Abstract

In recent years, the scientific debate on populism has experienced a new momentum: on the one hand, the emergence of new populisms even in Western democracies and on the other hand, disagreement among scholars on the definition of populism. In this context, new trends have emerged—such as those concerning the link between populism and technology—along with the need to revise the traditional study paradigms, which are often difficult to operationalise. The transformation of the political sphere appears to be strongly interconnected with the digital media landscape. If the new forms of communication are the cause or the effect of processes, such as the personalisation of leadership, the verticalisation of political organisations, the presidentialisation of political parties, or the social de-legitimisation of the old “intermediate bodies”, these forms should be the subject of ongoing research. At the same time, a very simplistic storyline tries to overlap the rise of neo-populist parties with their use of communication technologies. A quality that is common to the many different populisms is an appeal to the use of direct democracy as a tool to empower citizens. Populism itself is sometimes portrayed as almost synonymous with direct democracy. At the same time, direct democracy is used by populists as a critique of the lack of participation in representative democracy and the need to make it more participatory. In this perspective, technology becomes a tool (and a storyline) to facilitate the use of direct democracy and the rise of a new form of “hyper-representation”. At the same time, concepts such as efficiency, privatisation, short-termism, newism, and meritocracy are keywords successfully used by populist leaders, technocracy élites and neo-liberal political leaders. In other words, we can highlight a strange meeting between technological storytelling about direct democracy and technocracy myths. Even among the new populist parties, the technopopulists appear to represent an important category, whose peculiarities can easily be put into evidence using some empirical tools (such as content analysis). The aim of this article is to investigate the relationships between technocracy, direct democracy’s storytelling and hyper-representation as a distinctive characteristic of neo-populisms.

Highlights

  • This article is predominantly theoretical, some of the theoretical aspects presented here emerged from the early outcomes of long-term research into populism and populist parties in Europe

  • The aim of this article is to illustrate the peculiarities of emerging populism in Italian political life

  • We have considered the most used definitions of populism: a) as a political communication style and/or a set of discursive practices (Taguieff, 2002; Jagers and Walgrave, 2007; Moffitt and Tormey, 2014); b) as a political strategy framed in certain types of organisation (Weyland, 2001; Betz, 2002; Kriesi, 2015); and c) as an ideology (Mudde, 2004; Kriesi and Pappas, 2015; van Kessel, 2015)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This article is predominantly theoretical, some of the theoretical aspects presented here emerged from the early outcomes of long-term research into populism and populist parties in Europe.

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call