Political parties are increasingly adopting populist appeals, not necessarily because of ideological realignments, but out of a desire to mimic the successful strategies of their competitors. Vlad Surdea-Hernea reveals how anti-elite messaging is spreading like a virus across European democracies, reshaping political discourse as parties emulate populist tactics
Something striking is happening across European party systems. Populist rhetoric, once confined to fringe movements, is now being echoed throughout mainstream political discourse. Even traditionally moderate parties are sometimes adopting the stark us-versus-them language that defines populism as a thin ideology, especially on issues such as immigration.
This isn’t a coincidence. My recent research reveals a systematic pattern: populism spreads through party systems like a contagion. When parties see the electoral success of populist messaging for their competitors, they too adopt anti-elite, people-centric rhetoric. Policy positions require some degree of ideological commitment over time. Populist appeals, by contrast, can be deployed across the political spectrum at a dosage of the party's choice.
When parties see the electoral success of populist messaging for their competitors, they too adopt anti-elite, people-centric rhetoric
I analysed V-Party data tracking populist rhetoric from 1990 to 2020. Using this, I constructed a ‘systemic populism’ index to measure the electoral success of populist strategies in each party system. The results are as interesting as they are robust. When populist appeals prove electorally viable, other parties adopt similar rhetoric in subsequent elections.
Populism possesses unique characteristics that make it particularly susceptible to imitation for strategic purposes. Unlike complex policy platforms, populist messaging simplifies politics, presenting it as a straightforward dichotomy between virtuous people and corrupt elites. This simplicity makes it easy to copy and adapt across different ideological contexts.
For struggling parties, populist rhetoric thus offers a low-cost, high-reward strategy. Left-leaning parties can frame populism around social justice and economic inequality; right-leaning parties emphasise nationalism and cultural preservation. Both approaches tap into the same underlying frustration with political establishments, while maintaining their core ideological commitments.
When voters feel disconnected from traditional politics, parties demonstrate responsiveness and authenticity through populist rhetoric
This strategy becomes more appealing during periods of declining institutional trust or economic uncertainty. When voters feel disconnected from traditional politics, populist rhetoric is an effective way for parties to demonstrate responsiveness and authenticity. Parties that resist this trend risk appearing out of touch with widespread grievances.
Most importantly, populism thrives by challenging the established norms of political discourse. As more parties adopt populist rhetoric, it becomes normalised within the system. This creates pressure for others to follow suit or risk seeming weak compared with more combative competitors.
Using expert-coded measures of populist rhetoric, I tracked how parties adjust their messaging based on the electoral success of particular strategies.
The evidence is compelling. When populist rhetoric gains success, parties ramp up populist messaging. If anti-elite appeals prove electorally rewarding, competitors adopt similar strategies. The numbers are stark: when systemic populism increases by one standard deviation, individual parties boost populist messaging by 0.38 standard deviations in one year. So, if populist parties collectively gained substantial success, a previously moderate party would adopt roughly 40% of that rhetorical intensity the following election cycle. This holds consistently across different party types, countries, and time periods, even after accounting for internal party dynamics, ideological commitments, and political trends.
The contagion effect is strongest for core populist themes such as anti-elitism. Other democratic norms remain relatively stable. Parties become more willing to criticise elites and champion ‘ordinary people’. They do not, however, necessarily abandon support for political pluralism or non-violence.
Ideological positioning does not determine responsiveness as clearly as we might have predicted. Populist themes may appear to align naturally with right-wing nationalism and anti-establishment sentiment. Left-leaning parties, however, are equally capable of adopting populist rhetoric when electoral incentives align.
Populist themes may appear to align naturally with right-wing nationalism. But left-leaning parties are equally capable of adopting populist rhetoric when electoral incentives align
Former governing parties with recent executive experience are just as susceptible to populist contagion. This challenges the assumption that establishment parties would resist anti-elite messaging because they fear reputational damage. The value of populist appeals appears to override such considerations when parties are under electoral pressure.
Interestingly, parties that already employ strong populist rhetoric tend to moderate their messaging over time, suggesting voters may tire of confrontational rhetoric. This does not necessarily reflect a principled commitment to democratic norms, but ensures effective positioning in a crowded populist landscape. As more parties adopt similar rhetoric, the competitive advantage diminishes, encouraging experimentation with alternative appeals.
As populist rhetoric becomes normalised across party systems, the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in political discourse expand. Previously marginal positions enter the mainstream, while traditional appeals to competence or moderation may become less effective. This transformation affects not only party strategies, but also voter expectations regarding political communication. Once populist themes are embedded in broader political discourse, they continue to shape debate regardless of the fortunes of their original champions.
Populism is a communicable condition, not a fixed ideology. Understanding it this way provides valuable insights for researchers and practitioners. Rather than treating populist success as an isolated phenomenon, we must recognise how it reshapes entire political landscapes through imitation and adaptation.
Once an outbreak of populism takes hold, the virus proves remarkably difficult to contain.
