitan – makes climate change a politicized and contestable issue as the epistemology being prioritized reflects a broader worldview. By reframing climate change with an emphasis on subjective personal experiences regarding ‘past short summers’ or ‘the positive effects of carbon,’ the SD are also posing a challenge to the forms of knowledge that bolster the scientific consensus and justify climate reform (Marquardt et al., 2022). This topic leads to personal experience constituting knowledge that is valued higher than the positivist knowledge claims of climate policy proponents. Wodak’s concept of the “arrogance of ignorance” (2015: 2) underscores this phenomenon, referring to the tendency of RWP communication to legitimize forms of truth conceived as the ‘common-sense’ of the people, while delegitimizing climate science.

Climate Policy as a Threat to Traditional Lifestyles  

The SD have often utilized a rhetorical pattern portraying climate policy, and its advocates as a cavalry of elites that threaten traditional lifestyles and industries. Wodak, (2015), as outlined previously, identifies RWP’s proclivity for scapegoating elites as the process of creating secondary defining ‘others,’ who are villainized based off their apparent responsibility for the modernizing policies and trends that threaten the nation-state and its traditions.  

This is evident throughout SD climate communication, as seen when stating: “The goal of a more environmentally friendly society should be achieved primarily through awareness raising, technological development, and positive incentives…not through a one-sided focus on punishing ‘undesirable’ lifestyles” (Sverigedemokraternas principprogram, 2019). This notion was also evidenced when claiming: “There is no indication that free people [should] refrain from travel and a good standard of living, nor should it be the aim of politics” (Motion 2019/20: 2682). As evidenced, SD climate rhetoric invites the listener to view climate policy as a threat to people’s lifestyle, thus creating a dichotomous perspective that positions climate reform as antithetical to the interests of the citizens. In this case, the ruling government is positioned as the ‘elites,’ reflecting the SD’s position as an opposition party in the Riksdag (Swedish Parliament). 

This topic is made more evident when the SD discuss specific policy issues, such as the petrol/diesel and carbon tax: “Aggressive taxation and policies focused on cities have turned the car into a class issue…for the vast majority of people the car is not a luxury but a necessity.” Moreover, the SD argued that: “Today, environmental taxes far exceed the cost of emissions. The car has become a cash cow for the government” (Party Programme, 2022: 27). These quotes demonstrate how climate policy is framed as antagonistic to aspects of modern life, such as individual car ownership, which are simultaneously portrayed as unproblematic. These discursive appropriations are supported by Hultman et al. (2020), who argue that RWP hostility to climate change is partly rooted in a refusal to recognize the inherent issues in modern lifestyles, rates of consumption, and capitalist modes of production which in part caused the current ecological crisis (Pulé & Hultman, 2019). This argumentative structure links to Wodak (2015) argument that RWP utilizes/constructs a ‘politics of fear’ to mobilize support around their party as the vindicators of these ‘harmless’ lifestyles, and therefore as the only truly representatives of ‘the people.’

Outside of direct party sources, parallels can be drawn here to Swedish anti-COVID discourse, with Önnerfors (2024) noting how similar rhetorical devices are employed in a range of so-called protest songs. One example includes Swedish artist Christoffer Lundquist’s, whose song ‘Vi är fria’ employed distinct rhetorical devices to promote skepticism about the role of the government in pushing vaccinations and COVID restrictions by urging brave truthtellers who “have truth and meaning” (Lundquist, 2021) to take back control as a unified grassroots movement against a suggested evil and overreaching state (Hughes et al, 2021: 7). The rhetorical devices emphasizing subjective ‘common sense’ knowledge are contrasted with the machinations of a vaguely defined elite, which threaten the freedom and lifestyles of the ‘people.’ Similar to the SD’s, these rhetorical topics position the government as a malicious elite in a quest to return the freedoms and traditional lifestyles which they claim have been lost. This wider discourse speaks to how RWP seeks to position the policies of a corrupt elite – such as through climate or pro-vaccination policy – against the suggested interest of the ‘people’ and diffuse claims of freedom and tradition.  

In summary, the SD employ various rhetorical devices to promote ambivalence and/or hostility to climate action. While important constraints limit the SD’s ability to formulate rhetoric, such as Sweden’s strong environmentally progressive ethos, SD actors creatively employ rhetorical devices to promote hostility to climate policy in ways that demonstrate some fundamental aspects of Wodak’s interpretation of RWP, while also differing in some unexpected ways. One such topic was climate nationalism, which directed the focus of the rhetoric audience away from domestic reform onto developing nations. Interestingly, this topic also intersected with eco-populism which was prevalent in SD climate discourse and sought to promote ecological purity within a nationalist frame, thereby positioning climate change and international climate cooperation as secondary to the importance of securing the ‘homeland’ ecology. 

SD’s rhetoric challenged the epistemologies underpinning climate science and in doing so, delegitimizing climate policy/expertise and its associated worldview while prioritizing subjective and local ‘common-sense’ knowledge forms. Moreover, closely associated with this topic, the SD depicted climate policy as an elitist threat to the lifestyles of the Swedish people, as suggested by Wodak (2015), invoking the suggested ‘elitism’ of climate science is a common strategy of RWP, however the defense of the free-market and modern consumerist lifestyles demonstrates how the rhetorical devices being employed shift in relation to ideological/contextual factors. 

Alternative for Deutschland (AfD)

Context 

The Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party is a right-wing populist (RWP) party holding an influential position within the German political system after gaining 10.3% of the vote share in 2021, with 83 seats in the German Bundestag (parliament), and winning its first state election in the German state Thuringia in 2024 (Kirby & Parker, 2024; Laumond, 2023). Founded in 2013 in reaction to the European Central Bank (ECB) and European Commission’s bailout of Greece, the AfD has been characterized by extreme Euroscepticism and identarian nationalism as well as being in favor of a free-market economy (Boecher et al., 2022). Its radical political positions are paralleled by its position on climate change with the AfD vigorously opposing Germany’s ambitious plan to reach carbon-neutrality by 2045 (The German Energiewende) (Kurmayer, 2023). 

The AfD is an important case within this thesis as it is the only chosen party that has made climate policy as one of its key issues, only following immigration and the Euro in salience (Arzheimer, 2015). Categorized as ‘deniers and sceptics’ by Carius and Schaller’s 2019 study, the AfD have acknowledged a warming trend, however, dispute its anthropogenic origins. This attribution skepticism has become a key feature of its political profile and has mobilized voters around the suggested elitism and corruptness of climate policy (Grimm, 2015). In line with this, the AfD has voted against all EU climate and energy policy proposals tabled in the European Parliament and is opposed to the proposed phasing out of the fossil fuel industry while supporting nuclear development (Waldholz, 2019). 

For many of the quotes used in this analysis, articles from the AfD membership magazine (AfD Kompakt) were utilized. This is appropriate as these articles are written by AfD politicians and, although typically brief, provide a more detailed analysis of AfD policy positions and rhetorical strategies due to their frequent publication.

Analysis

These two topics were identified as the central rhetorical devises used to promote climate skepticism and/or hostility to climate action: i) Portraying climate science as false and elitist; ii) Promoting technological innovation as the solution.

Portraying Climate Science as False and Elitist 

A central mechanism through which the AfD promote doubt over climate change is by frequently highlighting the beneficial effects of carbon emissions, epitomized by AfD candidate Guido Reil declaring that: “Carbon Dioxide is good for plants [and is having] no impact on the climate” (Farand, 2019). Moreover, the AfD’s manifesto (2017: 78) claims: “[The] IPCC and German government conveniently omit the positive influence of CO2 on plant growth and world nutrition.” By emphasizing the benefit of carbon emissions, the AfD strategically reframed climate change from a less contestable situation, to one of ambivalence in which the listener is invited to challenge the epistemic authorities that underpin knowledge on climate change (Boecher et al., 2022). 

Prioritizing alternative or experiential knowledge over expertise is a common mechanism through which RWP reframes climate science within an ‘elite’ versus the ‘people’ dichotomy. By radically simplifying the issue, and challenging the knowledge foundations that support it, an antagonism between the ‘folk’ or experiential and scientific knowledge foundations is created, demonstrating Wodak’s (2015) notion of the ‘anti-intellectualism.’ 

In addition, contrary to what one might expect from RWP parties such as the Polish PiS, which typically promote conspiracist arguments claiming that scientists manipulate evidence, a dominant theme used by the AfD to invoke climate skepticism is that the establishment—primarily the German media, government, and the EU—is alarmist and employs scare tactics. Karsten Hilse, AfD spokesman for environmental policy, stated in AfD Kompakt that: “On the occasion of the terrible forest fires that rage in Sweden, the colleagues from Heute Journal [one of Germany’s main news programs] […] deemed it appropriate to once again produce a panic program on (man-made) climate change” (Hilse, 2018). Moreover, Professor Ingo Hahn, science policy spokesman for the AfD, claimed that: “The radicalization of the climate ideologues continues to increase. The main blame lies with the established parties and the mainstream media, which have been spreading fictitious horror scenarios about ‘climate change’ for years” (Hahn, 2023). 

While this rhetorical strategy differed from the other chosen parties, it does entail a topic which firmly embeds climate rhetoric into the AfD’s populist core by inviting the audience to perceive climate change/climate policies as a project orchestrated by a cosmopolitan elite, detached from the workings of everyday people that are defined within a nativist frame (Wodak, 2015; Lockwood, 2018). This is evident when AfD politician Alexander Gauland in an AfD Kompakt article claimed in 2017 that: “While more and more money is being pulled out of the pockets of the hard-working people, electric cars are to be subsidized” (Gauland, 2017). Another article claimed that “with the plans to deliberately increase the price of the staple food, meat, the old parties show that they are out of touch with the ‘little guy’” (Chrupalla, 2019).

Outside of the mainstream party discourse, a corpus of far-right German blogs and magazines have echoed this rhetorical device. For example, the far-right blog Politically Incorrect, which argued that climate change policy was leading to the suppression of “serious [scientific] voices” and resulted in the creation of blacklists of “climate deniers” (PI News, 2007). This discourse, while not produced directly by official AfD sources, speaks to the wider rhetorical approach of these ideological positions to the exigence of climate change and the characterization of scientific reasoning as fundamentally antagonistic to the interests of the people. Reflecting on these wider discourses underscores how the apparent ‘people-centrism’ of the AfD reorients the rhetorical situation into one in which the AfD are the defenders of the taxpayers from the machinations of a corrupt cosmopolitan enemy or a foreign ‘other’ which is juxtaposed against the ‘little guy,’ or German public who is framed as paying the consequences of policies such as electric var subsidies or meat taxes (Küppers, 2022).

This topic thus centers AfD rhetoric into our methodology for populism, as it centers a suggested ‘antagonism between the ‘people’ and ‘elite,’ using it to promote hostility to climate policy.

Technological Innovation as the Solution

The AfD frequently attempt to reorient discourse on the German energy transitions via a topic claiming that technological breakthroughs are the solution to energy/environmental issues. The AfD are outspoken champions of alternatives to renewables, citing vaguely described energy alternatives, arguing that: “Promising new developments such as the thorium high-temperature reactor in Hann Uentrop or the fast breeder in Kalkar were prematurely terminated. Thus, these ground-breaking ideas could never be fully developed” (Manifesto for Germany, 2017: 79). When discussing issues associated with nuclear expansion, such as nuclear waste, the AfD claimed that radioactive residues should be stored and catalogued “in order to recycle them when technical progress permits” (Manifesto for Germany, 2017: 79), underscoring the technological optimism in AfD energy policy. 

This topic is utilized to reframe the exigence of proposed climate reforms away from more ideologically threatening state-led reforms, such as carbon tax, by conjuring optimism over vaguely defined and abstract technological solutions created by the market. This strategy reflects the AfD’s right-wing conservative ideology, with several studies demonstrating the link between climate skepticism and pro-market attitudes (McCright & Dunlap, 2008; Cann & Raymond, 2018). As Küppers (2022) argues, the AfD’s support for a free market economy under its ‘ordo-liberal’ ideology informs its contemporary neoliberal economic position. Indeed, a primary reason stated for its rejection of the German Renewable Energy Act was that it is “akin to a state-directed economy and a departure from German social-market economy”(Manifesto for Germany, 2017: 79). Thus, by placing the onus of reform onto technological advancement, the status quo is fortified as any necessary changes to modern consumption patterns or lifestyles are circumvented in line with the AfD’s radical pro-market ideology (Damico et al., 2023). 

Another mechanism through which this rhetorical strategy promotes hostility to climate policy, particularly the German Energiewende, is by asserting that interests and power struggles determine science-policy relations. By painting academic/scientific findings as political positions, the listener is encouraged to view renewable energy as only being prioritized due to a corrupt, wealthy elite reaping the benefits of subsidies, while fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and alternative advanced technologies are rejected for political, instead of practical, considerations (Boecher et al., 2022). This sentiment was evident when Alice Weidel, Chairperson of the AfD parliamentary group, claimed: “The planned shutdown of the last German nuclear power plants is an ideologically insane act against all economic and political reason and against the will of a majority of German citizens” (Weidel, 2023). The AfD also argued, in reference to the Energiewende policy’s planned phasing out of nuclear energy, that: “Truly civilian nuclear concepts such as the liquid-salt reactor have never been seriously tested, although their feasibility has long been proven. Since the 1970s, no development has taken place, not least because money was invested in unrealistic visions such as renewable energy sources” (Deutscher Bundestag, 2020).

This topic thus reorients the audience away from the real concerns surrounding nuclear and fossil-fuel power generation, instead inviting the listener to view renewable development and climate policy as political ploys. As outlined in Wodak’s methodology for populism, the AfD evoke the antagonistic relation between the ‘elite’ and the ‘people,’ as the former are framed as the beneficiaries of renewable energy development and Germany’s Energiewende, thus promoting hostility to climate policy. This can be interpreted as the rhetor looking to structure an indeterminate situation, utilizing the complicated and nature of energy production and how it interfaces with the climate to promote doubt and hostility towards climate reform.

In summary, several central rhetorical topics are visible that promote hostility to climate change/policy. The party portrays climate science as false and elitist, while promoting technological innovation as the solution. Moreover, by employing mechanisms to challenge the knowledge foundations of climate science, an antagonism between experiential and scientific knowledge and a dichotomy between an ‘elite’ versus the ‘people’ frames climate policy as an elite-orchestrated project. The AfD’s rhetoric embeds climate change/policy into its populist core, while also making subtle changes given contextual differences, with key factors for the AfD being both the ambitious scale of the German Energiewende, and the AfD’s radical subscription to market economics. 

Comparative Analysis

All three RWP parties (PiS, SD and AfD) portray climate change as an agenda orchestrated by a self-interested and corrupt cosmopolitan elite. While each case demonstrated varying degrees of climate skepticism, all emphasized the injustice of climate reform on everyday people, thereby reframing the climate issue within a worldview defined by an antagonism between ‘the people’ and the ‘elites,’ as outlined in my preceding methodology. Which ‘elites’ are selected as the rhetorical focus depends largely on the context, with the AfD/SD parties primarily targeting the national government, while the PiS, as a former governing party, emphasizes regional/supranational groups such the EU/UN (Biedenkopf, 2021). PiS rhetoric was also less cohesive than the other parties, with some pro-climate frames being deployed, potentially reflecting what their constraints were during their position as a leading party to adhere to global and regional climate targets and expectations. 

Moreover, differences in how these argumentative strategies were utilized was evident with the AfD party, which invoked climate skepticism by suggesting climate predictions were an elite-driven scare tactic, while the SD/PiS primarily claim that climate change is an ideologically driven conspiracy that lacks evidence. These anti-establishment narratives are underpinned by a strong nationalist agenda among each party, with a discourse prioritizing national sovereignty over climate ambitions being readily apparent throughout the findings. 

The topic of climate nationalism was present in all three parties, which depicted climate-friendly policy as contrary to national sovereignty and/or economic interests, although how this topic was expressed differed based on party context. The PiS utilized a narrative of resource nationalism, arguing that climate reforms would have extreme economic ramifications given Poland’s high reliance on indigenous coal supplies, as-well as the traditional cultural value of coal as a source of sovereignty. The AfD party similarly primarily sought to discredit climate reform strategies under the German energy transition (Energiewende) by arguing climate policy is akin to a state-led economy designed to disadvantage Germany, thereby embedding anti-elitist sentiment in the AfD’s ideological underpinnings (Arzheimer, 2015). Following these ideological contexts, the AfD party also demonstrated an optimistic belief in the ability of future technological advancements to solve energy and climate issues, reflecting both its ‘ordoliberal’ enthusiasm for the free-market, and its support of nuclear energy advancement, which is planned to be rapidly phased out under the German Energiewende (Rechsteiner, 2021). This topic was also present in PiS rhetoric to a lesser extent, which made arguments for the development of ‘clean coal.’

The SD’s climate nationalism took a different form than that of the other chosen parties. While still portraying climate change as an undue economic burden, the party argued that Sweden has no responsibility to make further emissions cuts due to its relatively low emissions and that such cuts would be inconsequential. Instead, they advocated for higher-emitting nations to take greater responsibility. The SD’s nationalist ideology also took the form of eco-populist rhetoric which was less apparent in the other cases and promoted a symbiosis between the ‘nation’ and local environment, while dismissing international environmental issues like climate change.

Closely related to this topic, another rhetorical device used in each case was anti-intellectualism via prioritizing localized and experiential forms of knowledge over the scientific and positivist epistemologies that necessitate climate action. This crafting of an epistemic tension was utilized similarly by each party, demonstrating its centrality to RWP climate communication. 

Conclusion

Discussion of Findings

The starting point for this article, supported by a literature review, was that relatively little attention has been paid to the specific rhetorical mechanisms through which right-wing populism (RWP) promotes climate change skepticism and/or hostility to climate action. Thus, the chief aim has been to analyze the rhetorical choices of RWP parties regarding climate change/policy and offer new insights into how RWP positions reshuffle and adapt in line with shifting ideological considerations and contexts. By focusing on a range of relatively contemporary quotes from official party programmes, policy proposals and individual politicians, and buttressing my findings with supportive secondary data, I have demonstrated real examples of how RWP parties promote skepticism and/or hostility to climate change policy by deploying argumentative strategies, or topics, conceived within a rhetorical situation (Consigny, 1974)

In doing so, this study advances knowledge in the field in three ways. First, while nationalist discourse has long been understood as an ideological focus for RWP, as outlined in my methodology, the results of the study show how nationalist opposition to climate change shifts depending on each parties’ unique context. This demonstrates how nationalist ideology forms the ‘thick’ substantive base around which RWP articulates opposition to climate policy. 

Second, RWP opposition to climate policy is rhetorically promoted through a discourse of ‘the elites’ versus ‘the people,’ which serves as the central frame around which various forms of climate skepticism and/or hostility to climate change are articulated. Multiple narrative frames were deployed to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, either by dismissing it as a scare tactic or outright conspiracy, or by claiming that climate policy threatens economic competitiveness and citizens’ lifestyles, often associating it with a socialist command economy. Given the varying ‘elite’ groups targeted depending on context, the adaptive plasticity of RWP climate communication is fully evident.

Third, it is also evident that European RWP parties frequently seek to disqualify scientific expertise by utilizing anti-intellectual rhetoric, while prioritizing local, experiential sources of knowledge. This was a core feature of RWP identified by Wodak (2015), these interpretative findings reveal by how this epistemic challenge to the universal, scientific epistemologies that support climate action is a shared strategy across European RWP parties. By focusing on the utilization of scientific knowledge, this study contributes to recent literature on populist climate communication. 

Furthermore, these findings are broadly supportive of Wodak’s (2015) methodology for populism, with both ideological substance and rhetorical style coalescing to form climate communication strategies. Indeed, much of the current literature interprets populism as isolated from the broader contexts in which it arises, resulting in theoretical and methodological assumptions (Mudde, 2004; Jagers & Walgrave, 2004). By emphasizing the importance of different contexts in shaping rhetoric, the way in which rhetorical devices shift in accordance with different conditions is evident while shared tendencies between parties can also be seen. 

This theoretical research builds upon the work of Stanley (2008: 95), who identified populism as an existing ideology that varies considerably based on the societal context as its ‘thin’ ideological base which can be found in “combination with established ‘full’ ideologies.” These findings are compatible with this thesis, however by emphasizing both the ideological and stylistic/rhetorical facets of populism, and how this differs between contexts, a more updated relationship between populism and climate change is apparent.

Limitations and Implications 

One limitation of my research was that all parties chosen were European. This could limit the applicability of my knowledge claims due to the potential bias inherent in only assessing Western-centric normative viewpoints on climate change. While this choice of methods allowed for a more focused interpretive research frame for analyzing European RWP discourse, the applicability of this study is arguably limited when examining the RWP in non-Western regions, such as Jair Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party in Brazil. Moreover, populism is a far more ideologically extensive and heavily debated issue than was presented in this study, and while some extent of the most contemporary debates on the issue is interrogated, a more extensive investigation into the relationship between other forms of populism, such as Left-wing populism, and the climate issue, is beyond the scope of this article (Gamble, 2018). 

In outlining how RWP parties promote skepticism/hostility to climate action, this article provides an investigative framework for future study on climate change communication. The impact of these findings on future climate change communication, and how it can more effectively circumvent populist anti-science rhetoric is valuable given the relevance of public opinion for climate politics (Huber et al., 2020). RWP primarily positions climate change and its policies as elitist and disconnected from the true interests of the ‘people,’ utilizing anti-science frames to dismiss the epistemologies that underpin climate policy. Thus, the top-down nature of climate communication, which primarily occurs in international settings and is negotiated by elites disconnected from the interests of local communities, could undermine public support.

These findings suggest that climate communication should take place more frequently in settings that foster community engagement and local participation to reach individuals exposed to RWP attitudes. This study finds that more inclusive modes of climate communication, such as messaging through local representatives and business owners, could be effective in conveying that climate reform is in the interest of all. Additionally, emphasizing the impact of climate change on local communities and ecologies would help contextualize it as a tangible and relevant issue, preventing it from being framed as an abstract and elite-led phenomenon.

 

(*) Morgan Lewis recently earned an MSc in International Business and Strategy from the University of Bristol, graduating with Distinction and receiving the Dean’s Award for Outstanding Academic Performance. His dissertation, Understanding Climate Skepticism: A Rhetorical Analysis of Climate Communication by the Polish Law and Justice Party, German Alternative for Deutschland, and Swedish Democrats, examined the rhetorical strategies used by right-wing populist parties to shape climate discourse. He also holds a First-Class BSc in Politics and International Relations from the same institution. His academic interests include political theory, contemporary European populism, and sustainability discourse.

 

References

Abromeit, J. (2017). “A critical review of recent literature on populism.” Politics and Governance, 5(4), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i4.1146

Antonio, R. J. (2019). “Reactionary Tribalism Redux: Right-Wing Populism and De-Democratization.” The Sociological Quarterly, 60(2), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2019.1593062

Angelos, James & Nöstlinger, Nette. (2024). “German far right wins first major election since World War II.” Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-far-right-elections-victory-afd-cdu-olaf-scholz/

Arzheimer, K. (2015). “The AfD: Finally a Successful Right-Wing Populist Eurosceptic Party for Germany?” West European Politics, 38(3), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2015.1004230

Atanasova, D., & Koteyko, N. (2017). “Metaphors in Guardian Online and Mail Online Opinion-page Content on Climate Change: War, Religion, and Politics.” Environmental Communication, 11(4), 452–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1024705

Bäckstrand, K & Kronsell, A. (2015). Rethinking the green state: Environmental governance towards climate and sustainability transitions. Routledge. 

Bang, G.; Schreurs, M. A.; Connelly, J. & Wurzel, R. (2011). A Green New Deal: Framing US climate leadership. In: The European Union as a Leader in International Climate Change Politics (pp. 255–271). Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839959-26

Bernd, V. S. & Wentist, Frek. (2007). “Climate Change Skeptics are Listed ‘Climate Deniers’.” Politically Incorrect. https://www.pi-news.net/2007/02/klima-wandel-skeptiker-werden-als-klima-leugner-gelistet/  

Biedenkopf, K. (2021). “Polish climate policy narratives: Uniqueness, alternative pathways, and nascent polarisation.” Politics and Governance, 9(3), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i3.4349

Bierbach, Mara. (2019). “EU’s populists at odds with climate protection.” DW. https://www.dw.com/en/climate-protection-where-do-the-eus-right-wing-populists-stand/a-47699703

Björklund, Per. (2018). “New setback for climate change.” Nya Tider. Februari 9, 2018.https://www.nyatider.nu/skribent/per-bjorklund/page/18/

Boecher, M.; Zeigermann, U.; Berker, L. E. & Jabra, D. (2022). “Climate policy expertise in times of populism – knowledge strategies of the AfD regarding Germany’s climate package.” Environmental Politics, 31(5), 820–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2090537

Brewer, M. D. (2016). “Populism in American Politics.” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, 14(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2016-0021

Brubaker, R. (2020). “Populism and nationalism.” Nations and Nationalism, 26(1), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12522

Burki, T. K. (2022). “’Phasedown’ of coal use after COP26 negotiations.” The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 10(1), 10-. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00544-0

Buzogány, A. & Mohamad-Klotzbach, C. (2021). “Populism and nature—the nature of populism: New perspectives on the relationship between populism, climate change, and nature protection.” Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 15(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-021-00492-7

Cadier, D. & Szulecki, K. (2020). “Populism, historical discourse and foreign policy: the case of Poland’s Law and Justice government.” International Politics (Hague, Netherlands), 57(6), 990–1011. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00252-6

Cann, H. W., & Raymond, L. (2018). “Does climate denialism still matter? The prevalence of alternative frames in opposition to climate policy.” Environmental Politics, 27(3), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1439353

Canovan, M. (2001). “Taking politics to the people: populism as the ideology of democracy.” In: Y. Mény and Y. Surel. Democracies and the Populist Challenge. Palgrave Macmillan. PP. 25-44. 

Carvalho, A. (2007). “Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 16(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506066775

Castanho Silva, B.; Vegetti, F. & Littvay, L. (2017). “The Elite Is Up to Something: Exploring the Relation Between Populism and Belief in Conspiracy Theories.” Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12270

Chrupalla, Tino. (2019). “Don’t make meat a pawn at the mercy of climate hysterics.” AfD Kompakt. https://afdkompakt.de/2019/08/07/grundnahrungsmittel-fleisch-nicht-zum-spielball-von-klimahysterikern-machen

Chatham House. (2024). ‘How will gains by the far right affect the European Parliament and EU?’ 

Clark, Tom; Foster, Liam and Bryman, Alan. (2012). How to do your Research Project or Dissertation. Oxford University Press. 

Consigny, S. (1974). “Rhetoric and Its Situations.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, 7(3), 175–186.

Conversi, D. (2020). “The Ultimate Challenge: Nationalism and Climate Change.” Nationalities Papers, 48(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2020.18

Damico, J., Baildon, M., & Panos, A. (2023). “How can we confront climate denial? Critical literacy+, eco‐civic practices, and inquiry.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 66(4), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1276

De Cleen, B., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2017). “Distinctions and Articulations: A Discourse Theoretical Framework for the Study of Populism and Nationalism.” Javnost (Ljubljana, Slovenia), 24(4), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2017.1330083

De Cleen, Benjamin. (2017). “Populism and Nationalism.” In: Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Populism, Oxford Handbooks. pp. 342-362. 

Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 19/22435 19. Wahlperiode 15.09.2020 (German Federal Parliament Document 19/22435. ‘19th Legislative period’). 15th September 2020. ‘Nuclear Power for Environmental protection’. 

Diehn, Sonya Angelica. (2022). “The astonishing rise of the right-wing Sweden democrats.” DW. https://www.dw.com/en/swedish-election-the-astonishing-rise-of-the-right-wing-sweden-democrats/a-63100694

Dubash, Navroz K (2019). “The nationalist hindrance to climate actions.” The Hindu.https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-nationalist-hindrance-to-climate-actions/article29483225.ece

Dunlap, R. E. & McCright, A. M. (2008). “A Widening Gap: Republican and Democratic Views on Climate Change.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.26-35

Emilsson, H. (2018). “Continuity or Change? The refugee crisis and the end of Swedish exceptionalism.” Forced Migration and Resilience: Conceptual Issues. pp. 99-121. https://doi.org/10.24834/2043/25232

Enqvist, Charlotta. (2021). “The Sweden Democrats and the issue of climate change-A study on the definition and legitimization of social realities in a globalized world with a specific focus on power relations.” Örebro University. 

Environmental Performance Index. “2022 EPIC Results.” https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi

Faiola, Anthony. (2016). “In Poland, a window on what happens when populists come to power.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-poland-a-window-on-what-happens-when-populists-come-to-power/2016/12/18/083577e8-c203-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html

Farand, Chloe. (2019). “Denial and Dampening Ambition: Where do Europe’s Right-Wing Populist Parties Stand on Climate Change?” DeSmog. https://www.desmog.com/2019/05/16/right-wing-populist-parties-climate-science-denial-european-parliament-elections/

Forchtner, B., & Kølvraa, C. (2015). “The Nature of Nationalism: Populist Radical Right Parties on Countryside and Climate.” Nature and Culture, 10(2), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2015.100204

Forchtner, B. & Lubarda, B. (2023). “Scepticisms and beyond? A comprehensive portrait of climate change communication by the far right in the European Parliament.” Environmental Politics, 32(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2048556

Forchtner, B. (2019). “Climate change and the far right.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change, 10(5), e604-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.604

Freeden, M. (2017). “After the Brexit referendum: revisiting populism as an ideology.” Journal of Political Ideologies,22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2016.1260813

Fuksiewicz, Klein & Klein, Julia. (2014). “Euroscepticism in the Polish and German 2014 European Election Campaign.” Institute of Public Affairs.  

Gamble, Andrew. (2018). “Chapter 1: Globalisation and the New Populism.” In: The Crisis of Globalization: Democracy, Capitalism, and Inequality in the Twenty-First Century. Bloomsbury Publishing. 

Gauland, Alexander. (2017). “AfD rejects demand for ‘car tolls for everyone’.” AfD Kompakt. https://afdkompakt.de/2017/11/06/afd-kritisiert-vorschlag-pkw-maut-fuer-alle/

Gemenis, Kosras; Katsanidou, Alexia and Vasilopoulou, Sofia. (2012). “The politics of anti-environmentalism: positional issue framing by the European radical right.” MPS Annual Conference. pp. 1-24. 

Ghosh, Amitav. (2018). The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable. University of Chicago Press. 

Greven, Thomas. (2016). “The Rise of Right-wing Populism in Europe and the United States:  Comparative perspective.” Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

Grimm, R. (2015). “The rise of the German Eurosceptic party Alternative für Deutschland, between ordoliberal critique and popular anxiety.” International Political Science Review, 36(3), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115575384  

Guber, D. L. (2013). “A Cooling Climate for Change? Party Polarization and the Politics of Global Warming.” The American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills), 57(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463361

Hilse, Ingo. (2023). “Climate ideologues want to paralyze Berlin: The trivialisation of climate extremism must come to an end now!” AfD Kompakt. https://afdkompakt.de/2023/04/12/klima-ideologen-wollen-berlin-lahmlegen-die-verharmlosung-des-klima-extremismus-muss-jetzt-ein-ende-haben/

Hilse, Karste. (2018). “Are the forest fires in Sweden the result of climate change’ [translated?). AfD Kompakt. https://afdkompakt.de/2018/07/24/sind-die-waldbraende-in-schweden-folgen-des-klimawandels/

Hofverberg, Elin. (2022). “Sweden: Parliament Adopts Reduced Tax on Diesel and Gas.” Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2022-04-05/sweden-parliament-adopts-reduced-tax-on-diesel-and-gas

Huber, R. A. (2020). “The role of populist attitudes in explaining climate change skepticism and support for environmental protection.” Environmental Politics, 29(6), 959–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1708186

Hughes, B.; Miller-Idriss, C.; Piltch-Loeb, R.; Goldberg, B.; White, K.; Criezis, M. & Savoia, E. (2021). “Development of a Codebook of Online Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric to Manage COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7556-. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147556

Hultgren, J. (2015). Border Walls Gone Green: Nature and Anti-Immigrant Politics in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 

Hultman, M. & Pulé, P. (2020). “Ecological masculinities: A response to the Manthropocene question?” In: Routledge International Handbook of Masculinity Studies (1st ed., pp. 477–487). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165165-47

Hultman, Martin. (2020). “Exposed: The right-wing nationalism road to ecocide.” EcologíaPolítica. https://www.ecologiapolitica.info/exposed-the-right-wing-nationalism-road-to-ecocide/

Jagers, Jan & Walgrave, Stefaan. (2007). “Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium.” European Journal of Political Research, 46(3), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00690.x

Jasanoff, S. (2010). “A New Climate for Society.” Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409361497

Judge, A., & Maltby, T. (2017). “European Energy Union? Caught between securitisation and ‘riskification’.” European Journal of International Security, 2(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2017.3

Jylhä, K. M.; Strimling, P. & Rydgren, J. (2020). “Climate change denial among radical right-wing supporters.” Sustainability, 12(23), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310226

Kashwan, P., Liu, J. C., & Das, J. (2023). “Climate nationalisms: Beyond the binaries of good and bad nationalism.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change, 14(2), e815-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.815

Kim, S. (2021). “Because the homeland cannot be in opposition: analysing the discourses of Fidesz and Law and Justice (PiS) from opposition to power.” East European Politics, 37(2), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2020.1791094

Kirby, Paul; Parker, Jessica. (2024). “German far right hails ‘historic’ election victory in east.” BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn02w01xr2jo

Klein, R. A. (2018). “Is Pacifism an Ideology?” Studies in Christian Ethics, 31(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0953946817749086 

KPMG Net Zero Readiness Index 2021. (2021). KMPG Impact. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2021/09/net-zero-readiness-index.html

Krotofil, Joanna & Motak, Dominika. (2018). “Between Traditionalism, Fundamentalism, and Populism: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Media Coverage of the Migration Crisis in Poland.” In: Schmiedel, U & Smith. G. Religion in the European Refugee Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 61-85. 

Kulesza, Czesław & Rae, Gavin. (2017). “The Law and Justice Party and Poland’s Turn to the Right.” Transform! https://www.transform-network.net/uploads/tx_news/RaeKulesza_paper_FINAL_19_01_2017.pdf

Küppers, A. (2024). “’Climate-Soviets,’ ‘Alarmism,’ and ‘Eco-Dictatorship: The Framing of Climate Change Scepticism by the Populist Radical Right Alternative for Germany.” German Politics, 33(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2056596

Kurmayer, Nikolaus J. (2023). “Germany’s green energy transition make-or-break year.” EURACTIV. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/germanys-green-energy-transition-enters-make-or-break-year/

Lacatus, C., & Meibauer, G. (2023). “Crisis, Rhetoric and Right-Wing Populist Incumbency: An Analysis of Donald Trump’s Tweets and Press Briefings.” Government and Opposition (London), 58(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.34  

Laclau, E. (2006). “Why Constructing a People Is the Main Task of Radical Politics.” Critical Inquiry, 32(4), 646–680. https://doi.org/10.1086/508086

Lanham, R.A. (1991). A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, 2nd Edition. Berkley, LA: University of California Press.

Laumond, B. (2023). “Increasing toleration for the intolerant? “Adapted militancy” and German responses to Alternative für Deutschland.” Comparative European Politics (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 21(6), 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00336-6

Laumond, Bénédicte. (2023). “Increasing toleration for the intolerant? ‘Adapted militancy’ and German responses to Alternative für Deutschland.” Comparative European Politics. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41295-023-00336-6

Lineman, M., Do, Y., Kim, J. Y., Joo, G. J., & Fowler, H. J. (2015). “Talking about climate change and global warming.” PloS One, 10(9), e0138996–e0138996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138996

Lockwood, M. (2018). “Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: exploring the linkages.” Environmental Politics, 27(4), 712–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411

Manifesto for Germany: The Political Programme of the Alternative for Germany. (2017). https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.

Lundquist, Christopher. (2021). “Vi är fria.” Lyrics. https://www.lyrics.com/lyric-lf/6841270/Chri-sto%EE%98%9Der+Lundquist/Vi+%C3%A4r+fria#google_vignette

Margulies, M. (2021). “Eco-Nationalism: A Historical Evaluation of Nationalist Praxes in Environmentalist and Ecologist Movements.” Consilience, 23, 22–29.

Marquardt, J., & Lederer, M. (2022). “Politicizing climate change in times of populism: an introduction.” Environmental Politics, 31(5), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2083478

Martin, J. (2022). Rhetoric, discourse and the hermeneutics of public speech. Politics (Manchester, England), 42(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395720933779

Mathiensen, Karl & King, Ed. (2016). “Poland threatens EU plan to ratify UN climate deal.” Climate Home News. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/27/poland-threatens-eu-plan-to-ratify-un-climate-deal/

Mathiesen, Karl. (2022). “Populists vs. the planet: How climate became the new culture war front line.” Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/populists-vs-the-planet-the-rights-new-playbook-on-climate-change-cop27-egypt-sharm-el-sheikh-donald-trump-midterms-republicans-meloni/

Merkely, Eric. (2020). “Anti-Intellectualism, Populism and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus.” Public Opinion Quarterly. 84(1). pp. 24-48. 

Moghissi, Haideh. (2016). Populism and Feminism in Iran: Woman’s Struggle in a Male-Defined Revolutionary Movement. Macmillan Press LTD. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Populism_and_Feminism_in_Iran/lCG_DAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Moghissi+2016+populism&pg=PR9&printsec=frontcover

Motion 2019/20:2682/ Vi tryggar välfärden  – Sverigedemokraternas förslag till statsbudget 2020. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/motion/vi-tryggar-valfarden—sverigedemokraternas_H7022682

Motion 2020/21:727. En effektic klimatpolitik. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/motion/en-effektivklimatpolitik_H802727

Mudde, Cas & Kaltwasser, Rovira. (2012). Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat of Corrective for Democracy? Cambridge University Press. 

Mudde, Cas. (2004). “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition. 39 (4). pp. 541-563. 

Notes from Poland. (2021). “‘EU green policies are madness and theories without evidence, says Kaczyński.” https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/10/20/green-policies-are-madness-based-on-theories-without-evidence-says-kaczynski/

Notes from Poland (2022) “Coal drops from 87% to 71% of Poland’s energy mix in a decade, with renewables up to 17%”.” https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/03/01/coal-drops-from-87-to-71-of-polands-energy-mix-in-a-decade-with-renewables-up-to-17/

Nowak, Thomas. (2016). “The Minister of Education explains why global warming is a myth and scientists are scratching their heads.” Noizz. https://noizz.pl/spoleczenstwo/anna-zalewska-o-globalnym-ociepleniu/qqnb6gj

Ortu, Claudia. (2014). “Right-wing populism in Europe: politics and discourse.” Critical Discourse Studies. 12(1). 

Party Programme (Sverigdemokraternas valplatform 2018). (2018). https://www.europaportalen.se/sites/default/files/dokument/sd_valplattform_2018.pdf

Party Programme (Sverigdemokraternas valplatform 2022). (2022). https://ratatosk.sd.se/sd/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/25170844/Sverigedemokraternas-valplattform-2022.pdf

Pelinka, A. (2013). “Right-wing populism: Concept and typology.” In: Right-wing populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse. pp. 1-34. 

Pels, Dick (2012). “Europe Facing the Populist Challenge.” Heinrich Böll Stiftung: The Green Political Foundation. https://www.boell.de/en/navigation/europe-north-america-dick-pels-rightwing-populism-ineurope-16759.html

Poortinga, Wouter et al. (2011). “Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change.” Global Environmental Change. 21(3). pp. 1015-1024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378011000288

Mathiesen, Karl. (2022). “Populists vs. the planet: How climate became the new culture war front line.” Politico. November 6, 2022. https://www.politico.eu/article/populists-vs-the-planet-the-rights-new-playbook-on-climate-change-cop27-egypt-sharm-el-sheikh-donald-trump-midterms-republicans-meloni/

Prawa i Sprawiedliwośći. (2014). Program PiS 2014: Zdrowie, Praca, Rodzina. https://pis.org.pl/dokumenty

Rechsteiner, R. (2021). “German energy transition (Energiewende) and what politicians can learn for environmental and climate policy.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 23(2), 305–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01939-3

Reuters. (2021). “Russia is making EU climate goals look ‘ridiculous’, says Poland’s Kaczynski.” Reuters. October 20, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-is-making-eu-climate-goals-look-ridiculous-says-polands-kaczynski-2021-10-20/

Rydgren, Jens. (2018). “The Radical Right: An Introduction.” The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right. pp. 1-14.https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/43520/chapter-abstract/364489321?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Sandrin, Paula. (2021). “The Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Europe: A Psychoanalytical Contribution.” In: Financial Crisis Management and Democracy. Springer. pp. 227-239. Available at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-54895-7_14

Schaller, Stella and Carius, Alexander. (2020). “Convenient Truths: Mapping climate agendas of right-wing populist parties in Europe.” Adelphi Consult GmbH. 

Sconfienza, Umberto Mario. (2022). “What Does ‘Environmental Populism’ Mean?” Populism. 5. 

Siemienska, R., Domaradzka, A., Schubert, K., Blum, S., & Kuhlmann, J. (2020). “Politics of welfare: The Polish welfare system in the first decades of the 21st century”. In: Routledge Handbook of European Welfare Systems (2nd ed., pp. 404–423). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429290510-23

Stanley, B. (2008). “The thin ideology of populism.” Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310701822289

Sverigedemokraterna (2017). “Vad vi vill. Våra vikigaste frågor.” https://sd.se/vad-vi-vill/

Szulecki, Kacper & Ancygier, Andrzej. (2015). “The new Polish government’s energy policy: expect more State, less market.” EnergyPost.eu. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-poland-a-window-on-what-happens-when-populists-come-to-power/2016/12/18/083577e8-c203-11e6-92e8-c07f4f671da4_story.html

The Local. (2022). “Sweden Democrat slammed for denying climate crisis in parliament.” https://www.thelocal.se/20221019/sweden-democrat-slammed-for-denying-climate-crisis-in-parliament

Tomson, Danielle Lee. (2020). “The Rise of Sweden Democrats: Islam, Populism and the End of Swedish Exceptionalism” Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-rise-of-sweden-democrats-and-the-end-of-swedish-exceptionalism/

TVP world. (2018). “President: I will not allow coal industry to be murdered.” https://tvpworld.com/40274663/president-i-will-not-allow-coal-industry-to-be-murdered

Vatz, R. E. (1973). The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6(3), 154–161.

Vihma, A., Reischl, G., & Andersen, A. N. (2021). “A Climate Backlash: Comparing Populist Parties’ Climate Policies in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden.” The Journal of Environment & Development, 30(3), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/10704965211027748

Waldholz, Rachel. (2019). “‘Green wave’ vs right-wing populism: Europe faces climate policy polarization.” Clean Energy Wire. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/green-wave-vs-right-wing-populism-europe-faces-climate-policy-polarisation

Weidel, Alice. (2023). “Alice Weidel: Majority of Germans against shutting down nuclear power plants.” AfD Kompakt. https://afdkompakt.de/2023/04/14/alice-weidel-mehrheit-der-deutschen-gegen-abschaltung-der-atomkraftwerke/

Wodak, Ruth. (2015). “The Politics of Fear: What Right-wing Populist Discourses Mean.” Sage. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1146/1146

Wójcik-Jurkiewicz, M., Czarnecka, M., Kinelski, G., Sadowska, B., & Bilińska-Reformat, K. (2021). “Determinants of Decarbonisation in the Transformation of the Energy Sector: The Case of Poland.” Energies (Basel), 14(5), 1217-. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14051217

Wpolityce. (2015). “Szczerski: Decarbonization means the elimination of coal from the European energy sector. How to call it other than the death of Polish mining?” https://wpolityce.pl/gospodarka/237984-szczerski-dekarbonizacja-oznacza-eliminacje-wegla-z-energetyki-europejskiej-jak-to-nazwac-inaczej-niz-smiercia-polskiego-gornictwa-nasz-wywiad

Żuk, P., & Szulecki, K. (2020). “Unpacking the right-populist threat to climate action: Poland’s pro-governmental media on energy transition and climate change.” Energy Research & Social Science, 66, 101485-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101485

Zuk, P. & Zuk, P. (2018). “Environmental Awareness and Higher Education: Differences in Knowledge and the Approach to Ecology between Students of Technical Sciences and the Humanities in Poland.” Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 17(2), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2017.1388196

 

Young Kurdish women dressed in red in Erbil, Iraq, on September 10, 2021. Photo: Serhii Ivashchuk.

Violence Against Women: Towards a Policy Understanding of the Patriarchy

by Editor’s ChoiceGenderHomeHuman RightsPolicy Papers

DOWNLOAD POLICY PAPER

Please cite as: 

Hussain, Shilan Fuad. (2025). “Violence Against Women: Towards a Policy Understanding of the Patriarchy.” Policy Papers. European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS). February 5, 2025. https://doi.org/10.55271/pop0005

 

Abstract

Violence Against Women (VAW) and girls can take many forms globally, from the absence of personal agency to sexual violence and domestic abuse. To better understand how VAW affects women in the Middle East in particular, this policy brief addresses various instances of violence against Kurdish women in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). A particular focus is given to forced/arranged marriages, honour-based violence, and female genital mutilation, which form a ‘patriarchal trifecta’ of oppression: a phenomenon that the author has identified and researched extensively. The policy brief recommendations informed by this research are relevant to policymakers both in the KRI and beyond, including European Union member states that have dealt with troubling cases of violence against women in immigrant communities and are facing similar challenges to women’s rights. Examining violations against women is relevant for many parts of the Middle East, and more broadly societies and communities where patriarchal values and norms produce a social milieu where the main justification for VAW is the protection of a social construct of honour. This policy brief is informed by fieldwork conducted in the KRI; 55 qualitative interviews with policymakers, United Nations officials, attorneys, academics, activists, civil society members, plus women and male survivors and perpetrators of VAW; and a quantitative survey conducted among 200 women and men to gauge their opinions on this multi-faceted phenomenon. The goal of this policy brief is to give the public institutions responsible for monitoring women’s welfare a better picture of the challenges to equality that women still face and offer ways forward in terms of addressing these challenges.[1]

 

By Shilan Fuad Hussain* 

Introduction 

Women and girls experience numerous forms of gender-based violence (GBV) on a global scale. This policy brief examines specific cases of GBV against Kurdish women in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) to shed light on the unique impact of GBV on Middle Eastern women. During my research I observed, defined, and examined a trinity of oppression, which I have coined the ‘patriarchal trifecta’ (Hussain, 2024). This trio includes forced/arranged marriages, female genital mutilation (FGM), and so-called ‘honour killings’/honour-based violence (HBV); phenomena which I believe operate symbiotically and merit special attention from a public policy standpoint (Payton, 2019; Beghikhani, 2015; Haig et al., 2015; Ruba, 2010; Brown & Romano, 2016; Ahmady, 2018; Burrage, 2016; Barrett et al., 2021).

The findings and recommendations of this policy brief are based on research conducted between 2022 and 2024. In 2023, I carried out fieldwork in the cities of Erbil, Duhok, Sulaymaniyah, Kelar, and Xanaqin, conducting interviews with 55 women and men that have been either survivors or perpetrators of GBV, policymakers, United Nations (UN) officials, attorneys, academics, activists, and civil society members. I also conducted a quantitative survey with 200 randomly selected women and men, as a control variable to ascertain their views on the different phenomena examined in this policy brief.

This policy brief is significant beyond the KRI because the wider Middle East region faces comparable obstacles to women’s equality. This issue also gains prescience in diasporic communities because of the growing tension between conservative, traditionalist understandings of Islam in the Middle East and liberal modernist ‘Anglo-European’ views of women’s rights enshrined in EU legislation. Such an ideological environment shared by the KRI and diasporas in Western European states means that many women survivors are ostracised from society and forced to endure these injustices in silence. Given these challenges, this policy brief includes seven general recommendations that address violations of women’s rights. 

The policy brief aims to offer governmental agencies that are responsible for tracking women’s well-being further insights on how to better guarantee women’s equality in society through putting forward cohesive strategies. The recommendations of this policy brief align closely with UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 on gender equality and the SDG 16 on peace, justice, and strong institutions.[2]

Forced and Arranged Marriages

My data collection in the KRI revealed that the forced marriage rate among girls who married at ages 14-17 and 18-24 was 20% for both groups. Child and forced marriages stem from various factors, including tribal and patriarchal norms, cultural practices, lack of formal education, household power imbalances, and harmful masculine expectations (Khan, 2020; Erman et al., 2021). These marriages often occur in rural areas governed by customs that disregard state laws. 

The prevalence of child marriage in the KRI is difficult to quantify, but a UNFPA survey found that 20.53% of women aged 20-24 in the Kurdistan region and 23.02% in wider Iraq were married before age 18 (UNFPA, 2016). Contributing factors include outdated customs, poverty, and low education levels, which leave girls vulnerable to exploitation and economic dependence (UN Women, 2018; 2019; El Ashmawy et al., 2020). Men are also affected, as young husbands often face the pressure of supporting households without stable careers or incomes (Hussain, 2024).

Following the rise of the Islamic State (IS) in 2014, economic hardship and declining living standards in the KRI led to increased violence against women. Many girls were forced to leave school and marry young due to financial strain, family pressure, or forced labour environments where they faced sexual exploitation and harassment. 

Families often viewed early marriage as a way to “protect” daughters from greater harm, despite objections from the girls. Physical abuse within marriages was normalized by parents as a better alternative to their daughters being “unclaimed” and potentially vulnerable to multiple abuses. Arranged marriages were perceived as opportunities for social mobility, leveraging patriarchal structures to improve a daughter’s material prospects. However, such unions often lacked love and empathy, reducing marriages to transactional arrangements where women were treated as property or servants, leading to isolation and confinement.

In rural and tribal regions, male dominance shaped all aspects of life. Men often justified their control through religious beliefs, rejecting secular laws protecting women as corrupting influences. Obedience from girls and women was seen as a moral imperative, and defiance of parental choices in marriage was considered dishonourable. Ultimately, my research highlighted that forced marriage practices were deeply rooted in cultural norms.

Violence Based on Perceived Dishonour

Honour-based violence (HBV) remains prevalent in the KRI, rooted in patriarchal and tribal norms as well as cultural perceptions of women’s ‘proper’ roles. Official data shows that 44 women were killed for ‘honour’ in 2022. Many others allegedly committed suicide under suspicious circumstances, often by self-immolation, with speculation that some were honour killings staged as suicides. As one NGO representative in Sulaymania explained, “it is very easy for a woman to be a victim of honour killing by family members in the KRI or Iraq and get away with it.”

Triggers for honour killings include premarital sexual relations, being a victim of rape, refusing an arranged marriage, or marrying someone disapproved of by the family. While murder is the most severe form, other abuses, such as mutilation and facial disfigurement, are also inflicted to render women ‘undesirable.’

Iraqi law addresses honour killings but allows reduced sentences for such crimes, often treating them as lesser offenses. In wider Iraq, sentences can be as low as six months, compared to life imprisonment or death for non-honour-related murders (AlKhateeb, 2010). This leniency perpetuates the idea that honour killings are ‘natural’ reactions to perceived family shame. In contrast, KRI authorities abolished laws allowing such reduced sentences in 2000.

Unlike forced marriages, HBV cuts across socioeconomic backgrounds. A UNICEF survey revealed that 59% of women aged 15-59 found physical abuse by husbands acceptable (AlKhateeb, 2010). Many women internalise patriarchal norms, perceiving these dangers as relevant only to ‘others.’ Interviews highlighted how older women, including mothers and aunts, often viewed honour killings as justified for ‘grave’ moral transgressions like perceived sexual promiscuity, believing such actions tarnish family honour.

Policy Recommendations

The ‘patriarchal trifecta’—forced/arranged marriages (Hussain, 2024), honour-based violence (HBV), and female genital mutilation (FGM)—is a complex issue requiring holistic solutions. To address these abuses, the KRI government must implement a comprehensive national strategy. While progress, such as a decline in FGM, has been noted, these phenomena continue to have catastrophic consequences for women, families, and communities.

On an institutional level, policy proposals include expanding state-funded gender-based violence (GBV) response services, such as healthcare, psychological support, housing assistance, and legal protections (Waylen, 2014; Piscopo, 2020). Eliminating sexist practices that limit women’s access to the workplace and resources is critical to enhancing their economic agency, offering alternatives to arranged marriages, and reducing the risk of honour killings (Chenoweth & Zoe, 2022; Hussain, 2024).

Key objectives to achieve these aims include:

  1. Strengthening legislation to challenge harmful gender norms and beliefs.
  2. Reducing societal acceptance of violence against women (VAW) by promoting gender-equitable norms.
  3. Collaborating with women-led organisations, NGOs, and community leaders to drive meaningful change.
  4. Prioritising health-related laws and accountability measures to mitigate violence and foster gender equality.
  5. Enhancing women’s access to skills training, formal employment, and labour rights to improve their economic opportunities.
  6. Encouraging inclusive economic growth by supporting firms that prioritise women’s leadership and entrepreneurship.
  7. Coordinating cross-sectoral efforts to support adolescents in addressing child marriages, FGM, and HBV.

Structural reforms should include integrating these measures into the education system. Comprehensive reproductive health education can inform young people about the dangers of FGM, while ensuring equal access to mandatory education until 18 can combat economic desperation (EGER, 2021). Schools could also employ female administrators and nurses to address girls’ unique challenges and provide guidance on personal and safety concerns (World Food Program USA, 2022).

Legislative action is essential. Clerics must be prohibited from registering marriages outside formal courts, and HBV and FGM should incur stricter penalties. Special units should investigate such offences, and divorce processes for abused women must be simplified, with state assistance provided during their transition. As one young woman in the KRI stated, “We need men to feel the urgency to do so.” Dismantling the ‘patriarchal trifecta’ (Hussain, 2024) requires participation from those it benefits (Levtov et al., 2015; Dabla-Norris & Kochhar, 2019). The limitations on women’s rights are interconnected, demanding holistic solutions that address root causes rather than merely alleviating symptoms. These insights and recommendations hold relevance far beyond the KRI, extending to global contexts.

 

(*) Dr. Shilan Fuad Hussain is a Research Fellow in Gender Studies and Cultural Analysis. She was previously a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow (2022-2024, UKRI), a Visiting Fellow at the Washington Kurdish Institute (US), and a Doctoral Fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (Switzerland). She is an interdisciplinary academic and works on a variety of topics, among them: cultural representation, production, and practices; gender-based violence; state policies enhancing female equality; FGM and arranged/forced marriages; the social impacts of masculinity; and multi-identity and culture in the diaspora diasporas. Her current work sits at the intersection of sociology and cultural analysis, and its symbiotic relevance to modern society. More information is available on her personal website: https://www.shilanfuadhussain.com/

 

References

Ahmady, K. (2018). “The Politics of Culture-Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Iran.” Journal of Humanity. Vol 4(1) (March):1-022. 

AlKhateeb, Basma. (2010). Persistent gender-based violence an obstacle to development and peace. Developing Programs for Women and Youth Iraqi. Al-Amal Association, Social Watch Poverty Eradication and Gender Justice. https://www.socialwatch.org/node/12087

Barrett, H. R.; Bedri, N. & Krishnapalan, N. (2021). “The Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) – migration matrix: The case of the Arab League Region.” Health Care for Women International, 42(2), 186–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2020.1789642

Beghikhani, N. (2015). Honour Based Violence. Gill & Hague.

Brown, L., & Romano, D. (2006). “Women in Post-Saddam Iraq: One Step Forward or Two Steps Back?” NWSA Journal, 18(3), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.2979/NWS.2006.18.3.51

Burrage, H. (2016). Female Mutilation: The Truth Behind the Horrifying Global Practice of Female Genital Mutilation, New Holland Publishers. 

Chenoweth, Erica & Zoe, Marks. (2022, March 8). “Revenge of the Patriarchs: Why Autocrats Fear Women.” Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2022-02-08/women-rights-revenge-patriarchs

Dabla-Norris, E. & Kochhar, K. (2019). “Closing the Gender Gap.” IMF Paper.https://www.imf.org/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/03/closing-the-gender-gap-dabla

EGER. (2021). Girls Education Roadmap. https://apppack-app-eger-prod-publics3bucket-elt8wyly48zp.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Girls_Education_Roadmap_2021_Report.pdf

El Ashmawy, Nadeen; Muhab, Norhan and Osman, Adam. (2020). “Improving Female Labor Force Participation in MENA.” The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). November 2, 2020. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/blog/11-2-20/improving-female-labor-force-participation-mena

Erman, Alvina; De Vries Robbe, Sophie Anne; Thies, Stephan Fabian; Kabir, Kayenat; Maruo, Mirai. (2021). Gender Dimensions of Disaster Risk and Resilience: Existing Evidence. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/35202

Haig, G. L. J.; Öpengin, E.; Hellinger, M. & Motschenbacher, H. (2015). “Gender in Kurdish: Structural and socio-cultural dimensions.” In: Gender Across Languages (Vol. 36, pp. 247–276). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.36.10hai

Hussain, S. F. (2024). Protecting women’s agency in the Middle East: Interventions and reforms to ensure women’s rights. CWS Policy Insights No. 1. Center for War Studies.

Khan, A. R.; Ratele, K. & Arendse, N. (2020). “Men, Suicide, and Covid-19: Critical Masculinity Analyses and Interventions.” Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 651–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00152-1

Levtov, R.; van der Gaag, N.; Greene, M.; Kaufman, M. & G. Barker. (2015). “State of the World’s Fathers: A Men Care Advocacy Publication.” Washington, DC: Promundo, Rutgers, Save the Children, Sonke Gender Justice, and the Men Engage Alliance. https://www.fatherhood.gov/sites/default/files/resource_files/e000003287.pdf

Payton, J. (2019). Honour and Political Economy of Marriage. Rutgers University Press.

Piscopo, Jennifer. (2020). The Impact of Women’s Leadership in Public Life and Political Decision-Making. Prepared for UN Women’s Expert Group Meeting for the 65th Session of the Committee on the Status of Women. New York: UN Women.

Ruba, S. (2010). Transnational Public Spheres from ‘Above’ and from Below’, Feminist Networks across the Middle East and Europe, Transnational Public Spheres.

UN Women. (2018). “Facts and Figures: Economic Empowerment.”  https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures

UN Women. (2019). Women’s Full and Effective Participation and Decision-Making in Public Life, as Well as the Elimination of Violence, for Achieving Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls. New York: UN Women, 2019: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3898140?ln=en

UNFPA. (2016). Child Marriage in Kurdistan Region-Iraq. https://iraq.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/Child%20Marriage%20Broucher%20English%20Final%20covers%206.pdf

Waylen, Georgina. (2014). “Strengthening women’s agency is crucial to underpinning representative institutions with strong foundations of participation.” Politics & Gender, 10, no. 4: 495–523.

World Food Program USA. (2022). “Top 6 Reasons Women Are Hungrier Than Men Today.” https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/women-in-crisis-top-ways-women-are-hungrier/

[1] Funding Details: This project was funded by UKRI, Grant Number: EP/X024857/1, carried out by Shilan Fuad Hussain at the Department of Law and Social Science, Middlesex University, United Kingdom.

[2] Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ), published by CEDAW – UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, ‘Shadow Report on Iraq submitted by Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) to the Committee of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; 74th Session; 21 October – 8 November 2019; Geneva, Switzerland’, 10 October 2019. United Nations Population Fund, UN Children’s Fund, UN Women, ‘Protecting Girls in Iraq from Female Genital Mutilation’, 6 February 2019, from: https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/protecting-girls-iraq-female-genital-mutilation-enarku. The United Nations have put forward multiple documents on the elimination of violence against women, including forced marriages, e.g., the 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (UN Doc. A/Res/48/104). United Nations Statistics Division. United Nations Global SDG Database. Data retrieved July 2022. From: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/dataportal.

Map: Shutterstock.

Unveiling China’s ‘Transnational Populism’ and Sharp Power Politics: The Case of the Belt and Road Initiative

by ArticlesEconomicsEditor’s ChoiceHomeJournal of Populism Studies

Abstract

In a mutually reinforcing context, the rise of multipolarity and the decline of the rules-based liberal multilateral world order have transformed populism from a national phenomenon into one with global dimensions, characterized by transborder transgressiveness. Rooted in nationalist rhetoric that emphasizes independence and sovereignty, this dynamic challenges the norms and values of multilateralism, fuels a vicious cycle of sharp power politics (SPP), and opens new fronts in the competition for national interests. China’s recent political and economic trajectory under President Xi Jinping provides a compelling case for examining the interplay between these factors. Drawing on the evolving theoretical framework of populism and an analysis of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), this article argues that Xi Jinping’s strategic framing of SPPs within an appealing populist narrative does not qualify him as a transnational populist leader. Notably, Chinese rhetoric lacks a cohesive ideology, a clearly defined transnational citizenry with shared interests, and a corresponding mechanism for the participatory representation of global citizens.

Keywords: Populism, sharp-power politics, multipolarity, multilateralism, China, governance, development, (in)dependence, global public goods, cooperation.

 

By Ibrahim Ozturk

Introduction

The transformation of global power dynamics, particularly in the post-Cold War era, has exposed vulnerabilities in the Western-dominated liberal multilateral order, leading to a multipolar world (dis)order. This shift has also curtailed the dominance of any single superpower, intensifying competition for influence and resources. This complex landscape has witnessed two notable political phenomena: the global rise of right- and left-wing populism and the adoption of Sharp Power Politics (SPP) by rising powers like Russia and China to enhance their global influence.

The emergence of this geopolitical landscape significantly limits the global cooperation necessary for collective action to effectively secure global public goods. Increasingly characterized by a “negative-sum game,” this environment poses deeply troubling implications for the future. It fosters the development of a causal chain in which populism, typically addressed at the national level, transcends borders and amplifies the influence of sharp-power politics.

While populists often portray themselves as champions of the people, challenging the established order on behalf of the masses, SPP co-opts populist rhetoric to serve the interests of authoritarian regimes, ultimately consolidating their power. A plausible transmission mechanism involves the gradual co-option of a functioning, though flawed, rule-based democracy by exclusionary, interest-driven coalitions of established elites. These elites prioritize their class interests at the expense of long-term efficiency, leading to stagnation. Over time, populist leaders exploit systemic vulnerabilities, using their rhetoric to gain power. If they maintain power long enough, they eventually transform the system into a form of authoritarianism, reinforcing this new status quo through sharp-power tactics both domestically and internationally to expand their influence and national interests.

Within this framework, the central aim of this article is to explore the extent to which the concept of “transnational populism” (TNP) can be considered an intermediate stage linking the progression from national-level populism to authoritarianism and, subsequently, to SPP beyond national borders. Following these theoretical discussions, the article also seeks to examine whether the notion of TNP can be inferred from the extensive use of populist rhetoric within China’s SPP framework, specifically in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The article is organized as follows: The second section explores key theoretical issues, evaluating the existence of a robust concept of transnational populism while examining the intersections, overlaps, and tensions between national populism, transnational populism, and sharp power politics (SPP). The third section builds on these theoretical insights to assess whether China’s foreign policies can be interpreted through the framework of transnational populism within its authoritarian regime. The fourth section connects China’s so-called transnational populism (TNP) to SPP, highlighting their incompatibilities, particularly in the context of the BRI. The final section concludes by summarizing the key findings.

Click to Read the Article

Hundreds of migrants attempt to cross the US-Mexico border as the Texas National Guard works to prevent irregular crossings in Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico on March 21, 2024. Photo: David Peinado Romero.

The “Awkward Alliance” of the Left and the Right

by CommentariesEditor’s ChoiceHomeMigration

The politics of immigration in the U.S. reveal peculiar alliances on both sides of the aisle. For Democrats, the coalition spans ethnoracial diversity, balancing ideals of equality with the economic and cultural concerns of immigration. This tension often leaves the Left grappling with its own contradictions. For Republicans, an equally uneasy partnership emerges. Grassroots voters, driven by ethnonationalist anxieties, align with capitalist elites who benefit from cheap immigrant labor. This “awkward alliance” pits anti-immigrant rhetoric against the economic realities of business reliance on immigration, fueling policies that prioritize elite agendas while alienating vulnerable voters.

By Sanne van Oosten*

Politicians of Populist Radical Right Parties (PRRP) often cite material scarcity faced by the populations of receiving countries as arguments against immigration. Whether the argument is that ‘they’ are stealing ‘our’ jobs, public services, or housing; materialist concerns are central to their arguments against immigration. The mobilisation of perceived economic injustice has proven to be an effective strategy for attracting voters, with the most recent U.S. elections serving as yet another example.

The U.S. Republican Party now also champions strong anti-immigration narratives, though this has not always been at the top of the party’s political agenda. This shift occurred during the Obama-era. Despite Obama’s first campaign and term being predominantly focused on healthcare reform, beneath the surface of the Republican Party, anti-immigration sentiments swelled, with many voters perceiving Obama as a symbol of immigration. While he didn’t, in reality, let more immigrants in than his Republican predecessors, Bush or Reagan. Although voters are generally positive about Black politicians, Obama’s African roots invigorated the Tea Party, a grassroots movement, leading them to turn to immigration as a response to the latent, smouldering old-fashioned racism his presidency stirred.

Even in the most conservative corners of the U.S., openly admitting to being racist is stigmatised, prompting many to mask such views. Concerns over economic justice often serve as a justification for racism by pointing to the scarcity of ‘our’ jobs, public services, housing; or whatever scarce economic resource is the challenge of the moment. By invoking these appeals to economic justice, one can pull off xenophobic claims without the stigma attached to more explicit expressions of xenophobia. These forms of strategic masking not only help avoid stigma in everyday life and political discourse, Republicans also can leverage these strategically against Democrats. After all, weren’t Democrats the ones who were supposed to protect ‘our’ jobs, public services, and housing? Didn’t they claim to care about the people and economic justice? Well, with all the immigrants they’re letting into our country, I guess they don’t!

Besides materialist masking, ‘civilisationist‘ masking serves to destigmatise racist and xenophobic claims while simultaneously dividing Democratic voters. Trump’s call to protect ‘our’ women from Latino immigrant rapists is a prime example of contemporary U.S. femonationalism. His calls to protect American gay people from dangerous Muslims illustrate homonationalism. Amid student protests against the war in Gaza, Trump also invoked the need to protect Jewish safety—what I refer to as Judeonationalism. Essentially, the infamous U.S. election campaign quote, ‘they are eating the pets,’ was also a form of civilisationist masking—what I call animeauxnationalism. These arguments follow the same logic and purpose as materialist justice: they not only serve to avoid stigma in everyday life and political discourse, but they also act as a wedge to internally divide the Democratic electorate.

And the truth is, in Western countries, the Left represents a much more ethnoracially diverse voting coalition, creating an ‘awkward alliance’ as I call it. White Leftists often support the Left out of ‘conviction’ for equal rights for all, including women and gay people, as well as animals and nature, while non-white Leftists tend to stay with the Left out of ‘necessity:’ the opposition denies their identities, yet, they often prioritise other concerns over equal rights and individual freedoms. This uneasy coalition unsettles political elites of the Left, leaving them uncertain about how to navigate this political catch-22.

Indeed, there is an inherent awkwardness in the Democratic claim to champion individual freedoms and equal rights while also supporting (or at least tolerating) immigration of people who do not necessarily hold the same core national values. This awkwardness mirrors the one found in materialist concerns: the Democrats advocate for workers, stronger public services, and affordable housing, yet they also support immigration, which some believe jeopardises jobs, strains public services, and drives up housing prices. Very awkward indeed.

Yet, the alliances on the other side of the aisle might be even more awkward. The Republican Party unites forces from the top-down and the bottom-up. From the bottom-up, Republicans represent an ethnonationally anxious voting base unsettled by ‘demographic panic’ due to immigration, grown from the grass roots Tea Party movement. From the top-down, the Republican alliance consists of large business elites (such as the Koch-network) who benefit from immigration by relying on workers willing to take jobs that many white Americans won’t, such as hard agricultural labour. These forces—both top-down and bottom-up—create another ‘awkward alliance,’ or an ‘uneasy marriage,’ or even ‘strange bedfellows,’ between a voting base riled up by anti-immigration sentiment and capitalist elites who profit from cheap labour and the economic growth that immigration fuels. The racist views that are often masked by arguments of economic justice serve as a ‘godsend’ for capitalist plutocrats, enabling them to mobilise an ethnonationalist electorate. Meanwhile, top-down forces prefer concealing the fact that their voters might not be voting in their own best interest through expressing and fuelling anti-immigrant sentiment by keeping unsettling news about immigration on the national agenda and the back of people’s minds.

These top-down capitalist elites are, however, most interested in boosting business, cutting back on regulations, and shrinking government social spending by, ironically, courting a voting base that is often reliant on Social Security and Medicare. ‘Anti-Obama anger,’ fuelled by racist undertones, proved to be a ‘godsend.’ For instance, by dubbing universal healthcare ‘Obamacare,’ opposition to government spending was built with the help of racism-driven xenophobia, even among those most dependent on the exact same public services, and those who are positive about the policies when not named after the first Black president, but Clinton. Even though immigration helps their businesses grow, these capitalist elites accept Trump’s strong anti-immigration stance as ‘unpleasant ransom’ to advance their libertarian agenda, which benefits capitalism and large corporations to the detriment of the lesser-educated voters riled up by anti-immigration rhetoric. This may be the most ‘awkward alliance’ of all.

(*) Dr. Sanne van Oosten is a postdoctoral researcher at Centre for Migration Policy and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford.

Muslim women wearing hijabs walking on the streets of Paris, France, June 15, 2012. Photo: Shutterstock.

The Importance of In-group Favouritism in Explaining Voting for PRRPs: A Study of Minority and Majority Groups in France, Germany and the Netherlands

by ArticlesHomeMigrationPopulism & Politics (P&P)

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE

Please cite as: 

van Oosten, Sanne. (2025). “The Importance of In-group Favouritism in Explaining Voting for PRRPs: A Study of Minority and Majority Groups in France, Germany and the Netherlands.” Populism & Politics (P&P). European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS). January 12, 2025. Doi: https://doi.org/10.55271/pp0046

Please find all replication materials including data, code and appendices here: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T7G5N

 

 Abstract

The voting behaviour of racial and ethnic minorities is a topic that attracts much speculation, with some claiming that racial and ethnic minorities do vote for Populist Radical Right Parties (PRRPs) and some claiming they do not. In the European Union, where saving data on individual’s race and ethnicity is prohibited, it is very difficult to contribute to these conversations with real facts. Do ethnic minorities and majorities tend to vote for PRRP and what explains their (lack of) support? Thanks to a novel yet costly sampling method, I surveyed racial/ethnic minority and majority voters in France, Germany and the Netherlands and asked them about their propensity to vote for Rassemblement National (RN) in France, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, and Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) in the Netherlands. I compare racial/ethnic minority groups, including Muslims, with majority groups and test the mechanisms that might predict their support for PRRPs. My findings indicate Muslims are among the least likely to vote for PRRPs, though the difference with voters without a migration background is only significant in the Netherlands. When testing what explains the propensity to vote for PRRPs, I find that indicators of in-group favouritism usually explain support to larger extent than out-group hate. Though anti-immigration attitudes predict PRRP voting in all three countries, in-group favouritism explanations explain PRRP voting to a slightly stronger extent. In France and Germany, the ethnocentrism scale predicts voting for RN/AfD more than immigration attitudes do. In the Netherlands, feeling accepted as belonging in the Netherlands explains voting for the PVV the most. Amongst Muslim French, German and Dutch voters, in-group favouritism, or the lack thereof, explains voting for PRRPs as well. French Muslims who feel more attached to France are more likely to vote for RN. German Muslims who do not believe in religious freedom for Muslims are more likely to vote for AfD. This also applies to Dutch Muslims, though immigration attitudes also predict voting for the PVV: the more a Dutch Muslim is against immigration, the more likely they are to vote PVV. Generally, this study makes a case for expanding the standard predictors of PRRP voting towards more indicators of in-group favouritism for the majority in-group, while for Muslims PRRP voting is more driven by policy attitudes. Feeling close or distant towards ethnic in- or out-groups does not predict PRRP voting in any of the cases. These findings contribute to our understanding of PRRP voting in Europe.

Keywords: Populism, Muslims, race, ethnicity, voting behaviour, France, Germany, Netherlands, RN, AfD, PVV.

 

By Sanne van Oosten (Postdoctoral Researcher at Oxford University, sanne.vanoosten@compas.ox.ac.uk)

Introduction

Political pundits and strategists have long believed that increasing diversity and gender equality would naturally expand the US Democratic voting base, assuming racial and ethnic minorities would reject ethnonationalist extremism in the Republican Party and have nowhere else to turn (Judis & Teixeira, 2002; Skocpol & Tervo, 2020). While this view has been challenged over time (Judis & Teixeira, 2023; Lee, 2008), the 2024 US elections highlighted the complexity of racial and ethnic minority voting behaviour, with racial and ethnic minority voters shifting from Democrat to Republican, though still leaning Democrat (ANES, 2021).

In Europe, studying minority voting behaviour is more challenging due to privacy regulations, yet it remains crucial as the “Replacement Theory” — a conspiratorial claim that immigrants are brought in to vote for political elites — has shaped far-right rhetoric across France, Germany, the Netherlands (Bracke & Aguilar, 2020) as well as the US (Skocpol & Williamson, 2011). Despite this, some pundits suggest that racial and ethnic minorities are increasingly inclined to vote for Populist Radical Right Parties (PRRPs), with figures like Geert Wilders[2] and Donald Trump[3] claiming that Muslim and Black voters support them. However, all of these claims remain underexplored in Europe. This paper investigates whether Muslims and ethnic minorities in France, Germany, and the Netherlands vote differently from their white counterparts, and what factors drive any differences in their voting behaviour.

Answering these questions in the European Union is more difficult than in the US or UK (as shown by the wealth of data in Sobolewska & Ford, 2020). Standard sampling strategies do not yield enough minority participants for statistical analyses (Font & Méndez, 2013). Moreover, strict European privacy regulations limit the availability of sampling frames for racial/ethnic and religious minorities in the European context (Simon, 2017). To overcome these challenges, I surveyed a large sample of Kantar-panellists and used a mini-survey to oversample voters from France, Germany, and the Netherlands with a migration background in Turkey (France, Germany, and the Netherlands), North Africa (France), Sub-Saharan Africa (France), the Former Soviet Union (Germany), Surinam (the Netherlands), and Morocco (the Netherlands). I sampled a high number of minority respondents, with 1889 out of a total N of 3058 respondents having a migration background, of which 649 self-identify as Muslim.

In this paper, I test how likely Muslims or other minority groups are to vote for PRRPs compared to majority groups, and why. I find that Muslim voters are much less likely to vote for the PVV in the Netherlands, though they are just as likely to vote for RN or AfD in France or Germany, respectively. I also explore what predicts the likelihood of Muslims voting for PRRPs. The literature on minority voting is not focused on voting for PRRPs, but explanations vary from issues, belonging and in-group favouritism, or the lack thereof, in this case. I find that issues explain PRRP voting, or the lack thereof, the most amongst the Muslims in France, Germany and the Netherlands.

Amongst majority groups, voting for PRRPs is generally often explained by economic and cultural factors, or their level of education and attitudes towards immigration. In-group favouritism is generally not studied, despite the longstanding evidence that in-group favouritism operates independently from out-group hate (Brewer, 1999). My various indicators of in-group favouritism indeed predict voting for PRRPs more strongly than immigration-attitudes and the impact of level of education disappears when including policy positions and in-group favouritism in the models.

In essence, this research advocates for broadening the conventional factors used to predict PRRP voting to encompass a greater emphasis on affinity towards the dominant in-group. Conversely, among Muslims, PRRP voting tends to be influenced more by policy stances. Whether one feels a sense of closeness or detachment from ethnic in-groups or out-groups doesn’t seem to have any bearing on PRRP voting outcomes in any scenario examined. These discoveries deepen our comprehension of PRRP voting patterns across Europe.

Theory

It has long been believed that increasing racial and ethnic diversity and gender equality would naturally lead to an expansion of the US Democratic voting base (Judis & Teixeira, 2002), as racial and ethnic minorities are put off by ethnonationalist extremism in the Republican Party (Skocpol & Tervo, 2020; Sobolewska & Ford, 2020) and, therefore, have nowhere else to go (Judis & Teixeira, 2002). Though this thesis had been questioned for a longer time (Judis & Teixeira, 2023; Lee, 2008), the most recent US elections drove the point home that reality is more complicated than the “demography is destiny” thesis claims it is[4]: The 2024 US elections saw a significant swing of racial and ethnic minority voters from voting Democrat to voting Republican[5], though the latest most robust data still indicate that the majority of Latinx voters prefer the Democrats[6], just as in 2020 (ANES, 2021). Studying the voting behaviour of racial and ethnic minorities is relatively easy in the US and UK, yet the more stringent privacy regulations in the European Union (EU) make sampling European racial and ethnic minorities more costly and, therefore, rare. In this paper, I use a novel sampling method and study to what extent and why racial and ethnic minority and majority voters in France, Germany and the Netherlands vote for Populist Radical Right Parties (PRRP).

In Europe, the influential conspiratorial “Replacement Theory” claims that immigrants are imported by political elites so they will vote for the political elites who imported them[7][8], as recently propagated by Elon Musk in an effort to promote Trump in the US election campaign[9], this narrative shapes the “demographic imagination”[10] on both sides of the Atlantic. In France, the Great Replacement theory was introduced by writer Renaud Camus in 2011 (Bracke & Aguilar, 2020: 685-686), while similar claims were being made in the US before that (Skocpol & Williamson, 2011: 79-80). Promoted by right-wing figures like Marine Le Pen, it has become central to nationalist rhetoric, suggesting that French culture and identity are at risk due to immigration. This conspiracy theory has influenced political discourse, especially within far-right parties, fuelling xenophobic fears of cultural “submersion.”[11] In Germany, similar views gained traction through the works of Thilo Sarrazin, who claimed that mass immigration would lead to the decline of ethnic Germans. The theory has also been propagated by figures from the Alternative for Germany (AfD), who argue that immigration policies are designed to replace native Germans. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, populist politicians such as Geert Wilders and the current chair of Dutch Parliament, Martin Bosma, have embraced the theory as well.[12][13][14]

However, pundits and PRRPs also sometimes claim the opposite: that racial and ethnic minority voters are actually very much inclined to vote for PRRPs. For instance, when Geert Wilders’ Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) won the Dutch general elections on November 22, 2023 (van Oosten, 2023b), Geert Wilders gave a speech in which he thanked all of his voters, especially the many Muslims who had voted for him.[15] Pundits weighed in by giving anecdotal evidence of Muslims voting for Wilders.[16][17] Were these claims an effort to legitimize Geert Wilders as a potential prime minister of all Dutch people, or was it really true? Given the lack of research on the voting behaviour of minority groups, these claims remained unsubstantiated.

In summary, the voting behaviour of Muslims, ethnic minorities and immigrant origin individuals is speculated about wildly. As seen above, in an effort to gain perceived legitimacy, some pundits and PRRP leaders will argue minorities vote for them. Conversely, to amplify “demographic anxiety,”[18] PRRP leaders will argue minorities vote for the pro-immigrant Left. So, which one is it? Do Muslims and ethnic minorities in France, Germany, and the Netherlands vote differently than their white majority counterparts? And what drives the differences?

In this theoretical framework, I first discuss the literature on minority voting which is mostly based on policy positions held by minority voters and discrimination they have experienced. Then, I discuss the most frequent explanations of PRRP voting amongst majority groups. I conclude with a discussion about in-group favouritism and how the dynamics of in-group favouritism differ amongst majority and minority groups.  

Cultural and Economic Issues as Explanations of Minority Voting

I do not know of any literature on PRRP voting amongst minorities in Europe, though there is literature on the tendency for minorities to vote for left-wing parties. In general, claims that ethnic minority voters vote for Left-wing parties because of their tendency to prefer redistributive policies (Bird et al., 2010: 10–11) have been debunked (Baysu & Swyngedouw, 2020; Bergh & Bjørklund, 2011; Sobolewska, 2006: 206–207; van Oosten et al., 2024e). Cultural issues play a much larger role in explaining voters’ choices than economic issues do (Otjes & Krouwel, 2019: 1159, 1152; Vermeulen et al., 2020: 445, 448). Many of these issues directly influence the way racial and ethnic minority voters see their place in society (Loukili, 2021a, 2021b), and the discrimination that they have experienced (Grewal & Hamid, 2022; Nandi & Platt, 2020; Phalet et al., 2010), or the discriminatory rhetoric they hear coming from politicians on the Right, making them side with the Left, not out of conviction, but out of necessity (Sobolewska & Ford, 2020) or circumstance (Rovny, 2024).

Though racial and ethnic minority voters align with the Left in their views on immigration, integration and Islam, they are less likely to do so on issues such as gender equality (Spierings & Glas, 2022), Lesbian Gay, Bi and Trans (LGBT)-rights (Geurts et al., 2023) and anti-Semitism (Koopmans, 2013). These differences between racial and ethnic minority and majority voters within the Left-wing voting coalition (Sobolewska & Ford, 2020) are used to drive the Left-voting coalition apart (Brubaker, 2017; Farris, 2017; Puar, 2007; van Oosten, 2024e). The general assumption is that racial and ethnic minority voters make the trade-off between aligning with the Left on issues such as immigration, integration and Islam on the one hand, and making compromises on gender and sexuality issues on the other hand (Sobolewska & Ford, 2020). The extent to which this is true, remains under researched, but the rhetoric of this “awkward alliance” (van Oosten, 2025) has influenced political narratives and has rendered party strategists on the Left anxious about how to deal with cultural issues such as gender equality, immigration, and LGBT-rights (Dancygier, 2017; van Oosten, 2022a, 2022b, 2023a).

The awkwardness of the assumed diverse voting coalition of the Left has led to some similar civilisationist forms of nationalism (Brubaker, 2017). Homonationalism, femonationalism, and judeonationalism are examples of these forms of nationalism that instrumentalize vulnerable groups such as women, LGBT individuals, and Jewish people to justify exclusionary practices, particularly against Muslim immigrants. Homonationalism, coined by Puar (2007), refers to the use of LGBT-rights, particularly in Western countries, to contrast “civilised” Western values against perceived intolerance in non-Western groups, particularly Muslims. Femonationalism, introduced by Farris (2017), involves the strategic use of gender equality, often framing Western interventions as a means to liberate women in non-Western countries, such as the justification for the war in Afghanistan.

Homonationalism and femonationalism are not the only forms of civilisationism. For instance, Judeonationalism, recently coined by me (van Oosten, 2024c, 2024d, 2024e, 2024f), refers to the instrumental use of antisemitism to discredit immigrants and justify anti-immigrant rhetoric. Animeauxnationalism (van Oosten, 2024h) is a term I coined to describe the infamous US election campaign quote, ‘they are eating the pets,’ as another form of civilisationism that leverages the idea that racial and ethnic minorities do not believe in animal rights, especially the rights of pets, not so much farm animals, to the same extent as white majorities do. These, and many other, forms of nationalism are often mobilized to promote xenophobia by framing vulnerable groups as symbols of Western values under threat from outsiders, contributing to the marginalization of immigrants and minorities. However, because the literatures on homonationalism and femonationalism are much more developed, I will focus on the impact of these narratives on voting.

Homonationalism first emerged in the Netherlands in 2002 with populist radical right leader Pim Fortuyn, as a response to perceived threats to the country’s liberal values. This was particularly in reaction to Moroccan and Turkish immigrants, coinciding with the Netherlands’ legalization of same-sex marriage in 2000, the first in the world (Brubaker, 2017). This unique context juxtaposed a traditionally progressive stance on LGBT-rights with an alleged Islamic intolerance (Mepschen et al., 2010). In contrast, around the same time, femonationalism gained more traction in the United States, where it was initially used to gather support for the war in Afghanistan by framing it as a mission to liberate oppressed Afghan women (Farris, 2017). This strategic instrumentalization of gender equality has since spread to other Western countries, particularly in Europe (Rahbari, 2021). Meanwhile, Judeonationalism—the use of antisemitism to discredit newcomers—has been especially prominent in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US, particularly following the Palestine protests in the spring of 2024 (van Oosten, 2024c, 2024d, 2024e, 2024f).

Civilisationism is frequently leveraged during political crises or when national identity is perceived to be under threat, particularly from cultural outsiders (Brubaker, 2017; Farris, 2017; Puar, 2007; van Oosten, 2024c, 2024d, 2024e, 2024f). Conceptual work on these narratives indicates they are primarily elite-driven, top-down efforts aimed at stoking xenophobia, particularly Islamophobia (Khalimzoda et al., 2025), to scapegoat minorities and distract from failing policies (de Haas, 2023). Politicians and media elites, however, frame civilisationist narratives as reactive responses to imminent threats particularly following high-profile acts of violence against women or LGBT-individuals (e.g. Frey, 2020).

Existing research demonstrates that civilisationist rhetoric affects public opinion amongst majority populations (van Oosten, 2022a, 2022b, 2023a), but it remains unclear whether this extends to racial and ethnic minority voters and Muslims. Might views on gender and sexuality impact whether racial and ethnic minority and Muslim voters vote for PRRPs? Or are minority voters more influenced by their views on immigration, integration and Islam?

Indeed, immigration policy and discrimination do impact the everyday lives of racial and ethnic minority voters. Immigration policies play a key role in determining the opportunities for family reunification, while Islamophobia and anti-discrimination laws affect access to the job market, and so on. It is therefore logical that these matters would influence the voting behaviour of racial and ethnic minorities. Furthermore, Muslims endure particularly high rates of discrimination in their day-to-day experiences (Awan, 2014; Fernández-Reino et al., 2023; Mansouri & Vergani, 2018), and witness their inclusion in society be mobilized for electoral purposes (Schmuck & Matthes, 2019: 739). This research will analyse the extent to which racial and ethnic minority voters and Muslims trade-off economic, gender and sexuality-related cultural issues, as well as immigration and Islam-related cultural issues influence voting for PRRPs.

Cultural and Economic Issues as Explanations of Majority Voting

There are two main schools of thought on how to explain why majority groups vote for PRRP: cultural and economic explanations. Just as is the case with minority voters, popular claims that voters are attracted to PRRPs because of economic insecurity instead of cultural issues are largely debunked with cultural issues being the most explanatory of all (Abou-Chadi & Helbling, 2018; Abou-Chadi & Wagner, 2019; van der Brug & van Spanje, 2009). However, economic factors also continue to explain PRRP voting, when the scarcity created by the arrival of immigrants is thrown into the argument.

Although migration experts agree that the economies of receiving countries benefit from immigration (de Haas, 2023; Kustov, 2024), economic challenges and the perceived injustice faced by the populations of receiving countries are often cited as arguments against immigration: whether the argument is that ‘they’ are stealing ‘our’ jobs (Thom & Skocpol, 2020), public services (Cremasci et al., 2024), or housing (Fernández-Reino et al., 2024; Ghekiere & Verhaegen, 2022), material concerns rooted in scarcity lie at the core of the debate. The mobilization of perceived economic injustice has proven to be an effective strategy for attracting voters, with the most recent U.S. elections serving as yet another example.

The US Republican Party now champions the strongest anti-immigration narratives, though this has not always been at the top of the party’s political agenda (Skocpol, 2020). This shift occurred during the Obama-era. His first campaign and term were predominantly focused on healthcare reform (idem). However, beneath the surface, anti-immigration sentiments swelled, with many voters perceiving Obama as a symbol of immigration (idem). While he didn’t, in reality, let more immigrants in than his Republican predecessors, Bush or Reagan (Thom & Skocpol, 2020). Although voters are generally positive about Black politicians (van Oosten et al., 2024a), Obama’s African roots invigorated the Tea Party, a grassroots movement, leading them to turn to immigration as a response to the latent, smouldering old-fashioned racism his presidency stirred (Tesler, 2013).

This puts into question whether concerns over economic issues are not actually concerns over cultural issues, in other words: immigration and racism. Even in the most conservative corners of the US, openly admitting to being racist is stigmatized, prompting many to mask such views (Creighton, 2023). Concerns over economic justice often serve as a justification for racism by pointing to the scarcity of ‘our’ jobs, public services, housing, or whatever scarce economic resource is the challenge of the moment (idem). By invoking these appeals to economic justice, one can pull off xenophobic claims without the stigma attached to more explicit expressions of xenophobia (idem). Putting into question, once again, whether claims of economic injustice are real, or masks to justify anti-immigration views, racism and Islamophobia.

Anti-immigration views and Islamophobia are also not one and the same dimension that can be studied interchangeably. Views towards Muslim predict voting behaviour in the US (Jardina & Stephens-Dougan, 2021; Weller & Junn, 2018). Even those with more positive attitudes towards immigrants are far more critical towards Muslims (Helbling & Traunmüller, 2018), suggesting that discrimination based on religion is much more accepted than discrimination based on ethnicity. The study at hand also sets out to answer whether views towards immigration on the one hand, and Islam on the other impact PRRP-voting differently. This research I am conducting here, will compare and contrast all of these cultural and economic explanations of PRRP-voting for both majority and minority groups. On top of this, I will also include how in-group favouritism compares to the explanations we already know.

The Differential Impact of In-group Favouritism Amongst Minorities and Majorities

According to Social Identity Theory, humans strive towards a positive self-image, and a central strategy to achieve this is in-group favouritism, which is the tendency to prefer members of one’s own group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In-group favouritism is an effort to achieve, what Social Identity Theory calls, positive distinctiveness (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the tendency to seek a favourable comparison of one’s self (positive distinctiveness) through preferring members of one’s own group (in-group favouritism) (Haslam, 2001, 21). Many people mistakenly assume that in-group favouritism is a universal phenomenon, despite the pioneers in Social Identity Theory specifying specific conditions under which this occurs (Tajfel & Turner, 1979: 36). I highlight how individuals can be incentivized to consider alternative strategies to achieve positive distinctiveness without in-group favouritism and the role social status plays in these dynamics.

Social Identity Theory proposes that individuals use three possible strategies to achieve positive distinctiveness: individual mobility, social creativity, and social competition. The choice of strategy depends on various factors such as the group’s social status, belief in social mobility or change, the permeability of group boundaries, perceived security of group relations, and the perceived homogeneity/heterogeneity of the out-group.

Low-status groups, such as racial and ethnic minority or Muslim voters, can use the three strategies to achieve positive distinctiveness in different ways. Some groups may perceive their boundaries as permeable, for instance because they have a name or appearance that makes them pass as part of the high-status out-group. This could be the case amongst German citizens with a migration background in the Former Soviet Union or Maghrebi French with fair skin and a French name. If that is the case, they will be likely to strive for individual mobility to join the high-status group, leading to out-group favouritism through accepting the out-group’s superiority. Other groups may perceive their boundaries as impermeable, possibly due to having an ethno-racially distinct name or black skin. This may be the case amongst citizens with a migration background in Turkey or French citizens from Sub-Saharan Africa. In that case, boundaries are impermeable. If group relations are seen as legitimate and stable, individuals will try to achieve positive distinctiveness through social creativity by redefining the dimensions of group comparison or attributing different meanings to current comparative dimensions (Haslam, 2001: 25), think of Muslim women in Europe countering common stereotypes of themselves as complacent and docile (van Es, 2019). This redefinition of group membership coincides with avoiding a direct challenge to the out-group’s superiority. If group boundaries are perceived as impermeable and status differences as illegitimate and/or unstable, low-status groups are more likely to choose social competition, leading to direct and open in-group favouritism (Haslam, 2001: 25), also known as “fighting fire with fire” in the case of Muslim voters voting for a political party advocating for and run by Muslims in the Netherlands, DENK (Loukili, 2021a, 2021b). In summary, not all low-status groups favour their in-group.

For high-status groups, the same three strategies exist, but they always lead to in-group favouritism. If group boundaries are perceived as permeable, high-status groups expect low-status groups to exert individual mobility and join them. If not, high-status groups may argue that low-status groups are guilty of causing their own inferiority. If group boundaries are perceived as impermeable, legitimate, and stable, high-status group members may exhibit “magnanimity” while engaging in latent discrimination and covert repression (Haslam, 2001: 26), which may be the case amongst high-status groups claiming to be colour-blind (Tiberj & Michon, 2013). If a high-status group perceives group relations as unstable and threatening, they may resort to “supremacist ideologizing, conflict, open hostility, and antagonism” by directly promoting the out-group’s inferiority (Haslam, 2001: 26), as is the case with some members of populist radical right parties (Kešić & Duyvendak, 2019; Kortmann, Stecker, & Weiß, 2019). For high-status groups, all strategies lead to in-group favouritism, as already demonstrated for voting behaviour (Nadler et al., 2025; van Oosten, 2024g).

Comparing France, Germany, the Netherlands and their PRRPs

I conducted this research in France, Germany and the Netherlands, three countries with key differences. In France, there is a strong emphasis on citizenship, secularism and a strong division between church and state, there are no religious parties in the political landscape of France (Kuru, 2008). In Germany, Christian political parties have had a longstanding presence (Schotel, 2021) and the approach towards Muslims is characterized by the history of integration of guestworkers (Yurdakul, 2009). The Netherlands has a host of PRRP and Christian parties in Parliament (Kešić & Duyvendak, 2019), and a history of guest workers from Turkey and Morocco and immigrants from former colonies such as Surinam and Indonesia (Vermeulen et al., 2020). All three countries have a history of parliamentarians from mainstream and PRRPs espousing Islamophobic rhetoric, with France and the Netherlands having a longer and more vociferous history of PRRPs and Germany being relatively new to the game and taking on a comparatively less strident tone (Brubaker 2017).

In France, secularism (laïcité) tends to frame debates on Islam more than in Germany and the Netherlands (Kuru, 2008). For decades, French discussions on the headscarf have more often been related to religious neutrality of the state than to gender equality (Korteweg & Yurdakul, 2021). Although Marine le Pen, leader of France’s PRRP Rassemblement National (RN) mixes civilisationist weaponization of gender equality and LGBT-rights with Christian conservatism championing traditional gender roles and the abolition of marriage equality (Scrinzi, 2017: 5; Snipes & Mudde, 2020: 455–456), gay French voters are still attracted to RN more than their straight counterparts (Dancygier, 2017: 188). Nevertheless, the supposed binary between gender equality/LGBT-rights on the one hand and Islam on the other remains a powerful civilisationist argument against Islam in France (Brubaker, 2017: 1201; McGlynn, 2020). 

In Germany, the first Populist Radical Right Party (PRRP) emerged relatively late in the Bundestag, compared to France and The Netherlands (Albertazzi & Mcdonnell, 2008; Althof, 2018). Germany has relatively conservative policies on homosexuality, such as not yet adopting marriage equality (Schotel, 2021). Germany’s PRRP Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has a more conservative Christian nature and following than their French and Dutch counterparts. AfD propagates traditional gender roles and opposition to marriage equality and to homosexual couples adopting children (Althof, 2018: 341), although examples of German homonationalist rhetoric do exist (Ayoub, 2019: 25). The rare instances of a civilisationist backlash against Islam are more often framed in feminist than homonationalist terms (Choi et al., 2021; Dancygier, 2017: 188).

The Netherlands is considered the most striking example of a country that uses civilisationist rhetoric in combating Islam (Brubaker, 2017: 1194). While France and Germany’s PRRPs need to navigate between civilisationist rhetoric and courting of conservative Christians (Marzouki et al., 2016), Dutch PRRPs have not been nearly as inhibited by constraints posed by conservative Christian electorates. Therefore, the weaponization of gender equality and LGBT-rights in combating Islam are more common, more ingrained and more virulent than in France and Germany (Brubaker, 2017: 1193–1197; Mepschen et al., 2010). Islamophobia is by far the highest in The Netherlands, compared to France and Germany (Heath & Richards, 2019: 29). Nonetheless, of the three countries, the Netherlands is the only one to recognize Islam as a state religion (Saral, 2020: 5). 

The electoral systems of France, Germany and the Netherlands could help explain the different flavours of PRRPs we see in the three countries. Germany knows mixed-member proportional representation, with a first vote for a direct candidate of their constituency and a second vote for a party list. The threshold of five percent for a political party to enter the Bundestag and elements of a single-member district system and the sizable Christian population make it necessary to court conservative Christian voters, partially explaining why AfD chases conservative Christians in the way they do.

France belongs to a completely different family of voting systems with single-member districts and a two-round runoff for national elections, making it even more necessary for new parties to enter politics with a broad coalition of voters. Despite France’s strong history of secularism, exacerbating civilisationist rhetoric, RN needs to woo conservative Christian electorates in order to make it first past the post. This means that civilisationist rhetoric is less likely to be visible.

The Netherlands knows party list proportional representation and a very low voting threshold: a mere one seat in parliament. This system allows for many parties who each have their own flavour of populism and Christian conservatism separately. Indeed, the Netherlands has four PRRPs in parliament at the time of writing and three separate Christian parties as well. Dutch PRRPs are therefore less likely to need to court Christian conservatives. This explains, in part, why civilisationist rhetoric pitting Dutch secular liberal values against a regressive Islam did not need to be combined with pursuing Christian conservative voters as much as we see in France and Germany, making Dutch civilisationism “strikingly” (Brubaker, 2017: 1194) different and all the more virulent.

Methods

I oversampled respondents with specific migration backgrounds to make group-specific statistical inferences (Font & Méndez, 2013: 48) and chose minoritized groups: numeric minorities that state experiencing discrimination to the largest extent (FRA: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2017: 31). In France, the oversampled groups of ethnic minority citizens consist of French citizens with a North-African (Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria), Sub-Saharan African (Niger, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, French Sudan, Senegal, Chad, Gabon, Cameroon, Congo) and Turkish background. In Germany, I oversampled German citizens with a Turkish and Former Soviet Union (FSU) background. In the Netherlands, I oversampled Dutch citizens with a Turkish, Moroccan and Surinamese background. Some groups have come to France, Germany or the Netherlands as a result of the colonial ties between host and home country, some came as guest workers (FRA: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2017: 93). I also oversampled French citizens with a Turkish background and German re-migrants from the FSU. Some, but not all, of the oversampled migration backgrounds are countries with Muslim-majority populations (Phalet et al., 2010; Verkuyten & Yildiz 2009; Dangubić et al., 2020), making it possible to disentangle whether effects are either religiously or ethnically/racially driven.

After running pilots and obtaining the ethics approval, see Appendix, I gathered data between March and August of 2020 and surveyed 3.058 citizens of France, Germany and the Netherlands, administered by survey agency Kantar Public. One important challenge in surveying ethnic/racial minority groups comes from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a European law legally restricting saving data on race and ethnicity (European Commission, 2018). I overcame this challenge by employing a large-scale filter question to the representative Kantar-panels in all three countries. I asked a very large sample to participate in a mini survey. The first and only question of this mini survey asks where their mother and father were born. If either one of their parents were born in a country of origin I wanted to oversample, we redirected this respondent to the full survey. If not, we either terminated the survey or redirected a small percentage to the full survey. This enabled me to form sizable groups of minority citizens for my final survey, ensuring ample diversity, a feature so often missing from survey research (Coppock & McClellan, 2018; Krupnikov & Levine, 2014; Mullinix et al., 2015). Though there is still a chance of selection bias, I have variables to weight the data on gender, migration background, education, age, urbanization and region, and the findings are broadly the same with and without weights. All data, survey questions, information about the sampling strategy implemented, pre-registration details, and ethical review documentation can be found on Harvard Dataverse for France (van Oosten et al., 2024b), Germany, (van Oosten et al., 2024c) and the Netherlands (van Oosten et al., 2024d). I ended up with the following number of respondents in each group:

I asked all respondents about their ethnic and religious identification. For ethnic identification I asked: “In terms of my ethnic group, I consider myself to be… (max. 2 answers).” I presented the respondents a list of 13 answer categories, including French, German, Dutch, Turkish, Maghrebi, Yoruba, Former Soviet Union, Kazakh, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Hindustani, see the full list on Harvard Dataverse (van Oosten et al., 2024b, 2024c, 2024d). The last questions of the survey were about religious identification. I asked: “Do you consider yourself as belonging to any particular religion or denomination?” If the respondent answered yes, I followed up with “Which one?” allowing respondents to answer “Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Other, [specify].” Respondents were able to indicate that they identified with a max of two ethnic groups, of which one could be French, German or Dutch and one religion. Table 1 shows the exact number of each group of respondents based on their migration backgrounds, and the percentage of which identified as Dutch, an ethnic minority group or belonging to a religion.

For each ethnic group and religion respondents selected, the respondents then received a list of four statements with answers ranging from 0 (disagree) to 10 (agree), which together form an ethnic in-group favouritism scale (Bizumic et al., 2009). Respondents received this battery of four statements between zero and three times, depending on how many ethnic or religious groups they identified with. I measured levels of ethnic and religious in-group favouritism on a scale from 0 to 10. I asked respondents to answer the following questions:

  1. In general, I prefer doing things with [ethnic or religious group] people.
  2. The world would be a much better place if all other groups are like [ethnic or religious group] people.
  3. I don’t think it is good to mix with people from other groups.
  4. We should always put [ethnic or religious group] interests first and not be oversensitive about the interests of others.

I conducted principal component analysis and the Chronbach Alpha for the ethnic scale was 0.87 and for the religion scale it was 0.80.

I measured issue stances in both the cultural and economic dimensions, split into eight issues: taxing the rich, social benefits, climate change, fuel prices, immigration, Islam, equal pay for men and women, and Lesbian, Gay, Bi (LGB, I did not measure attitudes towards trans rights)-rights. I standardized all independent variables to run from 0 to 1. For the exact measurements of issues, belonging in the Netherlands and experiences with discrimination, age, gender and level of education, see the full list of survey questions on Harvard Dataverse (van Oosten et al., 2024b, 2024c, 2024d).

As the dependent variable, I measured propensity to vote (PTV) for RN, AfD and PVV by asking respondents: “Please indicate the likelihood that you will ever vote for the following parties. If you are certain that you will never vote for this party then choose 0; if you are certain you will vote for this party someday, then enter 10. Of course, you can also choose an intermediate position” (as formulated in LISS, 2018). I also measured the PTV for all other parties in parliament at the time of gathering data, see the data and appendix on Harvard Dataverse (van Oosten et al., 2024b, 2024c, 2024d).

In figure 1a, 1b, and 1c, I analyse and present the data using marginal means where I compare different subgroups because I wish to avoid confusing readers with different reference categories (Leeper et al., 2020). I present marginal means of PTV-scores for all racial, ethnic and religious groups sampled separately. I do not use weights. I ran robustness checks with weights for the general population and didn’t find differences between the outcomes with and without weights, see code. Weighting the data for the minority and majority groups separately is impossible because France and Germany do not have population data of educational attainment, gender, age, urbanization, or region of ethnic minority and majority citizens, let alone Muslims. I analyse the underlying mechanisms using linear models. I prepared the data using R-package “tidyr” (Wickham, 2020), analysed it using linear models with R-base, and visualized it with R-package “ggplot2” (Wickham et al., 2020).

Findings

Intergroup Voting Differences

How likely are the racial, ethnic and religious groups to vote for PRRPs? In Figure 1a, I present the mean PTV-scores of RN in France and show that voters with a Turkish background in France are most inclined to vote for RN, followed closely by Christian and non-migrant French voters. Conversely, Muslims exhibit the lowest likelihood of supporting RN, significantly less than Turkish-background voters. In Figure 1b, I present the mean PTV-scores of AfD in Germany and show that voters from the Former Soviet Union are most likely to support AfD, with no significant difference in Muslim voters’ likelihood to support AfD compared to other groups. Finally, in Figure 1c, I present the mean PTV-scores of PVV in the Netherlands and find that Dutch voters without a migration background are most inclined to vote for PVV, while Muslim, Turkish, and Moroccan voters are significantly less likely to support PVV compared to other groups, with Muslims showing the lowest likelihood.

Based on Figure 1a, voters with a background in Turkey are the most likely to vote for RN in France, with a score of 3.26 (SD = 0.34). This is closely followed by Christian voters, with a score of 2.78 (SD = 0.19), and French voters without a migration background, with a score of 2.78 (SD = 0.30). Voters with a background in North Africa come next, scoring 2.66 (SD = 0.37), followed by non-religious voters, scoring 2.56 (SD = 0.24). Muslims have the lowest likelihood of voting for RN, scoring 2.25 (SD = 0.45). When considering confidence intervals, there is overlap between all groups except for voters with a background in Turkey and Muslims. This suggests that the difference in voting likelihood between only these two groups is statistically significant, indicating that voters with a background in Turkey are more likely to vote for RN than Muslims in France. Although the group of French citizens with a background in Turkey is small (N=87) and mostly secular. It is important to note that Muslims are just as likely to vote for RN as non-religious and Christian voters, as their confidence intervals overlap with those groups. This suggests that there’s no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of Muslims voting for RN compared to non-religious or Christian voters in France.

In the German case, voters with a background from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) are the most likely to vote for AfD, scoring 2.42 (SD = 0.39). This is followed by Christian voters, with a score of 2.34 (SD = 0.37), and German voters without a migration background, scoring 2.08 (SD = 0.34). Non-religious voters come next, scoring 1.97 (SD = 0.27), while voters with a background in Turkey score 1.72 (SD = 0.43). Muslims have the lowest likelihood of voting for AfD in Germany, scoring 1.50 (SD = 0.53). Notably, there is no significant difference between Muslims’ likelihood to vote for AfD and any other group, as the confidence intervals for all groups overlap. This suggests that there is no statistically significant difference in voting likelihood between these groups when it comes to supporting the AfD in Germany.

In the Netherlands, Muslim, Turkish, and Moroccan voters are significantly less likely to vote for PVV (Party for Freedom, Partij voor de Vrijheid) compared to non-religious voters and Dutch voters without a migration background. Dutch voters without a migration background have a score of 1.99 (SD = 0.33), followed by Surinamese voters at 1.60 (SD = 0.29), non-religious voters at 1.67 (SD = 0.24), and Christian voters at 1.62 (SD = 0.24). Turkish and Moroccan voters have lower scores, 0.99 (SD = 0.26) and 0.63 (SD = 0.13) respectively, while Muslims have the lowest likelihood of voting for PVV, scoring 0.66 (SD = 0.20).

What Explains PRRP Voting Amongst Muslims?

Figure 2a, 2b, and 2c provide insights into the factors influencing the voting behaviour of Muslims in France, Germany, and the Netherlands regarding PRRPs. In France, attitudes towards fuel prices, social distance towards Maghrebi individuals, and attachment to France significantly impact voting for RN. In Germany, level of education, attitudes towards social benefits, Islam, perceived social distance towards FSU individuals, and in-group favouritism towards Muslims are significant predictors of AfD support. In the Netherlands, attitudes towards taxing the rich, immigration, and Islam, along with social distance from Dutch Moroccans, influence the likelihood of voting for PVV among Dutch Muslims.

What predicts whether French Muslims vote for RN? The adjusted R-squared for the model is 0.08931. Among the predictors, significant variables include the perceived social distance towards the ethnic minority group Maghrebi (Estimate = 1.67036, p-value = 0.03644), and attachment to France (Estimate = 2.58745, p-value = 0.00703), indicating that these factors have a significant impact on predicting whether French Muslims vote for RN. However, other variables such as education, taxing the rich, social benefits, climate, fuel prices, immigration, Islam, equal pay, LGB-rights, and several measures of social distance and group favouritism were not found to be statistically significant predictors in this analysis.

The adjusted R-squared for the model is 0.4062. Among the predictors, significant variables include level of education (Estimate = -2.2044, p-value = 0.00763), attitudes towards social benefits (Estimate = -1.9359, p-value = 0.03729), Islam (Estimate = -3.2628, p-value = 0.00124), perceived social distance towards FSU individuals (Estimate = 2.2490, p-value = 0.00566), and in-group favouritism towards Muslims (Estimate = 2.1648, p-value = 0.04216). However, other variables such as taxing the rich, climate, immigration, equal pay, LGB-rights, perceived social distance towards Turkish, German, Christian, and non-religious individuals, Belonging, attachment, and self-identified ethnic group were not found to be statistically significant predictors in this analysis. In addition to the significant variables mentioned earlier, some predictors came close to meeting the threshold for significance. These include attitudes towards fuel prices (Estimate = 1.4701, p-value = 0.08188), equal pay (Estimate = 1.3387, p-value = 0.06756), and German in-group favouritism (Estimate = 2.6970, p-value = 0.06304).

The adjusted R-squared for the model is 0.1914. Among the predictors, significant variables include attitudes towards taxing the rich (Estimate = -0.6797338, p-value = 0.038547), immigration (Estimate = -1.1692163, p-value = 0.003246), and Islam (Estimate = -1.3668919, p-value = 0.000557). The more positive at Dutch Muslim is about taxing the rich, immigration and Islam, the less likely a Dutch Muslim is to vote for PVV. The more distant one feels from Dutch Moroccans, the more likely one is to vote for the PVV (Estimate = 0.7867001, p-value = 0.051232). These results suggest that perceptions of immigration, attitudes towards Islam, and social distance from Moroccans significantly influence the likelihood of Dutch Muslims voting for PVV. However, other variables such as education, social benefits, climate, fuel prices, equal pay, LGB-rights, perceived social distance towards Surinamese, Turkish, Dutch, Muslim, Christian, and non-religious individuals, feeling accepted as belonging in the Netherlands, attachment to the Netherlands, self-identified ethnic group, and favouritism towards Dutch and Muslim in-groups were not found to be statistically significant predictors in this analysis.

In-group Favouritism

The analysis of in-group favouritism amongst ethnic minority and majority groups, as well as Muslims and Christians in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, reveals differences in in-group favouritism scores. Amongst the majority ethnic group voters, in-group favouritism emerges as notably higher compared to minority ethnic groups. Muslim and Christian in-group favouritism are comparable.

In-group Favouritism as a Stronger Predictor to Voting for PRRPs

The findings across Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c underscore the significance of measuring in-group favouritism when examining voting behaviour for PRRPs. In each case, a substantial portion of the variance in the likelihood to vote for these parties is accounted for by factors related to in-group favouritism and attachment. Notably, French and German in-group favouritism emerge as the strongest predictors of voting behaviour for RN and AfD, respectively, outweighing other variables such as immigration attitudes. In the Netherlands, feeling accepted as belonging in the Netherlands was the strongest indicator of voting PVV, with those who feel less accepted being more likely to vote PVV. While negative attitudes towards immigration remain a potent predictor across all cases, views that pertain to the in-group predict PRRP voting more strongly.

The adjusted R-squared for the model predicting whether French voters without a migration background vote for RN is 0.1626, indicating that approximately 16.26% of the variance in likelihood to vote for RN is accounted for by the predictor variables. Among the predictor variables, statistically significant predictors include attitudes towards immigration (estimate = -1.727, p < 0.01), feeling accepted as belonging in France (estimate = -1.363, p < 0.05), French in-group favouritism (estimate = 2.731, p < 0.001), and feelings of attachment to France (estimate = 1.360, p < 0.05). These results suggest that negative attitudes towards immigration and a strong sense of French identity are associated with a higher likelihood of voting for RN, while positive attitudes towards France and attachment to the country are associated with a lower likelihood of voting for RN. Conversely, variables such as education, taxing the rich, social benefits, and others are not statistically significant predictors of voting for RN in this model. The indicator with the highest impact was French in-group favouritism. Having a stronger preference for the French in-group is associated with a substantially higher likelihood of voting for RN.

The adjusted R-squared for the model predicting whether German voters without a migration background vote for AfD is 0.2739, indicating that approximately 27.39% of the variance in likelihood to vote for AfD is accounted for by the predictor variables. Among the predictor variables, statistically significant predictors include attitudes towards immigration (estimate = -1.905, p < 0.01), feelings of acceptance as belonging in Germany (estimate = -0.744, p < 0.05), German in-group favouritism (estimate = 3.862, p < 0.001), and Christian in-group favouritism (estimate = 3.25373, p < 0.001). These results suggest that negative attitudes towards immigration and a strong sense of German and Christian identity are associated with a higher likelihood of voting for AfD, while positive attitudes towards Germany and attachment to the country are associated with a lower likelihood of voting for AfD. Conversely, variables such as education, taxing the rich, social benefits, and others are not statistically significant predictors of voting for AfD in this model. The indicator with the highest impact was German in-group favouritism. Having a stronger preference for the German in-group is associated with a substantially higher likelihood of voting for AfD, amongst Germans without a migration background.

The adjusted R-squared for the model predicting whether Dutch voters without a migration background vote for PVV is 0.2732, indicating that approximately 27.32% of the variance in likelihood to vote for PVV is accounted for by the predictor variables. Among the predictor variables, statistically significant predictors include attitudes towards immigration (estimate = -2.463, p < 0.001), concern about climate change (estimate = -1.579, p < 0.05), raising fuel prices (estimate = -1.246, p < 0.05), feelings of acceptance as belonging in the Netherlands (estimate = -2.616, p < 0.05), and preference for the Dutch in-group (estimate = 1.784, p < 0.05). These results suggest that negative attitudes towards immigration are associated with a higher likelihood of voting for PVV, while positive attitudes towards the Netherlands and attachment to the country are associated with a lower likelihood of voting for PVV. Conversely, variables such as education, taxing the rich, social benefits, and others are not statistically significant predictors of voting for PVV in this model. The indicator with the highest impact was feeling accepted as belonging in the Netherlands. Feeling less accepted is associated with a substantially higher likelihood of voting for PVV.

Conclusion

This paper has focused on the likelihood of minorities and majorities to vote for PRRPs and what explains the voting likelihoods. In France and Germany, there are remarkably few differences in the likelihood of voting for minority and majority groups. In France, voters with a Turkish background exhibit the highest inclination to support RN, followed closely by Christian and non-migrant French voters. Conversely, Muslims show the lowest likelihood of supporting RN. In Germany, voters from the Former Soviet Union are most likely to support AfD, with no significant difference in Muslim voters’ likelihood to support AfD compared to other groups. In the Netherlands, Dutch voters without a migration background are significantly more inclined to vote for PVV, while Muslim, Turkish, and Moroccan voters are significantly less likely to support PVV compared to other groups, with Muslims showing the lowest likelihood.

I also discuss the factors influencing the voting behaviour of Muslims in France, Germany, and the Netherlands regarding PRRPs. Generally speaking, issues are the biggest predictor of Muslim voting for PRRPs. In France, attitudes towards fuel prices, social distance towards Maghrebi individuals, and attachment to France significantly impact voting for RN. In Germany, level of education, attitudes towards social benefits, Islam, perceived social distance towards FSU individuals, and in-group favouritism towards Muslims are significant predictors of AfD support. In the Netherlands, attitudes towards taxing the rich, immigration, and Islam, along with social distance from Dutch Moroccans, influence the likelihood of voting for PVV among Dutch Muslims.

Moreover, when it comes to majority voters, I find in-group favouritism predicts voting more than issues do. French and German in-group favouritism emerge as the strongest predictors of voting behaviour for RN and AfD, respectively, outweighing other variables such as immigration attitudes. In the Netherlands, feeling accepted as belonging in the country was the strongest indicator of voting PVV, with those who feel less accepted being more likely to vote PVV. Overall, negative attitudes towards immigration remain a potent predictor across all cases, while views related to the in-group predict PRRP voting more strongly.

Lastly, the examination of in-group favouritism among ethnic minority and majority groups, alongside Muslims and Christians in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, reveals that in-group favouritism is much higher among racial and ethnic majority voters. Meanwhile, the analysis shows remarkably low levels of in-group favouritism within minority groups. This trend underscores that groups with more power and privilege tend to uphold and reinforce their social dominance through favouring their own group, while the groups with less power and privilege do not favour their in-group to the same extent and might benefit more from siding with the dominant out-group.

I argue that in-group favouritism can be extended towards voting for PRRPs because the analysis reveals that French, German and Dutch in-group favouritism and PRRP voting are strongly related for racial and ethnic majority groups in France, Germany and the Netherlands. The relationship between majority group in-group favouritism and PRRP voting is stronger for majority voters compared to minority voters due to the dynamics of social identity and power asymmetry. For majority voters, who typically hold higher social status and enjoy dominant societal norms, in-group favouritism serves as a reinforcing mechanism of their perceived superiority and control over resources. In-group favouritism not only bolsters their positive self-image but also reinforces their position of privilege within the social hierarchy. I argue this extends to PRRP voting. Moreover, for majority voters, in-group favouritism and PRRP voting is intricately linked with the preservation of their cultural and political hegemony. Supporting policies or political parties aligned with their group interests not only reinforces their social identity but also serves to protect and advance their collective interests within society. In-group favouritism as well as voting for PRRPs becomes a means of maintaining the status quo and resisting challenges to their dominance from minority groups.

In contrast, minority voters often face systemic barriers and discrimination that limit their access to resources and opportunities. Sometimes their situation leads to in-group favouritism, but in some situations it is more beneficial to favour the dominant out-group. This is most visible in France and Germany, where racial and ethnic minority and Muslim voters are just as likely to vote for PRRPs as their majority counterparts. In France, the Turkish group of voters is even most likely to vote for PRRPS, possibly because they are only a very small part of the population and do not have a very large in-group community to favour, unlike in Germany and the Netherlands where there are larger Turkish communities. Thus, siding with the out-group through PRRP voting might reveal an inclination towards favouring the dominant out-group to navigate existing power structures. In the Netherlands, the strong focus on multiculturalism historically, might have bolstered the Muslim, Turkish and Moroccan communities leading them to be much less likely than other groups to vote for PRRPs. However, this could also be due to the relatively explicit nature of the PVV in their opposition against Muslims, especially those of Turkish and Moroccan descent.

In conclusion, the significance of in-group favouritism varies between majority and minority voters due to the differential distribution of power and privilege within society. For majority voters, in-group favouritism reinforces their social dominance and cultural hegemony, whereas for minority voters, it may be one of many strategies employed in the pursuit of equality and social change. In-group favouritism is also more important compared to immigration attitudes in predicting PRRP voting. While negative attitudes towards immigration remain a significant predictor across most cases, I show that in-group favouritism often outweighs immigration sentiments, especially among majority voters. This suggests that for majority groups, the allegiance to their in-group holds greater sway in shaping their electoral choices than attitudes towards immigration, arguably the out-group.

Conversely, among minority voters, policy positions, especially regarding issues relevant to their community, such as immigration policies, play a slightly more decisive role in guiding their voting behaviour. This relationship between in-group favouritism, immigration attitudes, and policy preferences underscores how important it is to consider in-group favouritism in future research, recognizing its relationship with power dynamics. By doing so, we can deepen our understanding of the factors shaping electoral behaviour and contribute to a more inclusive and equitable democratic process.

 

References

Abou-Chadi T and Helbling M (2018) How Immigration Reforms Affect Voting Behavior. Political Studies 66(3): 687–717.DOI: 10.1177/0032321717725485.

Abou-Chadi T and Wagner M (2019) The Electoral Appeal of Party Strategies in Postindustrial Societies: When Can the Mainstream Left Succeed? The Journal of Politics 81(4): 1405–1419. DOI: 10.1086/704436.

Albertazzi D and Mcdonnell D (2008) Twenty-First Century Populism (eds D Albertazzi and D McDonnell). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. DOI: 10.1057/9780230592100.

Althof A (2018) Right-wing populism and religion in Germany: Conservative Christians and the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Zeitschrift für Religion, Gesellschaft und Politik: 335–363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41682-018-0027-9.

American National Election Studies (2021). ANES 2020 Time Series Study Full Release [dataset and documentation]. February 10, 2022 version. https://electionstudies.org/data-center/2020-time-series-study/ Accessed December 17 2024

Awan I (2014) Islamophobia and twitter: A typology of online hate against muslims on social media. Policy and Internet 6(2): 133–150. DOI: 10.1002/1944-2866.POI364.

Ayoub PM (2019) Intersectional and Transnational Coalitions during Times of Crisis: The European LGBTI Movement. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 26(1): 1–29. DOI: 10.1093/sp/jxy007.

Bergh J and Bjørklund T (2011) The Revival of Group Voting: Explaining the Voting Preferences of Immigrants in Norway. Political Studies 59(2): 308–327. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00863.x.

Baysu G and Swyngedouw M (2020) What Determines Voting Behaviors of Muslim Minorities in Europe: Muslim Identity or Left‐Right Ideology? Political Psychology 41(5): 837–860. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12653.

Bizumic B, Duckitt J, Popadic D, et al. (2009) A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology 39(6): 871–899. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.589.

Bird K, Saalfeld T and Wüst AM (2010) Ethnic diversity, political participation and representation: A theoretical framework. In: The Political Representation of Immigrants and Minorities, Voters, Parties and Parliaments in Liberal Democracies. Routledge, pp. 1–22. DOI: 10.4324/9780203843604.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126

Bracke S and Hernández Aguilar LM (2020) “They love death as we love life”: The “Muslim Question” and the biopolitics of replacement. The British Journal of Sociology (January): 680–701. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12742.

Brubaker R (2017) Between nationalism and civilizationism: the European populist moment in comparative perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies 40(8). Taylor & Francis: 1191–1226. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2017.1294700.

Coppock A and McClellan OA (2018) Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents. Working Paper. DOI: 10.1177/2053168018822174.

Cremaschi, S., Rettl, P., Cappelluti, M., & De Vries, C. E. (2024). Geographies of discontent: Public service deprivation and the rise of the far right in Italy. American Journal of Political Science, first published. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12936

Creighton, M. (2023). Hidden hate: The resilience of xenophobia. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/crei12345 Dancygier RM (2017) Dilemmas of Inclusion. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt1vwmgf2.

de Haas, H. (2023). How migration really works: A factful guide to the most divisive issue in politics. Viking.

European Parliament. (2018, May 24). New EU data protection rules take effect on Friday. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180522IPR04042/new-eu-data-protection-rules-take-effect-on-friday Accessed December 17 2024

Farris SR (2017) In the Name of Women’s Rights, The Rise of Femonationalism. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Fernández-Reino M, Di Stasio V and Veit S (2023) Discrimination unveiled: a field experiment on the barriers faced by Muslim women in Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. European Sociological Review 39(3): 479–497. DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcac032.

Fernández-Reino, M., Brindle, B. & Vargas-Silva, C. (2024) Migrants and Housing in the UK. Migration Observatory briefing, COMPAS, University of Oxford. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-housing-in-the-uk/ Accessed December 17 2024

Font J and Méndez M (2013) Surveying Ethnic Minorities and Immigrant Populations. Amsterdam: IMISCOE Research Amsterdam University Press. Available at: https://www.imiscoe.org/docman-books/354-font-a-mendez-eds-2013 Accessed August 16 2023.

FRA: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2017) Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II): Main Results. DOI: 10.2811/902610.

Frey A (2020) ‘Cologne changed everything’ – The effect of threatening events on the frequency and distribution of intergroup conflict in Germany. European Sociological Review 36(5): 684–699. DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcaa007.

Geurts, N., Glas, S., & Spierings, N. (2023). “It is for God to judge”1: Understanding Why and When Islamic Religiosity Inhibits Homotolerance. Journal of Homosexuality, 71(13), 2901–2926. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2023.2267723

Ghekiere, A., & Verhaeghe, P.-P. (2022). How does ethnic discrimination on the housing market differ across neighborhoods and real estate agencies? Journal of Housing Economics, 55, 101820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2021.101820

Grewal S and Hamid S (2022) Discrimination, Inclusion, and Anti‐System Attitudes among Muslims in Germany. American Journal of Political Science 0(0): 1–18. DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12735.

Heath A and Richards L (2019) How do Europeans differ in their attitudes to immigration? Findings from the European Social Survey 2002/03 -2016/17. the 3rd International ESS Conference. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/1815199X.

Helbling M and Traunmüller R (2018) What Is Islamophobia? Disentangling Citizens’ Feelings Towards Ethnicity, Religion and Religiosity Using a Survey Experiment. British Journal of Political Science: 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000054.

Jardina A and Stephens-Dougan L (2021) The electoral consequences of anti-Muslim prejudice. Electoral Studies 72(June): 102364. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102364.

Judis, J. B., & Teixeira, R. (2002). The emerging democratic majority. Simon & Schuster.

Judis, J. B., & Teixeira, R. (2023). Where have all the Democrats gone?: The soul of the party in the age of extremes(illustrated ed.). Henry Holt and Company.

Khalimzoda, I., Sadaf, S., & van Oosten, S. (2025). Journalistic Tactic and Intercultural Deficit:  Post–publication Audience Engagement in a Finnish News Case Study. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/c68q2

Kuru AT (2008) Secularism, state policies, and muslims in Europe analyzing French exceptionalism. Comparative Politics41(1): 1–19. DOI: 10.5129/001041508×12911362383552.

Koopmans, R. (2013, June 25-27). Religious fundamentalism and out-group hostility among Muslims and Christians in Western Europe. Presentation at the 20th International Conference of Europeanists, Amsterdam. Social Science Center Berlin (WZB). https://www.wzb.eu/system/files/docs/sv/iuk/ruud_koopmans_religious_fundamentalism_and_out-group_hostility_among_muslims_and_christian.pdf Accessed December 17 2024

Korteweg AC and Yurdakul G (2021) Liberal feminism and postcolonial difference: Debating headscarves in France, the Netherlands, and Germany. Social Compass 68(3): 410–429. DOI: 10.1177/0037768620974268.

Kortmann M, Stecker C and Weiß T (2019) Filling a Representation Gap? How Populist and Mainstream Parties Address Muslim Immigration and the Role of Islam. Representation 55(4). Taylor & Francis: 435–456. DOI: 10.1080/00344893.2019.1667419.

Krupnikov Y and Levine AS (2014) Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science 1(1): 59–80. DOI: 10.1017/xps.2014.7.

Lee T (2008) Race, immigration, and the identity-to-politics link. Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 457–478. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.051707.122615.

Leeper TJ, Hobolt SB and Tilley J (2020) Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments. Political Analysis 28(2): 207–221. DOI: 10.1017/pan.2019.30.

Lim, M., van Oosten, S., & Wan Jaafar, W. M. (2024). Type of primary school attended influences bribe-giving intentions. Public Integrity, 26(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2024.2353710

Loukili S (2021a) Fighting Fire with Fire? “Muslim” Political Parties in the Netherlands Countering Right-Wing Populism in the City of Rotterdam. Journal of Muslims in Europe (April). DOI: 10.1163/22117954-12341409.

Loukili S (2021b) Making Space , Claiming Place Social Media and the Emergence of the “Muslim” Political Parties DENK and NIDA in the Netherlands. Journal for Religion, Film and Media 7(2): 107–131. DOI: 10.25364/05.7.

Mansouri F and Vergani M (2018) Intercultural contact, knowledge of Islam, and prejudice against muslims in Australia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 66(June): 85–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.07.001.

Marzouki N, McDonell D and Roy O (2016) Saving the People: How Populists Hijack Religion. London: Hurst & Company.

McGlynn R (2020) They Hate Our Freedoms: Homosexuality and Islam in the Tolerant West. In: Contestations of Liberal Order. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 151–174. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-22059-4_6.

Mepschen P, Duyvendak JW and Tonkens EH (2010) Sexual Politics, Orientalism and Multicultural Citizenship in the Netherlands. Sociology 44(5). SAGE PublicationsSage UK: London, England: 962–979. DOI: 10.1177/0038038510375740.

Mullinix KJ, Leeper TJ, Druckman JN, et al. (2015) The Generalizability of Survey Experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 2(2): 109–138. DOI: 10.1017/XPS.2015.19.

Nadler, A., Hepplewhite, M., & van Oosten, S. (2025). Does In-Group Favouritism Lead to In-Group Voting? An Experimental Study of Vote Choice among Minority and Majority Voters. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7fze4

Nandi A and Platt L (2020) The relationship between political and ethnic identity among UK ethnic minority and majority populations. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46(5): 957–979. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2018.1539286.

Puar J (2013) Rethinking homonationalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies 45(2): 336–339. DOI: 10.1017/S002074381300007X.

Phalet K, Baysu G and Verkuyten M (2010) Political Mobilization of Dutch Muslims: Religious Identity Salience, Goal Framing, and Normative Constraints. Journal of Social Issues 66(4): 759–779. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01674.x.

Rahbari L (2021) When gender turns right: racializing Islam and femonationalism in online political discourses in Belgium. Contemporary Politics 27(1). Taylor & Francis: 41–57. DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2020.1813950.

Rovny, J (2019). Ethnic minorities, political competition, and democracy: Circumstantial liberals. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198906742.001.0001

Saral M (2020) State, Religion and Muslims (eds M Saral and Ş Onur Bahçecik). BRILL. DOI: 10.1163/9789004421516.

Schmuck D and Matthes J (2019) Voting “Against Islamization”? How Anti-Islamic Right-Wing, Populist Political Campaign Ads Influence Explicit and Implicit Attitudes Toward Muslims as Well as Voting Preferences. Political Psychology 40(4): 739–757. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12557.

Schotel, A. L. (2021). A Rainbow Bundestag? An Intersectional Analysis of LGBTI Representation in Angela Merkel’s Germany. German Politics, 31(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2021.1991325

Skocpol, T. (2020). The elite and popular roots of contemporary Republican extremism. In T. Skocpol & C. Tervo (Eds.), Upending American politics: Polarizing parties, ideological elites, and citizen activists from the Tea Party to the anti-Trump resistance (pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190083526.003.0001

Skocpol, T., & Tervo, C. (Eds.). (2020). Upending American politics: Polarizing parties, ideological elites, and citizen activists from the Tea Party to the anti-Trump resistance. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190083526.001.0001

Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2011). The Tea Party and the remaking of Republican conservatism. Oxford University Press.

Sobolewska M (2006) Ethnic Agenda: Relevance of Political Attitudes to Party Choice. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 15(2): 197–214. DOI: 10.1080/13689880500178781.

Sobolewska, M., & Ford, R. (2020). Brexitland. Cambridge University Press.

Snipes A and Mudde C (2020) France’s (Kinder, Gentler) Extremist: Marine le Pen, Intersectionality, and Media Framing of Female Populist Radical Right Leaders. Politics and Gender 16(2): 438–470. DOI: 10.1017/S1743923X19000370.

Glas S and Spierings N (2022) The impact of anti-Muslim hostilities on how Muslims connect their religiosity to support for gender equality in Western Europe. Front. Polit. Sci. 4:909578. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2022.909578

Tajfel H and Turner JC (1979) An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In: W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (ed.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tesler M (2013) The return of old-fashioned racism to white Americans’ partisan preferences in the Early Obama Era. Journal of Politics 75(1): 110–123. DOI: 10.1017/S0022381612000904.

Thom, Elizabeth, and Theda Skocpol, ‘Trump’s Trump: Lou Barletta and the Limits of Anti-Immigrant Politics in Pennsylvania’, in Theda Skocpol, and Caroline Tervo (eds), Upending American Politics: Polarizing Parties, Ideological Elites, and Citizen Activists from the Tea Party to the Anti-Trump Resistance (New York, 2020; online edn, Oxford Academic, 23 Jan. 2020), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190083526.003.0006, accessed 17 Dec. 2024.

Tiberj V and Michon L (2013) Two-tier Pluralism in ‘ Colour-blind ’ France Two-tier Pluralism in ‘ Colour-blind ’. 2382. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2013.773725.

van der Brug W and van Spanje J (2009) Immigration, Europe and the ‘new’ cultural dimension. European Journal of Political Research 48(3): 309–334. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.00841.x.

van Es MA (2019) Muslim women as ‘ambassadors’ of Islam: breaking stereotypes in everyday life. Identities 26(4). Routledge: 375–392. DOI: 10.1080/1070289X.2017.1346985.

van Oosten S (2020) An MP Who Looks Like Me? Pre-registration. OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JTDQW

van Oosten S (2022a) What shapes voter expectations of Muslim politicians’ views on homosexuality: stereotyping or projection? Electoral Studies 80(December). Elsevier Ltd: 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102553.

van Oosten, S. (2022b). Stereotyperen kiezers Islamitische politici als homofoob? Stuk Rood Vlees, 2022(12).https://stukroodvlees.nl/stereotyperen-kiezers-islamitische-politici-als-homofoob/ Accessed 17 December 2024.

van Oosten, S. (2023a). Which voters stereotype Muslim politicians as homophobic? ECPR The Loop 2023(2). https://theloop.ecpr.eu/which-voters-stereotype-muslim-politicians-as-homophobic/ Accessed 17 December 2024.

van Oosten, S. (2023b). Why did the Netherlands vote PVV? COMPAS Blog, 2023(12). https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2023/why-did-the-netherlands-vote-for-wilders-pvv-implications-for-migration-policy/ Accessed 17 December 2024.

van Oosten S, Mügge L and Van der Pas D (2024a) Race/Ethnicity in Candidate Experiments: a Meta-Analysis and the Case for Shared Identification. Acta Politica 58(1). Palgrave Macmillan UK. DOI: 10.1057/s41269-022-00279-y.

van Oosten S (2024a) Waarom stemmen mensen PVV? Binnenlands Bestuur 2024(1). Binnenlands Bestuur B.V. https://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/carriere/verbeter-de-economische-positie-van-alle-nederlanders Accessed 17 December 2024.

van Oosten S (2024b) Broadstancers hebben een electoraal voordeel. Binnenlands Bestuur 2024(2). Binnenlands Bestuur B.V. https://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/bestuur-en-organisatie/negatieve-vooroordeel-tegen-islamitische-politici-verdwijnt-helemaal-wanneer Accessed 17 December 2024.

van Oosten S (2024c) Nationalists Pit Jewish and Muslim People Against Each Other and Why This Needs To Stop. COMPAS Blog, 2024(2). https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/article/a-battle-of-rhetoric-and-racism-how-nationalists-pit-jewish-and-muslim-people-against-each-other-and-why-this-needs-to-stop Accessed 17 December 2024.

van Oosten S (2024d) ‘Judeonationalisme’ als nieuwe beschavingsretoriek. Binnenlands Bestuur 2024(3). Binnenlands Bestuur B.V. https://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/carriere/judeonationalisme-nadelig-voor-moslims-en-joden Accessed 17 December 2024.

van Oosten S (2024e) Een wapen tegen moslims en links. Binnenlands Bestuur 2024(6). Binnenlands Bestuur B.V. https://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/carriere/judeonationalisme-speelt-kwetsbare-groepen-tegen-elkaar-uit Accessed 17 December 2024.

van Oosten, S. (2024f). Judeonationalism: Calling out antisemitism to discredit Muslims. ECPR The Loop, 2024(6). https://theloop.ecpr.eu/judeonationalism-antisemitism-for-the-discrediting-of-muslims/ Accessed 17 December 2024.

van Oosten S, Mügge L, Hakhverdian A, Van der Pas D and Vermeulen F (2024b) French Ethnic Minority and Muslim Attitudes, Voting, Identity and Discrimination (EMMAVID) – EMMAVID Data France. Harvard Dataverse. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ULQEAY

van Oosten S, Mügge L, Hakhverdian A, Van der Pas D and Vermeulen F (2024c) German Ethnic Minority and Muslim Attitudes, Voting, Identity and Discrimination (EMMAVID) – EMMAVID Data Germany. Harvard Dataverse. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GT4N9J

van Oosten S, Mügge L, Hakhverdian A, Van der Pas D and Vermeulen F (2024d) Dutch Ethnic Minority and Muslim Attitudes, Voting, Identity and Discrimination (EMMAVID) – EMMAVID Data the Netherlands. Harvard Dataverse. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/BGVJZQ

van Oosten, S., Mügge, L., Hakhverdian, A., & van der Pas, D. (2024e). What Explains Voting for DENK: Issues, Discrimination or In-group Favouritism? Representation, 60(4), 601–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2024.2387011

van Oosten S (2024g) Who favour in-group politicians? In-group voting in France, Germany and the Netherlands and the challenges to the descriptive and substantive representation of Muslims. OSF Preprints. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/rkejd.

van Oosten S (2024h) Animeauxnationalism: ‘they are eating the pets’. Digressions&Impressions.https://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2024/10/animeauxnationalism-they-are-eating-the-pets-guest-post-by-sanne-van-oosten.html Accessed 17 December 2024.

Vermeulen F, Harteveld E, van Heelsum A, et al. (2020) The potential of immigrant parties: insights from the Dutch case. Acta Politica 55(3): 432–453. DOI: 10.1057/s41269-018-0123-z.

Weller N and Junn J (2018) Racial Identity and Voting: Conceptualizing White Identity in Spatial Terms. Perspectives on Politics 16(2): 436–448. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592717004285.

Wickham H (2020) Package ‘tidyr’. 1.1.2. Cran. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tidyr/tidyr.pdf Accessed 16 August 2023.

Wickham H, Chang W, Henry L, et al. (2020) Package ‘ggplot2’. 3.3.2. Cran. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggplot2/ggplot2.pdf.

Yurdakul G (2009) From Guest Workers into Muslims: The Transformation of Turkish Immigrant Associations in Germany. Newcastle upon Tyne.

Footnotes

[1] Please find all replication materials including data, code and appendices here: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T7G5N

[2] https://www.nu.nl/formatie-2023/6292199/moslims-stemmen-helemaal-niet-massaal-op-de-pvv.html

[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-01/donald-trump-suggests-kamala-harris-suddenly-became-black/104167996

[4] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/is-demography-still-destiny-after-2024/

[5] idem

[6] idem

[7] https://apnorc.org/projects/immigration-attitudes-and-conspiratorial-thinkers/

[8] https://apnorc.org/1-in-3-fears-immigrants-influence-us-elections-ap-norc-poll/

[9] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-musk-x-election-influence-immigration/

[10] https://europeanstudiescentre.blogspot.com/2024/06/democracy-of-last-man-politics-of.html

[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/technology/replacement-theory.html

[12] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/technology/replacement-theory.html

[13] https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/01/22/kasteelheer-slaat-alarm-over-cultuur-van-europa-a1589332

[14] https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2024/06/21/de-diepe-racistische-wortels-van-de-omvolkingstheorie-a4857248

[15] https://www.telegraaf.nl/video/45024727/geert-wilders-bij-overwinningsspeech-nederland-bedankt

[16] https://www.ad.nl/politiek/switchten-moslims-in-nederland-massaal-naar-de-pvv-dit-zeggen-de-cijfers~afea4f90/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

[17] https://www.nu.nl/formatie-2023/6292199/moslims-stemmen-helemaal-niet-massaal-op-de-pvv.html

[18] https://europeanstudiescentre.blogspot.com/2024/06/democracy-of-last-man-politics-of.html

Emirati men perform the traditional Al Ayala dance in Abu Dhabi, UAE, on December 23, 2019. Photo: Shutterstock.

Populism and Autocracy in the Gulf Countries

by ArticlesEditor’s ChoiceEnvironment & ClimateExtremism & RadicalisationHomeReports

Please cite as:

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. 

Report by Molly Shewan

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.