The Authoritarian Surge

Yes. These parties often leverage on the poorer classes pretending to make their interests with policies that in reality go against the ideas of the welfare state

Yes. They shift the attention from socio-economic inequalities to scapegoats like migrants, a foreign country, etc

Yes. 100% they do so without acknowledging class disparity as a unifying issue, because if class consciousness takes over- then we as a people would be wholly opposed to the billionaire class which the right so props up. But it is to be acknowledged that democrats in America serve a more centrist agenda than what we might associate with them and they too leverage economic inequality.

Yes. It’s true, but I don’t think the economic one is the main key to understanding it. I’m more agree with the idea of “populisme patrimonial” (Reyniè, 2013)

Yes. Somewhat agree

Yes. They typically frame economic inequality as a problem caused by elites, immigrants, or foreign interests, positioning themselves as champions of the “common people” who are allegedly being left behind by the system. This rhetoric resonates with citizens who feel economically marginalized or disenfranchised, offering them a simple explanation for their struggles and a scapegoat to blame.

Yes. Yes. Because they present simple answers to complex societal isseus

Yes. I feel as though the right exploits individuals who cannot afford higher education by providing them with misinformation and then providing extremely rich individuals with power and tax breaks.

Yes. With Donald Trump as a case study, the magnitude of wealth he and especially his allied billionaires such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg possess is impossible to amass without some implicit degree of economic inequality. If we take meritocracy as the standard for how much somebody should earn, it is utterly inconceivable that Elon Musk has worked thousands of times harder than, say, a single mother raising three children who earns below the poverty line.

Yes. It’s very clear in the sentiments of populists that they scapegoat economic ills on minority groups as a way to garner support for their personal gain. Their notion is the removal of a particular minority group and it’s apparent correlation to economic gain for who they consider to be “real” citizens. Trump is an example in that he has called for mass deportation and a “Muslim” ban as a way to create jobs and so forth. It is also a distraction tactic in that when the populous focus on a particular issue, this allows a group of elites to capture a state, gain wealth and blame this consequence of this wealth accumulation on the minority group.

Yes. In my opinion, right wing populist parties are considered of who and how to mobilize voters. Thus, in their campaigns they deliberatively address people who perceive economic grievances. They do so by pointing out how „immigrants steal their jobs.“ or how the „elites (in for example universities) manipulates them“.

Yes. I strongly believe this, however, I do not think this is unique to simply this political ideology. I believe right-wing populists more openly exploit their populations and are often accused of financial fraud (ex. Marine Le Pen); However, I can point to so many examples of liberals promoting the taxation of the rich and other equitable policies and then committing financial crimes or unethical practices. One may argue that they are not exploiting the poor, but economic inequality does not only the poor. Economic inequality also impacts the rich, and insider trading is a great example. This question represents the main issue with American politics: the Democrats and Republicans are using policy issues as scapegoats to prevent us from seeing how a small group of people are manipulating an overwhelming majority of the population. Even our populists are no longer populists. When thinking about the growing division of political ideology across the world, I believe statements like this are what drive people apart.

Yes. They tap into very real frustration and hardship, but instead of addressing the root causes like structural inequality or corporate exploitation they redirect that anger toward vulnerable communities. It’s strategic and it’s dangerous because it divides people who should actually be standing in solidarity.

No. I would not say economic inequality per se, but rather people’s conservative values. Consider for example, in the US where right wing populism seems to be taking over. The current administration preached conservatism more than anything else, such as, taking away the rights of the members of the LGBTQ, reducing women’s rights and disadvantaging the minority populations and were able to sway the country’s votes. In addition, I think it is an err of judgement to say they exploit economic inequality when majority of Black women in the US did not vote for them when these is the most economically disadvantaged group in America.

Yes. They draw specifically on the desire of those impacted by economic inequality to improve their economic status, exploiting that desire for votes.

Yes. Scapegoats are the most obvious example of this. People want simple explanations and even simpler solutions to their problems. We don’t want to hear oir struggles arise from a myriad of structural factors within the capitalist society we live in. It’s always easier when we are told “X and Y are the cause of all your problems”, which is what many right wing populists do. Of course, for right wing politicians it’s always a great strategy to pity different sectors of the population against one another because we could actually accomplish real change if we were united.

Yes. Absolutely true. Capitalism is the perfect system for right wing politics to thrive in, once you alienate people it’s easy to make them think there’s an upper/middle/low class insted of a working class they are all part of, and pit them against eachother for the gain of the rich.

Yes. This is a way of pursuing identity politics. Putting lower earner groups against the so called elitists.

Yes. Because they are more for the common group.

Yes. Building arguments on a grain of truth to gain power pays off.

Yes. The right wing often falsely sides with the poor and working class in order to gain a political following. They often blame marginalized groups—such as immigrants—for the poor socioeconomic circumstances of citizens, while simply trying to raise their own capital behind the scenes.

Yes. So that they can appeal to those that are suffering from poverty or other economic issues by blaming their victim of choice and using them as a scapegoat (e.g minorities,immigrants). This also distracts from bigger issues within the system.

Yes. Right-wing populists often use economic inequality to fuel resentment, blaming elites or outsiders and positioning themselves as champions of the “common people.

Yes. Quick and easy propaganda makes the people suffering from inequality believe that the right wing have the solution. People desperate for change will believe people the call for change.

Yes. political gain

Yes. yes their whole agenda is structured on the narrative of redistribution of power and money — but is it only right-wing ones?

Yes. Indeed as is the case with Trump, right wing populists handle the economic issue better and connect with people’s needs.

Yes. But I think other parties do the same.

Yes. Right wing political principles are fundamental rooted in exploitation

Yes. In a political climate such as ours where mainstream parties fail to meet public demands while problems in societies, such as inequality, is rising, it is bound to be exploited by populists. Populists run on an anti-system platform in which they have divided the society into “us” (the “pure” people) vs “them” (the corrupt elite). They are using this narrative to blame all the problems faced by society onto the democratic system and its institutions, and run a campaign often championing pure majoritarianism, which can lead to the breakdown of institutional checks and balances and eventually the tyranny of the political majority, leading to the suppression of minorities.

Yes. They based their political discourse on hate and inequality; these increase polarisation even more, gaining power through the exploitation

Yes. It creates a power vacuum which politicians and parties are not able to respond to people’s demands, populist leaders have a great opportunity to fill this void by claiming to be able to fix these inequalities – however often through undemocratic means (and the success of them seems lacking, populists still being able to argue that they need more support in order to fix the societal issues)

Yes. Yes, they seek to leverage the economic plight a lot of people are in and try to offer an easy explanation that all economic problems stem from migration and globalization. Since a non-negligible part of the public is distrustful of established parties and institutions they are more and more willing to embrace these easy but wrong explanations.

Yes. They use it for their own benefit

Yes. That’s one of the main strategies that right wing partiese have been applying across the world. Radical immigration policies is a Commons example. Nomctheless, this strategy has been proven quite succesful lately with the rise of populism bwlifs and social polarization–as left wing politicians strugle with efficient migratory policies.

Yes. I do think that this question uses an incorect wording. This is not the type of behaviour I expect from a right wing populist, but from a populist in general

Yes. Of course, that is populism (and fascism). Find a group to scapegoat and envoke sentiments against that group, who are supposedly the causers of all the problems of people. Meanwhile, the populists who claim to be anti-elitist are the elite

Yes. Yes – without inequality the world would be a different one.

Yes. They present themselves as united under one leader: if the leader is strong and visible there is a common feeling that the party is strong and can rule a nation. On the other hand, mainstream parties have a democratic base: there are occasional party leaders or a designed spokeperson, but the ideas and proposals come from the party and not that person. This implies that equal voice is given to different positions within the party and the position of the party itself is often not percieved as united.

No. Mainstream and left-wing parties create communities too. Right wing parties rely on strong personalities that attract and leverage support. Instead, mainstream and left wing parties rely on more or less fragile political agreements.

No. It’s less “are they better” and more “is everyone else so bad at it now that the populists win by default”

Yes. Yes. In fact beyond mainstream parties, right wing populists blow solidarity on the left out of the water right now. While there is in-fighting on the far right I still see more meaningful (for their cause) action being taken, and an acceptance of varied ideas- allowing them to act in unison under a common identity. I do not see that in mainstream politics or very much on the far left right now

Yes. this often relies on misleading or “bad promises.” Populists excel at uniting people around a shared sense of grievance, often by emphasizing cultural or national identity and creating an “us versus them” narrative. This can foster a sense of belonging and community among their supporters, especially when they frame their movement as fighting for the people against elites or outsiders. However, the promises they make—such as immediate economic benefits, cultural preservation, or quick fixes to societal problems—often lack substance or practicality.

Yes. Perhaps yes, because they are “outsiders”. And maybe this identity becomes even stronger when mainstream party voters alienate the voters of these parties and when mainstream parties isolate rightwing-populist parties in parliament. It strengthens their outsider-identity

No. I would not call it a common identity – I would say they are very effective at creating a community around a common hatred.

Yes. Absolutely. I think there are two reasons for this: Firstly, the sad reality is that the strawmen set up by Right wing populists, the “other,” such as “illegal” immigrants or racial minorities, creates for their supporters an easy target to blame their destitution on, rather than, say, the political and economic elites whose policies destroy the foundation of their wellbeing. Secondly, the infamous infighting among the left has destroyed the possibility for cohesion amongst themselves, and among the Democratic party, many have been isolated by their unwillingness to take increasingly bold stances on glaring issues, such as the genocide of Palestinians or call out the oligarchic nature of contemporary American society (though this latter point may be changing somewhat, and some, like Senator Sanders, are keen on calling this out).

Yes. They utilise identity politics to ostracise a particular group of the population. Then they use the latter as a scapegoat for the socioeconomic ills of the country. The creation of this common identity affords a justification for the mistreatment of this select group in the population. This is a model that right wing groups utilise, whereas left wing and more centrist groups engage moreso in minority politics and protecting individuals and their rights. The right wing then play on this, painting a picture of the left and centre not caring about the common identity, the “real” citizens, yet focus on the “outsiders”.

Yes. I would say that in general it is easier to create a common identity on extremes than on a broader mainstream basis. The community of Green parties (for example of Germany) often is much stronger than compared to the mainstream parties because they have a more defined core. Also being part of a community around a specific topic that differentiates one‘s opinion from the mainstream serves to create a „us and them“-narrative whichh can be very identity affirming.

Yes. Populist ideology is very easily digestible, while liberal policies often collapse under the weight of politics. Any uneducated individual can be convinced of an “us vs. them” argument, however not every person can be convinced to agree with the many nuances of complex policies. The issue should not be how we can get the masses to agree with existing left-leaning policies but how we can create a sense of community and make these policies easily digestible.

Yes. They’re often better at storytelling or at creating a clear “us” vs “them” narrative, even if it’s based on exclusion or fear. Mainstream parties tend to get caught up in technical language and don’t always connect emotionally. But just because it’s effective doesn’t mean it’s healthy or just.

Yes. Right wing populists draw specifically on speaking for the people, and many of those in the party feel strongly about their cause.

Yes. Yes. This might be a silly response but I always wonder why left wing politicians won’t hire more effective marketing / public image strategists because that would make their lives much easier.

Yes. “The system we life in is finely tune to maintain a conservative mindset. Many times have I herd the phrase “”when you get older you become more conservative”” and that is simply not true. The greedier you get the more conservative you become, and if money made you change your politics you were never left to begin with. Otherwise, is it true that left leaning parties have it more difficult to “”recruit”” members, because to the right everything counts, you can only be racist, fascist, a religious fanatic, a capitalist or misogynistic to be included, but to be a leftist you have to actively work on yourself and be anti-racist, anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, fight for the liberation on women and oppressed people, be a comunist, be against many systems set in place.”

Yes. Because main stream parties focus on political issues rather than groups, which is good. Leaving this approach would be to justify the existence of populism.

Yes. Because they are more of the common group than the mainstream parties who care most about their followers.

No. I don’t think so, however, I feel that populists are getting more attention in the media.

Yes. The strong messaging of right wing populists plays into people’s emotions which allows people to more strongly identify with those who believe the same themes. I feel that the followers of right wing populists are also much less likely to question and critique these actors, which proves their unwavering community.

No. I believe they are both effective at creating a common identity and community.

Yes. I don’t think they create these ideas. However, they are able to amplify them.

Yes. Right-wing populists often build strong group identity by appealing to shared fears, values, and nationalism—something mainstream parties struggle to do as effectively.

Yes. Very very few citizens actually care about politics and understand it and follow it. This means that communication needs very simple messages that people can identify and feel seen and heard. Mainsteam parties want to be broad and for everyone that they are afraid to create a strong identity.

Yes. They tend to use hate as vector for community creation

Yes. they herald values of a community because their whole narrative is sentiment-based- not based on logical arguments.

Yes. Probably as they connect with people on issues related to identity and economic security, which left wing parties have for long left apart (particularly the economic security bit).

Yes. Because they are not big tent, they are able to maintain a level of ideological purity not found in the mainstream. Often, they are not tested by governance or the need for pragmatism, which again reinforces ideological purity.

Yes. Elite and privileged minorities are not generally represented in mainstream politics, right wing populists fill that gap. Privileged minorities have an false “oppressed” complex which right wing populists speak to

Yes. Yes. Mainstream parties have lost their membership through the dealignment with the traditional political cleavages (eg class, ethnicity) that shaped the time in which they were formed, meaning that they no longer have a “core” of voters. This means that they have lost their identity and struggle to figure out methods to get people to vote for them, even though they can not represent most voters due to their outdated mass-party-typology. Populism, on the other hand, is a thin-veiled ideology, meaning it can be used in nearly every situation or country in order to create a “us” (pure, enlightened people) vs “them” (the corrupt elite), which clearly appeals to voters who feel unrepresented by the mainstream parties clinging on to outdated societal cleavages and divisions.

Yes. Yes, their sense of identity is more clear among their supporters and it is somehow more “limited” than mainstream parties

Yes. Currently I think this is right but it has not always been like this, before mass based parties also had this ability. Several factors influence this change as for example the disillusionment of current parties not being responsive to the people and the rise of media has also helped them as they often rely on overly personalistic leadership

Yes. Well it is definitely true that right-wing populists have been very effective and strong in using diverse social media channels, such as TikTok, which has been essential in Trump’s election campaign and in community-building – with online channels where people reinforce their increasingly extreme views by being fed ever more extreme content and becoming entrenched in homogenous right-wing bubbles. Right-wing online communities give many young people a sense of belonging and offer them ‘easy explanations and solutions’ in a highly complex world. Since right-wing populist narratives revolve around identity a lot, this helps people to build ties around this sense of a homogenous national or cultural identity. Furthermore, there is an idea of a common threat – e.g. migration, globalization – that strengthens group think and community-based identity construction.

No. If posible I would have choosen neither agree nor disagree. But, I chose disagree, because while It IS true that they may elicitate greater nationalistic belifs or shared identity. These are not fundamental to a community. Communities do not depend on the beliefs or radical identities of right wing populists.

Yes. It is in the starting premise of being right wing rather than left wing

Yes. Common identity being the dominant or very selective identity yes. So Trump is good in uniting conservative white people. This does NOT mean that he is good at uniting everyone. Far from it. It is othering. Unity through highlighting diversity.

Yes. The we vs them rhetoric is easier to understand than complex policy matters

Yes. Harbouring hatred.

Yes. They fear change and they fear minorities, as they’re scared of a possible new order of the world and of having less say in society

No. Not “more important” – they believe that conservative policies are better at guaranteeing democracy, while liberal policies create the so called “minorities’ dictatorships”. But they are unable to accept or see that current democracies are built on discrimination, and destructuring the latter provokes conflict.

No. Not experienced this necessarily, it’s more than we think we still live in democracies and haven’t yet realised democracy has failed – so we as a whole don’t do anything to fix it

Yes. The culture war has been one of the most successful campaigns in politics- how the people in power get their constituents to be angry at the one transgender person in the whole state over the money they are being robbed of, allows conservatives to move in the shadows with their real work

No. “I’ve read several polls saying this lately, but I didn’t get that perception. Maybe it’s my bubble’s fault.”

Yes. Particularly when they feel that the political system isn’t addressing their real, pressing concerns. Right-wing populists often tap into these sentiments by framing traditional values as a solution to societal instability or moral decay, making it seem as though preserving these values is more urgent than upholding democratic norms. In many cases, citizens who feel economically or socially marginalized may be more attracted to these messages because they offer a sense of order, security, and identity. Unfortunately, these movements often fail to address the underlying causes of inequality, insecurity, or disenfranchisement, and instead distract from these deeper issues by focusing on divisive, surface-level topics like national pride and traditional roles.

No. I really don’t think so. Also, this cannot really be compared? Pro or against democracy is one thing; I belive that a large majority of citizens in democratic countries are in favor of democracy. And then, there might be differenxes in progressive/conservative views on gender, family, nationalism etc. But this is something else. In a democracy you have freedom of opinion (to a certain degree, of course).

No. I believe many people do not understand that they are putting conservative views on gender and family, nationalism, strong leaders, etc. above our democracy due to the huge amount of misinformation.

Yes. One of the only ways to make sense of people’s voting trends, despite the glaringly obvious threat to their economic wellbeing and the wellbeing of democracy, is that many value such views above all else. Notably, one mistake liberals may be inclined to make is assuming that everyone votes on economic issues above all else. It’s entirely possible that many conservatives value the preservation of traditional values even at the cost of, say, SNAP being defunded.

No. It depends on the population being looked at. More conservative ideas tend to be with the older generation whereas the youth tend to be more inclusive and open, calling for stronger democratic institutions.

No. That is a though one to answer and I am not sure if i can answer it. Although i do think i disagree because it overlooks the many people that actually don‘t think that. Furthermore, for that question it is important to define what democracy is. Preferring a government with more conservative views on gender, family, nationalism, and strong leaders does not inherently lead to authoritarianism it might lead to an illiberal democracy though. The question is on where to draw the line. There might also be people that genuinely think that those are things that make the democracy better.

Yes. I am stuck on this. What I truly believe is that many people are being convinced to believe a “culture war” is needed. However, this implies a shift in thought is occurring, which also leads to the thought that maybe people were convinced to believe that democracy was needed before. If you ask a person with no exposure to politics what is more important, I have no idea what they would say. That is because this said person does not exist. So, I guess my current answer would be yes because the right-wing media is pushing these easily digestible agendas. This can be seen through the rise of the right-wing.

Yes. In places where people feel unsafe, unheard or left behind, there’s often a pull toward stability even if it means giving up democratic values. For some, things like tradition, identity or strong leadership feel more tangible than the idea of democracy especially when democracy hasn’t delivered justice or equality in their lives.

Yes. The present US administration promoted conservatism above everything else, such as taking away LGBTQ members’ rights, limiting women’s rights, and disadvantageously affecting minority communities, and they were able to sway the country’s votes.

No. Younger generations seem as though they’re getting increasingly more liberal, and even many of the conservatives feel as though they are doing something that contributes to democracy still.

No. “I think many people don’t question their beliefs that much to reach that conclusion, and don’t really care about anything else as long as they perceive it doesn’t affect them directly.
Plus, it’s not really going against democracy if you vote for these ideals. You can have a perfectly democratical system with conservative views on all these points if the majority of the citizens agrees with them. Democracy is flawed, too.
I feel there are more layers to this, though, that I haven’t learnt about / realized yet.”

Yes. Yes, and in here factors a grat dose of exceptionalism and individuality. Many conservative people think the way they do because they were heavily chastised as young people for trying to express themselves with the promise of being in power when they would become adult. Many men were forbidden from exploring their sexuality or their gender expression now reprimand other young men for doing so freely. The illusion of power is projected in the family and the people they elect as representatives.

Yes. Citizens generally undervalue democracy and have a way too narrow of a view of what it entails. It is not just voting every four years, it’s an inclusive society where every person is allowed to achieve what it strives for.

No. Not sure

Yes. If a democratic process can mean that one does not get their opinion through, there is a risk that democracy will be set aside.

Yes. With the election of Donald Trump and his extreme executive orders, true democracy is at an all-time low. Many people are supporting his actions because they represent their shared traditional values at the expense of democracy.

No. Speaking from a Malawian point of view ,my country is very far away from prioritising conservative views,we have far bigger issues to deal with,;food insecurity, corruption,high unemployment rates just to mention a few.

Yes. I believe that after all the “Woke” movement we’ve had in the past 5-6 years,many people have reverted back to conservatism and when a leader is offering that,they will choose it over democracy ,because the urgency for conservatism to change a nation back to what it was before the “Woke” movements (LGBTQ+ rights,Black Lives Matter,etc) is far more important for conservatives than democracy is.

Yes. This is a trend that we’re currently seeing, especially with Donald’s Trumps victory

Yes. Some citizens prioritize conservative values—like traditional family roles, national pride, and strong leadership—over democratic principles, especially when they feel democracy isn’t delivering stability or security. These views often arise from fear of rapid social change or economic uncertainty, making authoritarian tendencies seem more appealing.

No. I don’t think that they compare the two. I think some citizens see conservative values as important, and in doing so they seek a strong leader that can uphold that. In doing so they are engaging in the democracy and I think nationalism is born out of a wish for democracy aswell. I rather think it is a question of redefining democracy, so that everyone can participate. Authoritarianism is a symptom that democracy and politics have gotten too complex, where is requires too much of citizens to keep up, which results in voters falling for each promises of change.

Yes. Because they feel these values are the ones guarding modern societies and see change as an earthquake threatening the status quo

Yes. tTey actually think that these conservative views are the basis of democracy, they are brainwashed. More liberal ideas have been victimized by media and political leaders as Woke Agenda.

No. I don’t think they think that but rather, they don’t see one opposed to the other, or at least don’t see the threat to democracy from issues related to identities and their conservative views.

Yes. Because it is society’s common sense reading of human experience.

No. Democracy is about “the people” this speak to a big and generalized group therefore segmented views and opinions cannot supersede the importance of the collective

No. I do think people use populism as a form to protest against a system in which they feel that they are no longer represented or listened to, but rather run by a technocratic and managerial elite that no longer wants to listen to the demands of the public.

No. I don’t think they think is more important than democracy, I believe they consider that it can be simultaneous… (I don’t think it can but)

No. While I think that many think they value those more the core of those questions also challenge democracy, people might therefore not acknowledge that democracy is in danger when supporting these conservative views. But I do still think that there is a general support to maintain democracy

Yes. I think there a quite a lot of people who are not aware of the benefits democracy gives them. They don’t feel like they live in a ‘real democracy’ since they see politics as highly influenced by corporate interests and personal financial stakes. Since the current democratic system does not really accomodate their views on the pandemic (e.g. vaccinations) and migration, they lost distrust in democracy and are more willing to embrace nationalist and strong leaders. What is most important to a lot of people is their sense of personal freedom – which many feel is under attack by a government encroaching on how they heat their homes, which kind of cars they drive (e.g. due to carbon tax and climate regulations), and how they are supposed to talk about gender and other topics. They feel like the media and established parties are pushing a certain left-leaning narrative that is hostile to their personal views. They point out that this is not an environment in which they feel free or represented as political citizens. Thus, democracy in itself is not worth a lot to them, but rather personal freedom and cultural identity.

No. About which country? And what does „many citizens“ mean? A majority/plurality? In Europe, the US and Latin America no (see Lagos „ Public Opinion in New Democracies: Latin America’s Smiling Mask“)

Yes. They are always looking at a situation in one sided view

No. The honey moon for Trump is over even if only 100 days have passed since its inauguration.

No. Depends on what one sees as “many”, and will tend to differ between countries.

Yes. “This is why I don’t like sirveys. The way questions are phrased heavily influences the answers.I assume a lot of people believe this, I couldn’t think why else people would vote for anti-democratic leaders. I also believe there are many citizens who think differently.”

No.I think conservatism is not always related to family but rather to social inequality.

No. It depends. The so called eco-chamber strengthen your prejudices, widening the space between two different culture. is a matter of regulation and education; the digitalisation is just a tool that reinforce something already there.

Yes.it is like always being in a crowded square bombarded by messages and propaganda all the time: this is on one hand overwhelming and can lead to very different reactions, and on the other hand it gives anyone a say, in spite of how informed is a person in a given field or on a given topic (+ algorithms make triggering contents more visible just because they’re more likely to be shared)

Yes. Online communication is “filtered”, so people lose they filters

No. History has had many cycles of order and disorder, wherein disorder includes polarisation and increased anger, aggression, violence, etc

Yes. Before where there might be a lack of education or even apathy there is now a self righteousness and belief, for all reason, after one or two Facebook videos that one is wholly educated on a topic.

Yes. This environment can create echo chambers where individuals are exposed primarily to views that align with their own, reinforcing biases and making it easier for aggressive political messages to gain traction. Additionally, the speed at which information spreads on social media can escalate tensions and distort reality, making it more difficult for citizens to critically evaluate the messages they encounter.

Yes. Yes because such messages generate reactions and views

Yes. Social media makes citizens more susceptible to all political messages.

Yes. There is a kind of mediation that takes place in the in-person encounter that simply doesn’t exist with social media. Therefore, people are more able to channel unbridled aggression, as well as spout blatant lies, in a way that is more difficult in-person. People’s attention spans have also been destroyed by social media, so they are less likely to fact-check anything and therefore are more susceptible to blatant propaganda and hate speech.

Yes. I agree to an extent. The lack of filtering messages on social media allows for the infiltration of disinformation at a rapid rate. Yet at the same time, it offers an opportunity to reach more people and offer fact checking.

Yes. Through social media a lot of aggressive political messages get packaged as if they were mainstream or common knowledge making it hard for people to differentiate. Especially if one gets these messages thrown in between their other social media content without proper reflection.

Yes. People on social media are statistically more likely to increase their exposure to extreme political opinions. This has led, in part, to the rise of the far-right.

Yes. Most social media platforms thrive on emotion and speed, and aggressive messages spread faster because they trigger strong reactions. Algorithms reward outrage and interactions and that can make people more vulnerable to manipulation, especially when they’re already overwhelmed or angry.

Yes. Social media has made a lot people think they have access to everyone and can say whatever they want anyhow, including insults and threats.

Yes. Social media often amplifies extreme views and sequester users in their personal echo chambers. It is also very unregulated. Thus, aggressive political messages are more likely to be pushed to susceptible audiences through the social media algorithms.

Yes. Yes, yet it can also be a great tool for education and opening people’s minds. It’s a double edged sword.

Yes. There are a mirad of experiments conducted on social media showing what kind of content new accounts are pushed to whenever they start. The political content disguised as trends and the community along the us vs them rethotic thrives in this kind of social media platforms being often owned by right wing people who censor and push content according to what them or their associates may benefit from.

Yes. Social media is increasingly quick and basic messages and aggressive messages fit into that frame better than a thorough argument or discussion on issues.

Yes. People are more comfortable with speaking aggressively online. Plus, your algorithm is often designed to show you messages that will solicit the most attention/biggest response.

No. Politicians in Malawi don’t communicate via social media

Yes. Humans are often very gullible and believe everything they see on the internet without fact-checking it first,we see this happen with political information all the time. This can cause severe misinformation or misinterpretation which can cause conflict and thus lead to aggressive political messages.

Yes. Social media has its pros and cons. But looking at how things are going now, especially now that people view social media as some form of ‘news outlet or media’ it’s becoming increasingly dangerous

Yes. Social media amplifies emotional and sensational content, making it easier for aggressive political messages to spread quickly. Algorithms often prioritize outrage and division, reinforcing echo chambers and reducing exposure to diverse viewpoints. This environment increases polarization and makes users more vulnerable to manipulation.

Yes. Yes, it is the quick messages and deep rabbitholes that created communities where radical opinions seem mainstream.

Yes. Social media makes citizens more susceptible to aggressive messages in general, political arena is just a place where they act

Yes. it poliarizes them- so yes. Citizens get more enthousiastic on certain political messages and also more aggressive on other. They work as filter bubbles

Yes. Maybe because of filter bubbles and fake news.

Yes. Media is no longer mediated through 3rd parties but is instead directly accessible to and for all citizens.

Yes. Greater access to information and messaging

Yes. The media has democratised the information sphere, but also made it chaotic. There is so much information, with very little time to process it, leading to people taking cognitive shortcuts and hence being manipulated. Social media has also deteriorated the editorial authority of traditional media, especially in countries such as the United Kingdom where the traditional media has been recognised as manufacturing consent rather than holding leaders accountable.

Yes. “Algorithms are really making citizens more susceptible to aggressive political
Messages ”

Yes. Overly personalised rhetoric has an advantage in social media and appeals to people more than a general organisation, and often aggressive messages are more populist and personalised

Yes. Social media algorithms, especially on X, are designed to feed aggressive and violent content and controversial political messages while a real debate with counter-arguments is not taking place. Synthetic content is increasingly hard to distinguish from real content and is being fabricated by diverse actors to stir public resentment. Echo-chamber communities, increasingly realistic deep fake content and addictive algorithmic techniques that cater to human psychological weaknesses are an effective combination which makes people more suceptible to aggressive political messages.

Yes. Due to algorithms

Yes. Social medias are created to promote engagement and aggressive political messaging is a part of it.

Yes. News is biased. Always. (And commercial)

Yes. Fake news are the biggest issue – no one will know what is true in the end.

Yes. I believe economic crisis and inflation also play a role

Yes. An enormous number of things! Too long to leave here but includes failure of democracy, terrible and worsening economy and wealth gap, failure of left leaning politics to upload their own self stated values, and so much more

Yes. I think we must look directly at the dictators of culture and how they benefit from the Conservative Party. Because in theory, both parties love their instagram feeds equally. But it is the social media tycoons backing the conservatism that must be investigated and is a big reason the culture has shifted. Along with fashion and the pandemic which start off neutral but are an easy pipeline to the alt right

Yes. I have already answered this in a previous question. I refer you again to the reading Reyniè (2013), in my opinion the text that gives the best reading of the populist phenomenon (even if it is starting to get a bit old)

Yes. The rise of conservative movements often includes a push to restrict women’s rights, especially in areas such as reproductive rights, gender equality, and sexual autonomy. Populist rhetoric frequently frames women’s rights as a threat to traditional values or national identity, positioning the protection of these values as more important than gender equality or women’s empowerment. In many countries, conservative parties have used this issue to rally support, particularly by mobilizing voters who believe that women’s rights should be subordinated to family values or national traditions.

Yes. I think the woke-movement has contributed to the rise in traditional and anti-democratic voices. Especially for the democrats in the US

Yes. Misinformation

Yes. Two things of note here: firstly, in the U.S. context, historically, such conservative uprises as we are seeing now has always been a response to tremendous progress. This is especially true in the context of African American progress, and in the years preceding our current administration, we saw our first Black president, as well as the Black Lives Matter movement, alongside other progress, especially with the LGBTQ+ community. In history, the Emancipation Proclamation was followed by convict leasing, the Civil Rights Acts of the 60’s followed by the Reagan administration’s militarization of the police force and mass incarceration. We must anticipate these sorts of backlashes anytime progress has been made. Secondly, it is becoming more and more apparent how crucial the issue of immigration is to conservative success. I highly suggest checking out the New York Times’ “In an Age of Right-Wing Populism, Why Are Denmark’s Liberals Winning?” The basic premise is that liberals in Denmark have shut down conservative success by making concessions on the immigrant issue and securing closed borders. This is not a suggestion that we ought to become conservative on issues of immigration; I myself could not fathom taking this stance. However, it does demonstrate, on the international level, just how crucial immigration, and the ability to cast and expel an “other” is to conservative success.

Yes. I think these questions have not addressed the failures of specifically center parties in Europe. Many major European governments are based on coalitions who run the government. Yet these coalitions fail to truly represent individuals who believe in a moderate government. As a result, these centrist individuals are moving to the right, as they have easily digestible policies which promise to protect and promote their wellbeing as citizens of whatever country they live in. I also believe that we should look to attack the far-right but constructively criticize them. Attacks on the populists have always allowed populist leaders to use the attacks as an example of how the world is against them. This rhetoric also encourages political polarization. The first step in combatting populism is making left-leaning policies easily digestible so when people look change their viewpoints/party, they have somewhere to go.

Yes. It may be important to note how deeply colonial legacies and racialised trauma play into the rise of conservative movements, especially in the Global South. When people feel like their histories have been erased or their futures stolen, they’re more vulnerable to narratives that promise control, pride or belonging, even if those narratives are exclusionary. It’s as much about unresolved harm as it is idealogical.

Yes. Why is this happening? What can be be done about it?

Yes. Social media and mainstream parties not only support/go against conservativism but they create polarization and democracy often times loses against polarization.

Yes. It’s easy to judge people who vote for conservative parties. But I think there’s something to learn about this. Left wing parties are losing voters for a reason. So, let’s not put all the blame on individual citizens who vote for conservatives. Many choose conservatives because they truly believe they are the solution to their problems. And although I don’t agree with these solutions (e.g. immigration is not the cause of all our problems) these people’s concerns are valid. While left wing parties ignore them, brush them off as “not prioritary” and look at people from a high horse, right wing parties don’t: they use that discontentment and weaponize it, and there lies their strength.

Yes. I feel like some questions were tone-deaf having in mind the kind of organisation after this questionnaire. Some deep system dive would benefit not only the entination of questions but also the way they are presented to the pubic.

Yes. Can’t compare traditional family values to democracy, they come apart and one isn’t exlusive to the other

No. I think another factor is rapid technological change. Like social media and AI for instance. It requires people to adjust to new realities and that can be frightening. Thus, these people might tend to vote for conservative parties which rejects this progression in many cases.

Yes. The overall spread of misinformation and us vs. them mentality.

Yes. As much as i loved helping i would like to keep this feedback to myself unless i am credited for it. Thank you.

No. The questions cover key political, economic, cultural, and psychological factors driving the conservative surge. They touch on trust in institutions, inequality, identity, leadership, and media influence—offering a well-rounded view.

No. I don’t understand why E.g. farmers are supporting very radical politics against e.g. climate action, when they themselves are the most vulnerable to climate change. Maybe in the human psychology or similar, and when difficult problems are difficult to change, it is too easy to be afraid of change and not see the consequenses in the future.

Yes. Misinformation

Yes. Authoritarian surge is not only right-wing oreinted. The whole political spectrum can create such a surge. Check out How Propaganda Works by J. Stanley

Yes. The main point is that citizens feel unheard and if we depart from the base that left-wing values are the standard, no dialogue is possible. Meaning that all parties should be really open talk.

Yes. Immigration, americanisation, globalisation.

Yes. the role of immigration an populists exploiting sociocultural grievances for political gain

Yes. Maybe how we can counter, and that we have all been part in its creation through capitalism

Yes. clear definitions of key terms in the questions posed would provide a more representative sample. What is meant with conservative surge? Conservative parties are decreasing in importance. Populist (mostly personalist) parties are surging only partly due to their (yes sometimes conservative) policies. However policy formulation „for the people“ is mostly an unwanted necessity. When in power such actors use their power for private gain and clientilism and disseminate lies and quite extreme policies, rather than conservative ones.

Yes. Nativism as such is exploited by right-populists/right-radicals, not just economic inequality. Seeing the change in popularity about parties more in the sense of a populist surge, a right-populist surge or a nativist surge is, I believe, a more useful framework than seeing it as a conservative surge.

Yes. Trust and accessibility to scientific knowledge.

Yes. Globalisation: there are winners and losers . The losers will support populism, the winners will fight against it leading to polarisation.