Logo Logo
Hilfe
Kontakt
Switch language to English
What authoritarian populists really want. examining grievances, disinformation, and civic engagement in countering elite authoritarian populists
What authoritarian populists really want. examining grievances, disinformation, and civic engagement in countering elite authoritarian populists
Qualitative interview data collected in Germany and analyzed alongside and in support of populism and violent extremism research, shows that while elite authoritarian populists (EAPs) claim to represent “average voters” and the “disenfranchised,” they are very much elites who benefit from the establishment, who look down upon those groups, and are leveraging those groups’ grievances and democratic institutions, including civil society, for self-aggrandizement and anti-democratic aims. In comparing the role of cultural versus economic grievance narratives in political communications and extremism, the data indicate that cultural narratives are more ubiquitous and potent; EAPs weaponize grievances by turning them into “us versus them” disinformation which is then used as a bridge between elite political and cultural aspirations and working- and middle-class economic grievances. EAPs use fear and outrage-inducing culture- and victimhood-related disinformation, particularly pertaining to gender roles and non-white immigrants, in a mix of civic engagement, in-person, online, and hard-copy communications (in which social media is secondary to traditional media and in-person communications) and which undermine democratic values and institutions and creates a permissive environment for intolerance, extremism, and violent extremism. The data did not support the hypothesis that civic and community engagement are in and of themselves effective tools for reducing the pull factors of political extremism and radicalization for those already radicalized but did provide some evidence of them as effective tools for countering extremism’s effects on society and for inoculating non-extremists when used in intentionally pro-democratic context.
Populism, Counter Violent Extremism (CVE), Disinformation, Democracy, Civic Engagement
Levis, Adela
2023
Englisch
Universitätsbibliothek der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Levis, Adela (2023): What authoritarian populists really want: examining grievances, disinformation, and civic engagement in countering elite authoritarian populists. Dissertation, LMU München: Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät
[thumbnail of Levis_Adela.pdf]
Vorschau
PDF
Levis_Adela.pdf

4MB

Abstract

Qualitative interview data collected in Germany and analyzed alongside and in support of populism and violent extremism research, shows that while elite authoritarian populists (EAPs) claim to represent “average voters” and the “disenfranchised,” they are very much elites who benefit from the establishment, who look down upon those groups, and are leveraging those groups’ grievances and democratic institutions, including civil society, for self-aggrandizement and anti-democratic aims. In comparing the role of cultural versus economic grievance narratives in political communications and extremism, the data indicate that cultural narratives are more ubiquitous and potent; EAPs weaponize grievances by turning them into “us versus them” disinformation which is then used as a bridge between elite political and cultural aspirations and working- and middle-class economic grievances. EAPs use fear and outrage-inducing culture- and victimhood-related disinformation, particularly pertaining to gender roles and non-white immigrants, in a mix of civic engagement, in-person, online, and hard-copy communications (in which social media is secondary to traditional media and in-person communications) and which undermine democratic values and institutions and creates a permissive environment for intolerance, extremism, and violent extremism. The data did not support the hypothesis that civic and community engagement are in and of themselves effective tools for reducing the pull factors of political extremism and radicalization for those already radicalized but did provide some evidence of them as effective tools for countering extremism’s effects on society and for inoculating non-extremists when used in intentionally pro-democratic context.