In On Populist Reason, Laclau defines populism as the performative act of constructing “the people” by articulating disparate demands into a common identity through discourse, symbols, and antagonism. This process occurs through the creation of chains of equivalence among diverse and heterogeneous demands, unified in opposition to an antagonistic “other,” such as ruling elites or state institutions. The unifying force often relies on empty or floating signifiers including symbols or slogans like “justice,” “freedom,” or “change”. These words lack fixed meaning but enable different groups to rally under a shared banner.
In Pakistan, the rise of populist rhetoric is (re)shaping public discourse in ways that are both electrifying and alarming. Once confined to public rallies and campaign trails, populism has now found fertile ground in digital spaces, where populist leaders speak directly to millions. At the heart of their communication lies a potent binary: us versus them; the poor versus the rich; the righteous versus the corrupt. It is a familiar story with a distinctly modern delivery.
We understand that populists’ slogans cannot rebuild fractured institutions and a struggling economy.
Populist politicians in Pakistan have perfected the language of grievance, blame, and hate. They speak of injustice and betrayal. They link the ruling elite with most social problems and suggest that the elite want these problems to exist to stay in power. They use oppressive language to resist an ever-present sense of siege. Their supporters, in turn, mirror this language with outright intolerance and hostility. A recent linguistic study by Zaffar Manzoor, a scholar of digital discourse at Riphah International University, Islamabad, reveals that populist politicians build a moral high ground, discredit opponents, and forge an emotional bond and/and reactive past victimhood narrative with followers that transcends reason to vilify the ruling elite or military.
Yet there is a paradox at the centre of Pakistani populism: most populist leaders emerge not from the margins, but from the elite circles they claim to oppose. Military scions, political dynasties, and Western-educated technocrats have all taken turns in governance while representing themselves as the singular voice of subalterns. To understand this theme further, we strongly recommend reading the article titled “Communication of Pakistani Politicians while in Government and Opposition and their Followers’ Reactions in the Digital Discourse”, published by Sage, UK.
The proliferation of social media has only deepened this irony. Once hailed as a democratizing force, platforms like X have become echo chambers of populist fury. They bypass traditional media to speak directly to the electorate, asserting empty metaphors to contest the ruling elite and establishment – a term used to synonymise military. Contrarily, we believe the word establishment is a mindset that exists in every profession irrespective of the military.
The response from Pakistan’s military and the state has been firm, if not consistent. The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, has frequently condemned the spread of “fake news, political polarisation, and venomous propaganda.” In a recent press conference, the Director General of ISPR stressed that “no political leader’s ambition for power can surpass Pakistan’s interests,” urging populist politicians to return to dialogue rather than division.
Yet the military’s repeated insistence on its apolitical role is often met with scepticism. Whereas, the world including the USA has accepted civil-military governance in Pakistan. We believe it is strategic to accept this rule rather than to defend it just to let populist leaders frame the military as a monolithic force obstructing democracy.
Moreover, this role does not make Pakistan a unique country – there are examples of military organisations’ active involvement in domestic politics both in the global north and the global south. Especially, when populist leaders fail to govern the country and mend its fractured economy, the role of the military which is no doubt a disciplined institution becomes paramount. Needless to say, this institution suffers the most when any democratic government fail to deliver. The events of May 9, 2023 and Nov 24-27, 2024 when mass protests and violent confrontations erupted across major cities, remain a polarising reference point and in a way a frustration to deliver the promises made. While swinging their failure, populists describe the crackdown as proof of elite tyranny, whereas the state describes it as sedition and frustration to deliver.
Caught in the middle are millions of ordinary citizens-many of them young, digitally connected, and disillusioned. The language of populism offers them clarity in a complex world, urging them to trust the populist as the ultimate solution to all problems. However, this linguistic clarity comes at a cost. The consequences are becoming increasingly visible. Incivility online mirrors an increasing intolerance offline. Institutions including the military once regarded as the bedrock of national unity-or synonymous with nationalism-are now dismissed as oppressors. The more populist leaders feed this narrative, the more fragile Pakistan’s democratic fabric becomes.
We strongly recommend reading the article “The Role of Political Hate Speech in Promoting Extremist Ideologies and Manipulating Public Discourse in Pakistan”, published by UNESCO’s International Social Sciences Journal.
So how should a nation counter the negative impacts of populism?
We must ensure transparency and accountability. When institutions operate behind closed doors, populists find fertile ground for conspiracy. Open governance, public audits, and non-partisan oversight can begin to rebuild trust. The rule of meritocracy and placing the right person in the right job will effectively counter the negative impact of populism. Populist narratives thrive on emotional manipulation and a traumatic past. Citizens, especially youth, must be taught in universities to critically evaluate information, identify propaganda, and recognise rhetorical strategies as a matter of democratic survival.
Populists dominate because they speak to real frustrations such as poverty, inequality, injustice, and exclusion, among other issues. Rather than dismissing them outright, the state must offer competing visions grounded in empathy, policy, and institutional reform. Grassroots organisations, educators, and journalists can amplify alternative voices, create safe spaces for dialogue, and defend democratic norms against populist erosion.
Regulations must strike a balance between free speech and responsible moderation. Echo chambers must be disrupted, and emotional manipulation exposed-not rewarded. However, it does not mean to implement social media regulations to shut down the public digital sphere.
Finally, the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan must engage scholars of language, discourse, and media to introduce a general education course, conduct peer-reviewed research, and organise conferences on how to counter the negative impacts of populism in ways that promote social cohesion.
Populism in Pakistan is not merely a political trend; it is a linguistic strategy, a digital phenomenon, and a societal mirror. It reflects deep-seated anxieties, grievances, and an urgent craving for representation and power.
We understand that populists’ slogans cannot rebuild fractured institutions and a struggling economy. It is high time for the state to navigate the populist discourse without losing the democratic promise it holds for the nation.
The first author is a Professor of English at Riphah International University, Lahore. He is a lead guest editor at Emerald and Springer publishing.
The second author is an Assistant Professor of English at Govt. Graduate College for Women, Samanabad, Lahore