Populist rhetoric is no longer confined to the fringes — it’s shaping mainstream political strategies across Europe. Vlad Surdea-Hernea argues that leadership transitions function as hidden catalysts, driving moderate parties to embrace anti-elite and people-centric narratives. These shifts redefine party identities but also ripple through political systems, altering the tone and content of public debate
Populist politics is now a familiar presence across Europe. Journalists, voters, and policy-makers all recognise it. Yet we still don’t fully understand one basic puzzle: How do parties turn towards populism, and what enables their adoption of populist rhetoric? Many point to external factors: economic hardship, cultural clashes, or growing discontent. But these still leave a question unanswered. Why do some parties choose populist strategies while others, facing the same pressures, do not?
If we want to know why a centre-right party suddenly takes a more radical stance, we should watch the sparks that fly during leadership transitions
The missing piece often lies within the walls of the parties themselves. Behind public policy statements and campaign slogans, parties are made up of individuals vying for leadership, setting agendas, and shaping campaigns. For all the talk of populism’s growth, we tend to overlook these internal processes. If we want to know why a centre-right party suddenly takes a more radical stance, or how a centre-left organisation begins blasting a ‘corrupt establishment’, we should watch the sparks that fly during leadership transitions.
Leadership elections may look like routine events. Yet they are often the catalyst for massive internal changes. A leader’s departure — or their forced exit — pries open the space for new ideas, fresh faces and, crucially, sharper rhetoric. In that moment of uncertainty, ambitious hopefuls must prove they can do what the old guard couldn’t. They appeal to activist networks and the broader membership, promising something bolder — whether that’s a revamped policy agenda or simply a more direct way of communicating. Freed from the constraints of the outgoing leadership, candidates see an opportunity to stand out. They question entrenched hierarchies, champion loyal grassroots supporters, and signal a readiness to fight hidden power structures, even within their own organisation. That is why leadership elections can spark such deep internal transformations, even in parties that seem stable or monolithic from the outside.
What started as an internal spat or a personal rivalry might morph into a public-facing political identity that sounds distinctly populist
Once these leadership contests begin, anti-elite language often becomes a key selling point. Newly minted frontrunners set themselves apart by insisting they will 'bring politics back to regular people' and stop kowtowing to out-of-touch elites. This can galvanise different factions: some may appreciate the moral undertones (condemning ‘corruption’), others simply relish a jolt of fresh style. The outcome can be a hard shift towards an us-versus-them view of politics. A leader who wins power this way carries those slogans into future campaigns. Soon, what started as an internal spat or a personal rivalry might morph into a public-facing political identity that sounds distinctly populist. Sometimes it’s a strategic choice — leaders spot the electoral pull of that style. At others, it’s a genuine belief that tapping into voter anger is the best path forward. But is this theory supported by empirical facts?
In my research, using data from the Populism and Political Parties Expert Survey, I systematically track how European parties shift their tone once a new leader steps in. Quantitative results confirm my hunch that leadership transitions often supercharge anti-elite messages and moralistic us-versus-them narratives. Freshly elected heads tend to pounce on the opportunity to appear bold, running on promises to challenge old hierarchies and ‘restore power to the people.’ Even a party that had been relatively tame in its rhetoric can suddenly veer towards a sharper, more populist line when the top job changes hands.
Interestingly, left-leaning parties show the biggest leap. Since many right-leaning organisations already flirt with populist tropes in the current political environment, swapping leaders doesn’t usually trigger a full makeover. But on the left, leadership contests serve as a radical switchboard. If a previously moderate party chooses a candidate who rails against elitism, that party is more likely to adopt emotionally charged slogans, highlight economic grievances, and portray opponents as part of a corrupt establishment.
When one party starts emphasising morally charged or anti-elite themes, its competitors tend to pull back from the same combative style
Moreover, these effects don’t stop with the party experiencing a leadership transition. My findings show that when one party starts emphasising morally charged or anti-elite themes, its competitors tend to pull back from the same combative style. Anti-elitist language and stark good-versus-evil framings crowd one another out. If one actor goes all in, others adopt a cooler tone to avoid polarising too many voters. Yet people-centrism unfolds differently: because it highlights inclusivity and grassroots agency, it can spread across party lines. Even rival groups find it easy to co-opt a unifying, pro-people tendency without appearing extreme. In short, leadership transitions can fuel a push-and-pull effect in wider political discourse. Provocative rhetoric gets quarantined, while softer, inclusive populist themes bounce around, reshaping how parties brand themselves to the electorate.
Leadership elections can be the hidden engine behind a party’s populist turn. While external forces like economic anxiety or cultural tensions may set the stage, a fresh face at the helm can deliver the decisive push. By intensifying anti-elite or people-centred narratives, leaders remake a party’s public profile. This often prompts rivals to react in ways that either dampen hostile rhetoric or embrace softer, more inclusive populism. And so, the invisible drama of leadership contests reverberates through entire party systems.
The next time a once-moderate party adopts a confrontational tone, don’t just look to the headlines about immigration or economic crises. Glance behind the scenes at who took over — and how they’re recasting the rules of the game.
