One Size Does Not Fit All: Explaining Radical-Left Parties’ Engagement with Populism

Abstract

The literature offers several reasons to explain radical-left parties’ different engagements with populist discourse: structural reasons, ideology, party “cartelization,” and electoral opportunities. However, one important reason is absent: whether party leaders believe populism is electorally advantageous. This determination depends on how the populist dimensions of people-centrism, anti-elitism, and popular sovereignty relate to the party’s support base. Trade-offs might develop between each dimension vis-à-vis different groups, leading leaders to reject populism or embrace only some dimensions. We demonstrate this point by focusing on two parties—the Danish Red-Green Alliance and the French La France Insoumise—using interviews with their leaders and staff. Despite potentially facilitating conditions, the Red-Green Alliance did not use populist discourse, partly because its leaders believed that the anti-establishment dimension would alienate important groups of voters. La France Insoumise did use populist discourse. However, given that the party leaders believed the anti-establishment dimension would alienate some voters, they also used non-populist messages to mobilize parts of the electorate.