Change is in the air. Or is it? On one hand, March 2024 shows Turkiye’s latest elections with the opposition party Republic People’s Party (CHP) achieving a resounding victory over Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development (AK) Party. On the other hand, incumbent Vladimir Putin secures another six years as Russian President. Earlier in February, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf s (PTI) Imran Khan could not form a government in an election still grappling with controversy. Later this year, India’s Narendar Modi will be tested to remain in power; while in America, former President Donald Trump is poised to challenge the sitting Biden Administration in high-stakes elections.
Change or no change, it is never by accident. A formidable force in politics has become populist leadership which can have major effects on a nation’s direction. This article examines how the charismatic authority of Trump, Modi, and Khan has ignited debates about the implications of populist leadership on democratic institutions and setting the trends in the use of digital media for narrative building. Therefore, it becomes necessary to understand the phenomenon of populism, explore its characteristics, the strategies these leaders employ to galvanize support, and the broader consequences of their approaches.
Populism, as an ideology, thrives on the dichotomy between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite.”
Populism, as an ideology, thrives on the dichotomy between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite,” positing that the true essence and will of a nation are embodied exclusively by the common folk, often marginalized by a disconnected and self-serving establishment (Mudde, 2014). This binary opposition provides the base for populist narratives. This straightforward yet powerful view connects well with people tired of usual politics. The question concerns whether our elected leaders adjust their messages to mirror the feelings of exclusion and neglect experienced by numerous members of their communities. Have they used the electorate’s complaints against the status quo to present themselves as the sole defenders of the people’s interests?
Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” captured a longing for a return to a golden age of wealth and global power. It attracted many American voters tired of economic globalization and changing demographics – a new nationalism (Gounari, 2018). Narendra Modi’s speeches pledged a revival of India’s cultural and spiritual legacy. He filled his narrative with Hindu nationalism positioning him as the harbinger of a new age of wealth and pride for the Hindu majority (Tepe & Chekirova, 2022). Imran Khan, on his part, tapped into the deep-seated frustration with the political dynasties which have long dominated Pakistan’s political scene. He offered a vision of reform and justice through his narrative of a “Naya (New) Pakistan” using religious sentiments in a majority Muslim population and music and dance charisma for a population of largely youth demographic (Shakil & Yilmaz, 2021).
However, another important ingredient of populism is defining and deprecating “the others” who are the causes of ills in society. A hallmark of populist discourse is the employment of conspiracy theories to do this. Trump’s tenure was rife with insinuations of a “deep state” conspiracy aimed at undermining his presidency. This narrative found fertile ground among his supporters and served to delegitimize the institutions of governance and the press (Moynihan, 2020). Modi’s attribution of India’s social and economic woes to the purportedly corrosive influence of Muslim minorities and liberal elites similarly played into conspiracy theories that bolstered nationalistic and sectarian divisions. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) blamed Muslims as a threat to India’s national security who colludes with opposing Congress Party internally and externally with rival country Pakistan (Peker, 2019). In Pakistan, Khan’s rhetoric frequently invoked the specter of foreign interference and corruption as the root causes of Pakistan’s challenges. He cemented this image as a messiah against external and internal threats to the nation’s welfare (Shakil & Yilmaz, 2021).
Unlike the populists, traditional politicians try to manage the complex aspects of governance with a focus on detailed policy-making and formation of alliances. They try to maintain stability of institutions. Trump, Modi, and Khan are different. They have set themselves apart through their direct appeal to the grassroots level. This is often by ignoring norms and political mechanisms in place. Populist approach can be characterized by a reliance on personal charisma – perhaps an emotional appeal with a portrayal of self-brilliance. They may even take a confrontational stance against perceived enemies of the people. Doing so may expand a leader’s voter base, yes, but it can lead to challenges with pluralistic schemes and issues in democratic governance during their terms.
(To Be Concluded)
The writer is an Assistant Professor and Media Practitioner.