Today, many scholars question whether populism has indeed become the zeitgeist detriment of democracies around the globe. This study compares populist discourses in Nigeria and Türkiye during their 2023 presidential campaigns. Utilizing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), it explores how did the victorious presidential candidates employ digital media platforms to disseminate their populist and anti-populist messages? This research reveals that Bola Tinubu’s anti-populist discourses mitigated polarization and led to a smooth electoral success in Nigeria. In sharp contrast, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s populist discourses exacerbated political divisions in Türkiye. It concludes that populism neither universally dominates global trends nor guarantees electoral victory, even in polarized Eurasian-African context. Nonetheless, whether labeled as populist or anti-populist during electoral campaigns, such characterizations do not necessarily translate into corresponding policy actions once in office.
AdebayoJ. O. (2017). The role of peace journalism in the deconstruction of elections and the “national question” in Nigeria. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies, 12(1), 140–156.
AuwalA. M.ErsoyM. (2022). Peace journalism strategy for covering online political discourses in a multipolar society and the new public sphere. Information Development, 38(1), 6–22.
4.
Aydın-DüzgitS.BaltaE. (2019). When elites polarize over polarization: Framing the polarization debate in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey, 60(2018), 153–176.
5.
BabalolaD. (2019). Oil centrism and Nigeria’s political economy. In The political economy of federalism in Nigeria. Federalism and internal conflicts. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05493-9_3
6.
BöhmeltT.EzrowL. (2023). Policy issue salience and legislative output of populist governments: Evidence from immigration policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(11), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2255658
BosL.BrantsK. (2014). Populist rhetoric in politics and media: A longitudinal study of the Netherlands.European Journal of Communication, 29(6), 703–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114545709
ChakravarttyP.SrirupaR. (2017). Mediatized populisms| mediatized populisms: Inter-asian lineages—introduction. International Journal of Communication, 11(2017), 20.
11.
EngesserS.ErnstN.EsserF.BüchelF. (2017). Populism and social media: How politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1109–1126.
12.
ErdoğanE.Uyan-SemerciP. (2022). Kutuplaşmayı Nasıl Aşarız? In Turkuaz Lab Yayınları.
EsenB.GumuscuS. (2023). How Erdoğan's populism won again. Journal of Democracy, 34(3), 21–32.
15.
EsserF. (2019). Advances in comparative political communication research through contextualization and cumulation of evidence. Political Communication, 36(4), 680–686.
16.
EsserF.StępińskaA.HopmannD. N. (2016). Populism and the media: Cross-national findings and perspectives. In Populist political communication in Europe (pp. 365–380). Routledge.
17.
FalkE. B.SpuntR. P.LiebermanM. D. (2012). Ascribing beliefs to ingroup and outgroup political candidates: Neural correlates of perspective-taking, issue importance and days until the election. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1589), 731–743.
18.
FurmanI.TunçA. (2020). The end of the Habermassian ideal? Political communication on Twitter during the 2017 Turkish constitutional referendum. Policy & Internet, 12(3), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.218
19.
HameleersM.VliegenthartR. (2020). The rise of a populist zeitgeist? A content analysis of populist media coverage in newspapers published between 1990 and 2017. Journalism Studies, 21(1), 19–36.
20.
HavlíkV.KluknavskáA. (2022). The populist vs anti populist divide in the time of pandemic: The 2021 Czech national election and its consequences for European politics. Journal of Common Market Studies, 60(Annual Review), 2.
21.
HoboltS.LawallK.TilleyJ. (2023). The polarizing effect of partisan echo chambers. American Political Science Review.
22.
İşeriE.ErsoyM. (2021). Framing the Syrian operations: Populism in foreign policy and the polarized news media of Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 15(2021), 2870–2893.
23.
JagersJ.WalgraveS. (2007). Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research, 46(3), 319–345.
24.
KalaycıoğluE. (2021). Kulturkampf and voting behavior in Turkey: A key to Turkish party politics? In Elections and public opinion in Turkey (pp. 133–156). Routledge.
25.
KitzbergerP. (2023). Media-politics parallelism and populism/anti-populism divides in Latin America: Evidence from Argentina. Political Communication, 40(1), 69–91.
KubinE.SikorskiC. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070
28.
KurtS. (2019). Critical discourse analysis in political communication research: A case study of right-wing populist discourse in Australia. Communication Research and Practice, 5(4), 376–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2019.1695082
29.
LaclauE. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.
30.
LevitskyS.ZiblattD. (2018). How wobbly is our democracy. NY TIMES.
31.
LiddiardP. (2019). Is populism really a problem for democracy. Wilson Center.
MachinD.MayrA. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. Sage Publications Ltd.
34.
MardinŞ. (1973). Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics?Dædalus, pp. 169–190.
35.
MazzoleniG.BraccialeR. (2018). Socially mediated populism: The communicative strategies of political leaders on facebook. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1.
36.
MbahP. O.NwangwuC.Ugwu Scand SimonsG. (2019). Contentious elections, political exclusion, and challenges of national integration in Nigeria. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1565615
37.
MelekG.İşeriE. (2022). When a polarized media system meets a pandemic: Framing the political discord over COVID-19 aid campaigns in Turkey. In PV Aelst and JG blumler, political communication in the time of coronavirus (pp. 136–154): Routledge.
38.
MoffittB. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation (pp. 14–17). Stanford University Press.
39.
MoffittB. (2018). The populism/anti-populism divide in Western Europe. Democratic Theory, 5(2), 1–16.
40.
MoffittB. (2020). The trouble with anti-populism: Why the champions of civility keep losing. The Guardian, 14(February), 1.
41.
MuddeC. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541–563.
42.
MuddeC.KaltwasserC. R. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
43.
MüllerJ. W. (2016). What is populism? Pennsylvania.
44.
NeunerF. G.WratilC. (2022). The populist marketplace: Unpacking the role of “thin” and “thick” ideology. Political Behavior, 44(2), 551–574.
NyamekyeE.ZengulaaruJ.AddaeI.MutawakilA.-R.NtiakohG. B. (2024). Culture, critical pedagogy, and critical thinking among ‘children’ in Ghana: A critical discourse analysis of childhood constructions in Ghanaian proverbs. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 0(0), 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096241228773
50.
OgengaF. (2020). Kenya and the emerging power-shift in global political-economy: Right-wing populism and social media activism. Journalism, 10(1), 35–56.
OkwelumC. O. (2023). President Tinubu inauguration in Nigeria: To be or not to be?European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, 1(3), 285–298.
53.
Olivas OsunaJ. J. (2021). From chasing populists to deconstructing populism: A new multidimensional approach to understanding and comparing populism. European Journal of Political Research, 60(4), 829–853.
54.
ÖnişZ. (2015). Monopolising the centre: The AKP and the uncertain path of Turkish democracy. The International Spectator, 50(2), 22–41.
55.
PostillJ. (2018). Populism and social media: A global perspective. Media, Culture & Society, 40(5), 754–765.
56.
RobertsK. M. (2022). Populism and polarization in comparative perspective: Constitutive, spatial, and institutional dimensions. Government and Opposition, 57(4), 680–702.
57.
RooduijnM. (2013). A populist zeitgeist? The impact of populism on parties, media and the public in western Europe. Universiteit van Amsterdam.
58.
SayarıS. (2013). Siyasi Partiler ve parti sistemleri. Karşılaştırmalı siyaset, sabri SAYARI, hasret Dikici bilgin (der.). In İstanbul bilgi üniversitesi yayınları. İstanbul.
59.
SchnyderG.RadlM.TothF.KucukuzunM.TurnšekT.ÇelikB.PajnikM. (2024). Theorizing and mapping media ownership networks in authoritarian-populist contexts: A comparative analysis of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, and Turkey. Media, Culture & Society, 46(1), 38–59.
60.
SchuckA. R.De VreeseC. H. (2015). Public support for referendums in Europe: A cross-national comparison in 21 countries. Electoral Studies, 38(2015), 149–158.
61.
SelçukO.HekimciD. (2020). The rise of the democracy–authoritarianism cleavage and opposition coordination in Turkey (2014–2019). Democratization, 27(8), 1496–1514.
62.
SomerM. (2019). Turkey: The slippery slope from reformist to revolutionary polarization and democratic breakdown. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 42–61.
63.
SomerM.Glüpker-KesebirG. (2016). Is islam the solution? Comparing Turkish islamic and secular thinking toward ethnic and religious minorities. Journal of Church & State, 58(3), 529–555.
64.
SomerM.McCoyJ. L.LukeR. E. (2023). Pernicious polarization, autocratization and opposition strategies. In Resilience of democracy (pp. 61–80). Routledge.
StavrakakisY. (2018). Populism, anti-populism and democracy. Political insight, 9(3), 33–35.
67.
SteppatD.Castro HerreroL.EsserF. (2022). Selective exposure in different political information environments–How media fragmentation and polarization shape congruent news use. European Journal of Communication, 37(1), 82–102.
68.
TrenzH. J. (2023). Democracy in the digital public sphere: Disruptive or self-corrective?Communication Theory, 33(2-3), 143–152.
69.
TuckerJ. A.TheocharisY.RobertsM. E.BarberáP. (2017). From liberation to turmoil: Social media and democracy. Journal of Democracy, 28(4), 46–59.
UgwuokeC. O.AjahB. O.OnyejegbuC. D. (2020). Developing patterns of violent crimes in Nigerian democratic transitions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 53(101457), 101457.
72.
Van AelstP.StrömbäckJ.AalbergT.EsserF.De VreeseC.Matthes Jand StanyerJ. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 1.
73.
van DijkT. A. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In TannenD.SchiffrinD.HamiltonH. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 466–485): Blackwell.
YavuzM. H.ÖztürkA. E. (2019). Turkish secularism and Islam under the reign of Erdoğan. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 19(1), 1–9.
80.
YuY.LiR.ChanT. F. (2023). Representing the ‘little fresh meat’ phenomenon in the Chinese English-medium news media: A corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 0(0), 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096231184407
81.
ZhangC. (2020). Right-wing populism with Chinese characteristics? Identity, otherness and global imaginaries in debating world politics online. European Journal of International Relations, 26(1), 88–115.
82.
ZulianelloM.AlbertiniA.CeccobelliD. (2018). A populist zeitgeist? The communication strategies of western and Latin American political leaders on facebook. The International Journal of Press/politics, 23(4), 439–457.
