The Rise of Right Wing Populism, Reasons, Impact and Significance

PAGE | 1
Table of Contents

Abstract.....................................................................................................................................3

Introduction..............................................................................................................................4

Turkey’s Islamization and Erdogan’s Reign.........................................................................6

Hindu Nationalism and Modi’s Dominance..........................................................................9

Trump’s Rise and the Shift in American Politics................................................................12

Bolsonaro’s Brazil and the Destruction of Amazon............................................................15

Reasons for the Rise in Right Wing Populism.....................................................................17

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................19

Bibliography...........................................................................................................................21

PAGE | 2
 ABSTRACT

Erdogan, Trump, Modi, and Bolsonaro. Their rise represents a trend in world politics. The
rise of right-wing parties based on populist rhetoric. Throughout the paper we see, the
platform that these leaders fought on, the social base that ended up becoming their core voter
base, the kind of policies that they have implemented, and the impact the same have had. The
paper also discusses the pushback that these leaders have faced.

PAGE | 3
 INTRODUCTION

In politics, the Right Wing, generally stands for the group which believes that some social
hierarchies are natural, inevitable and acceptable. They support this view on the reasoning of
economics and tradition. In purely economic terms, the Right advocates for free market, less
government interference.

“Right-wing politics involves, in varying degrees, the rejection of some egalitarian objectives
of left-wing politics.” (BOBBIO AND CAMERON 1997)

Meanwhile, populism has been defined as the mobilization of the masses by creating an idea
of “the people” and contrasting it with “the elite”. There exists both left-wing and right-wing
populism. Left-wing populism includes targeting the rich capitalists who have enriched
themselves at the cost of the common folk, “the people”. Left-wing populism is skeptical of
globalisation, and advocates for economic democracy.

Right-wing populism on the other hand, is focuses on cultural issues. It attempts to defend a
national culture, usually the culture of the majority from corruption, attack from outsiders and
minorities. Since the Great Recession in the 1930s, right-wing populism has been observed
across the world. With various parties such as the League in Italy, Sweden Democrats,
Danish People’s Party, the Finns Party. Their rise in popularity has been mainly due to
opposition to immigration from the Middle East and Africa. Dissatisfaction with the
European Union’s policy and skepticism about the EU’s dominance and the fear of losing
sovereignty under the control of a supernation has led to the rise of these parties.

With the advent of the 21st century, right-wing populism has seen a new resurgence, and it’s
impact has been felt across the world. We have seen populist regimes come into power in
geopoltically and economically significant nations.

We have also observed democratic backsliding, increasing marginalisation of minorities,

escalating external tensions, and hyper-polarisation.

In this paper, we look at the growth of right-wing populism, the reasons that created the
social bases that led to these regimes coming into power, the impact that their reigns have
created and what this means for other democracies in the world.

PAGE | 4
To do this, case study has been done on four countries which have seen governments being
elected on right-wing populist platforms, USA, Brazil, Turkey and India. The paper looks at
the policies implemented, in these countries, under these regimes. The paper looks at the
similarities between these governments and how they came to power and their social base and
also analyses the differences between them.

PAGE | 5
 TURKEY’S ISLAMIZATION AND ERDOGAN’S REIGN

The Ottoman Empire fought in the first World War on behalf of the Central Powers and it
entered the war by conducting a surprise attack on the Russian Black Sea coast in October
1914. Russia responded by declaring war on the Empire. By September 1918, the leaders
knew that the war was unwinnable as Bulgaria had signed a treaty with the Allied Powers and
Germany didn’t have enough troops to help them. The Armistice of Mudros was soon signed
ending the Ottoman involvement in the war. In 1920, the Treaty of Sèvres was signed which
ceded large portions of the territory to the Allied forces. This ignited the Turkish National
Movement led by Kemal Ataturk. They rejected this treaty as it even partioned Anatolia
itself. This led to the Turkish War of Independence, which led to the abolition of the Ottoman
Caliphate and the elimination of allied forces from Turkis territories. The Treaty of Lassaune
was signed in 1923 and ratified in 1924 to signify the same, and the Republic of Turkey with
Ataturk at the head was established.

The policy overseen by Ataturk during his tenure as the President came to be known as
Kemalism. It included sweeping political, cultural, and social changes which were designed
to move away from Turkey’s Ottoman past and adopt a more Westernised lifestyle.
Secularism was established while primary education was made free and compulsory. State
support to scientific studies was also given. These reforms were later enshrined into the
standard guidelines for the governance of Turkey. However, it was these reforms which laid
the foundation for the future Islamization of the country.

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) was founded in 2001, with Recep Tayyip Erdogan
as its head. The party’s origin lies with the ideology promoted by Necmettin Erbakan who
was the Prime Minister of the country from 1996 to 1997, before the military (which has
often stepped in and removed leaders from power) forced him to step down, thereafter he was
banned from contesting elections by a court because he violated the separation of religion and
state as ordered in the Constitution. He called for turning away from the impure Western
concept of Secularism and the strengthening of Islamic values. He advocated for closer
relationships with other Islamic countries and called for moving against Zionism. An
extension of this ideology is what forms the core of the AKP’s policy. The party finds
support from Conservative Orthodox Muslims and calls for a return to a glorified Ottoman
past and stresses on its Islamic identity.

PAGE | 6
“The AKP government served as the poster child for an alliance of Islam, neoliberal
economic policies, and democratic inclusion.” (OKTEM 2016)

It came to power, while presenting itself as pro-liberal market economy, and that it would
attempt to gain membership into the European Union. In the beginning the party allied itself
with the Gulen movement, led by Fetullah Gulen, but broke away after documents and taped
telephone conversations were leaked, (believed to be done by the Gulen movement), that
implicated several officials in the AKP being involved in corruption, including Erdogan
himself.

The party has made several reforms that have altered the economy of the country.
Distribution of food subsidies, improving infrastructure in the poorer districts, privatizing
state owned businesses. All these led to high GDP growth and economic crises were
overcome. Accessibility to healthcare and housing was also improved.

The party has also been accused of covertly eroding the country’s secular principles. It has
led to two unsuccessful cases trying to shut down the party in 2002 and 2008 for violating the
secular principles of the nation. The AKP government has uplifted bans on conservative
dresses, example hijab in public universities and institutions. It has imposed increasing
restrictions on abortion facilities and has increased taxes on alcoholic drinks driving their
consumption down. Civil liberties were increasingly curtailed as well.

The biggest incident that has taken place during the party’s reign was the 2016 coup d’état
attempt by portions of the military and the Gulen movement. The attempt failed, but it lead to
national emergency being imposed. During the emergency the government arrested thousands
of opponents, be it in the military, press, opposition parties. Civil liberties were reduced, and
rule of law was suspended. This was followed by the 2017 referendum, though which the
parliamentary system was done away with, and the system of executive President was
installed, with a Two – term limit. This made Erdogan an all powerful leader in the country
with Erdogan having the power to appoint judges as well. Since then, the country saw
democratic backsliding, further Islamization. Support for Erdogan came from charismatic
authority which we will later see is the case in the other countries that are a part of this study.

The excessive nationalism, has led to Turkey being involved in regional conflicts. Mainly
with the Kurdish minorities, and in Syria. After the 2016 coup attempt, the Gulen Movement
has been declared as a terrorist organisation by the government.

PAGE | 7
The crony capitalism, overt focus on real-estate and neglect of education, research, and other
forms of economy, lead to the Turkish currency and debt crisis of 2018, which dented his
popularity significantly, and is seen as the reason for the AKP losing Ankara and Istanbul, the
two most significant cities in the country in the 2019 local elections to the opposition parties.
Depicting that democracy has still not disappeared. The country remains an illiberal
democracy, with an authoritarian President at the helm, but democratic resellience still exists.

PAGE | 8
 HINDU NATIONALISM AND MODI’S DOMINANCE

The 2014 General elections saw the Bharatiya Janata Party come in to power. For the first
time since 1984 had a party attained majority in the Lok Sabha all on its own. The period
from 1984 to 2014 saw India being governed by coalitions at the centre. BJP itself previously
had come to power in 1999, under the NDA (National Democratic Alliance), the first time a
non-Congress party finished a full term at the centre. But even then, it was bound by the
coalition, and had to concede to the demands of its partners. The coalitions often resulted in
policy paralysis, preventing measures and policies from being implemented as the vested
interests of all the constituents had to be taken into consideration. But the chain broke in
2014, and BJP attained majority on its own. It implemented a range of policies which have
since radically changed the Indian political landscape. It also has seen a return to the politics
of one dominating overbearing leader, not seen in the country since the demise of Indira
Gandhi. After the Pulwama Attack in February 2019 and the subsequent striker in Pakistan-
occupied-Kashmir, riding on a wave of hyper-nationalism, the BJP won the 2019 general
elections with a even stronger majority, completely solidifying itself has the dominant party
in the country with no opposition capable of rivalling it at the national level.

Now in power for the past 8 years, the BJP, a part of the Sangh Parivar, which is an umbrella
organisation, with RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) as the head. The Parivar is an
proponent of Hindutva ideology first brought out by Veer Savarkar. It states that Hindu is not
just a religious identity but also an ethnic identity, and that India should be a nation which
favours the Hindus, who have been part of the country since the beginning and whose Holy
land has always been India, therefore making Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists all part of the
Hindu identity. It specifically targets Muslims and Christians as outsiders, whose Holy Land
is in the Middle East and Europe. It also calls for re-conversion of Muslims and Christians
whose ancestors were converted. The RSS’s second chief, MS Golwalkar, an ardent follower
of Savarkar in his book, A Bunch of Thoughts, claims that the three biggest threats that India
faces are Muslims, Christians and Communists. This portion has now been edited out of the
book. The RSS claims to be a social-work volunteer organisation, engaging in public work,
but also maintains a paramilitary wing. It has been a part of some of the worst communal
incidents the country has seen since Independence.

PAGE | 9
The Hindutva Movement remained on the fringes till Nehru was alive, as the Congress
functioned as an umbrella party carrying multiple factions with differing views who
compromised to reach a consensus for policy making. But after his death, the ideological
development of the party stagnated. (ANNAPURNA 2015)

Meanwhile the Hindu Nationalist movement kept gaining speed. The BJP was formed in
1980. After Indira Gandhi’s assassination, the sympathy for Congress party, gave it an
absolute majority with more than 400 seats in the Lok Sabha, while BJP got 2. After this the
BJP abandoned the agenda of “Gandhian socialism” and adopted a full Hindu nationalism
approach. The Shah Bano case was the first major incident which pushed BJP into the
forefront of Indian politics. The Rajiv Gandhi government’s appeasement of Muslims, gave
them a foundation to grow their social base on, and capitalise on the dormant prejudices of
the Hindus in the country. This coupled with the movement to build the Ram Temple at the
site of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, fuelled communal tensions, and saw BJP’s share in the
assembly increase manifold. However, the demolition of the Masjid, and subsequent riots
created an aversion to such extreme politics. Around the same time, the government carried
out liberalisation policies which would open up the Indian economy and create a middle class
which would go on to become BJP’s strongest base. The UPA’s corruption, economic
stagnation, anti-immigrant sentiment and Modi’s cult of personality brought BJP to power.

Over its eight-year reign, BJP has overseen the economic development of the nation, with
several infrastructure projects being approved, improving an overbearing bureaucracy,
improve India’s Ease of Business ranking and facilitate digitalisation of the country.

But on the other hand, the Indian society has become hyper-polarised with very little room
for dialogue. BJP’s majority eliminates any chance of compromise, and the support it has
from the masses and the media, makes it difficult to promulgate a (SAHOO 2015)ny criticism.
Marginalisation of the minorities has been happening across the country. Even in the
Parliament, the number of Muslim parliamentarians after 2019 general elections is the least
since 1952. BJP’s control over public discourse, and sheer dominance has made it difficult
for Opposition parties to even represent or engage with those issues as they are afraid of
shrinking their already small base. For example, before the 2019 elections, Congress leaders
visited temples, in an attempt to display their Hinduness. (SAHOO 2015)

Since returning to power in 2019, the party has pursued its Hindutva agenda aggressively. It
scrapped the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which gave special status to the state of

PAGE | 10
Jammu and Kashmir, the only Muslim majority state in the country. It called for a National
Register of Citizens (NRC), and passed the Citizenship Amendment Act which fast-tracks
citizenship process for immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, except
Muslims. It is feared among the community, the two combined could strip them off their
Citizenship. This led to widespread protests before the Pandemic, in which the protestors
were termed as “anti-national”, “terrorists” by various politicians and media houses, and
culminated in riots in North-East Delhi in upwards of 50 people died, most Muslim. The
State Governments where BJP holds power have started passing laws, which make inter-faith
marriages difficult. The reasoning given is to “save” Hindu girls who are been forcibly
converted to Islam after marriage. A phenomenon termed by the media and politicians as
“love jihad”, even though SITs in Karnataka, and Kerala found nothing related to the same in
2009. The Supreme Court’s judgement on the Ayodhya case, awarding the land to the
Hindus, and subsequent clearing off all those accused of demolishing the Masjid, gave
confidence to the majoritarian group and now there are increasing calls to demolish mosques
in Mathura, Kashi and other religious places.

However, what’s most dangerous is the normalization of violence and institutionalization of

hatred. (HAMEED 2020)

(SCHROEDER 2018)Hatred and discrimination is seeping into education as well, as books

are being rewritten, the previous governments are being negatively portrayed, all Islamic
Rulers have been painted as violent, zealots who destroyed the religion of the natives. The
lack of action against aggressors, with people participating in mob lynching being awarded
and celebrated. The suppression of dissent with the liberal use of Sedition Law on protestors.
Thinly-veiled disdain for democracy, secularism and liberalism as well has been shown by
Modi himself.

PAGE | 11
 TRUMP’S RISE AND THE SHIFT IN AMERICAN POLITICS

Donald Trump’s political allegiances changed numerous times before his successful run for
Presidency in 2016. He was a member of the Republican Party in 1987, switched to Reform
Party in 1999, for which he ran in the 2000 Presidential Election, switched to Democratic
Party in 2001, and then back to Republican Party in 2009.

Unlike Modi or Erdogan, Trump’s rise in the Republican Party was unconventional. Modi or
Erdogan in their initial runs used the usual means, and the sort of political rhetoric that was
not uncommon their country.

Trump on the other hand, spent way less than his opponents on advertisement, but managed
to garner way more attention. He was an outsider, even in the Republican party. He was not
the favoured candidate for the election, but his sheer presence on social media and
controversial political takes saw him shoot through the ranks of the party. The coverage he
received from media was more than anything his opponents did, and the popularity he
garnered forced the Party to acknowledge him.(SCHROEDER 2018) He ran on a blatantly
populist platform, calling for Americans to mobilize against “the establishment”, “Deep
State”. He placed the blame for America’s economic decline on immigrants, promised to
withdraw America from International Agreements to focus on themselves. He called the
offshoring of jobs as the reason for high unemployment, Islamic terrorism as the major threat,
and promised to “Build the Wall” to keep the Mexican immigrants out.

He claimed to reduce taxes for every economic class, simplify the code, remove the
Affordable Care Act, he denounced Climate change, promised to renegotiate trade deals with
China, Canada to favour America more. He repeatedly called NATO “obsolete” and stood for
a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy meanwhile increasing military spending at
the same time. He also advocated for banning immigrants from Muslim majority countries to
reduce threats of terrorism. His penchant for speaking controversial things got him media
attention, as his popularity forced media houses to cover him because he was a ratings boost.
His controversial takes brought fringe groups and ideas into the mainstream, and he was
widely supported by alt-right groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. His slogan was “Make
America Great Again.”

PAGE | 12
The phrase “Lets Make America Great Again”, was first used by Ronald Reagan. A man now
deified in the Republican Party. Reagan came to power in 1980, as the public had lost
confidence in the New Deal, Great Society welfare programs. Upon taking office, Reagan
argued that the United States faced a dire crisis, and that the best way to address this crisis
was through conservative reforms. His major policy priorities were increasing military
spending, cutting taxes, reducing non-military federal spending, and restricting federal
regulations. Reagan opposed environmentalism, aggressively opposed Communism, and
covertly created resistance against socialist regimes across the world. In terms of Domestic
policy, he called for a return to family values, and religious morality. He couldn’t influence
Civil Society as much as he wanted to, but managed to appoint four Supreme Court justices
nonetheless. He tried to outlaw abortion, called for a war on drugs, and opposed the gay
movement as well. His handling of the AIDS/HIV crisis was particularly criticised. However,
he won both his elections in landslides, winning 49 states for his re-election, changing the
course of the country for good. He managed to united fiscal conservative and social
conservatives in a way nobody had before, and tied the Republican Party to the Christian
morality for good.

Donald Trump’s platform advocated similar things, and it was this era which he promised to
take America back to. And the measures and policies that he implemented during his time as
President, reflected the same. He cut spending on welfare programs, like Medicare. Despite
his attempts he couldn’t repeal Affordable Care Act, though he did take steps to hinder its
functioning. He reversed environmental reforms, and withdrew America from Paris
Agreement, and he passed a controversial child separation policy for immigrants caught at the
US-Mexican border. He managed to appoint 3 conservative judges to the Supreme Court. In
terms of foreign policy, he acted arbitrarily, disregarding allies. He signed an arms trade deal
with Saudi Arabia, ordered the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, escalating
tensions in the Persian Gulf. His unscientific handling of the Coronavirus pandemic was
universally criticised. And the George Floyd protests, where he dealt with protestors with
hostility. He was impeached for pressuring the Ukrainian government to reveal information
about Joe Biden’s son.

However, the biggest event of his Presidency came at the end. It was estimated that a lot of
Democrat voters, would vote in advance through mail. After voting finished on November 3,
due to delay in voting in some swing states, news-outlets couldn’t announce the results in till
November 7. When it became clear that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were going to win the

PAGE | 13
election, Trump and his allies started to allege voter fraud, and called for the Department of
Justice to declare the election corrupt. The Attorney General didn’t find any evidence of
fraud as well. And soon Trump and his allies started filing cases in multiple states, and to go
for recounting. Even after recounting, the results didn’t change, but Trump still refused to
concede the election even after the Election Commission confirmed the result. He kept on
making false claims and egging on his supporters, asking them to “save their democracy”.
This led to a mob of his supporters marching into the US Capitol on January 6 th and attacking
it, after which he conceded via Twitter.

Subsequent to his defeat, swing states in which he lost, but were controlled by the Republican
Party, example, Georgia, started bringing out voter suppression laws, to influence the
outcome of the election.

PAGE | 14
 BOLSONARO’S BRAZIL AND THE DESTRUCTION OF AMAZON

Bolsonaro’s rise to the top of Brazil’s political landscape, mirrors that of Donald Trump’s.
Mainly an outsider, he joined Social Liberal Party (PSL) and shifted its platform to that of
social conservatism and nationalism. Like Trump he used social media to promote himself,
and his policies. He advocated for relaxation of gun laws in response to increase in crime. He
promised to harshly crack down on drug-trafficking in the country, and for the legalization of
the death penalty in the country. He strongly opposed abortion, and same-sex marriage, and
his casual misogyny and homophobia garnered him a lot of support in the white Christian
population. He also adamantly denied climate change and said that he would bring nuclear
power, to the Amazon rainforest. Throughout the campaign he threatened to exit the Paris
Agreement, but backed down after massive protests. He was stabbed during a election rally,
which got him more sympathy from the population. He won the election by 55 percent of
popular vote.

After coming into power, he accelerated these policies. His foreign policy was similar to that
of Trump’s as well. He denounced the existence of Palestine, and visited Israel soon after his
inauguration. He is seen as the most Pro-America President in three decades. He has
repeatedly praised Trump and his policies. He was the Chief Guest for the Republic Day
functions in India in 2020, where he reaffirmed the countries’ desire to become Permanent
Members of the UN Security Council.

Bolsonaro oversaw the elimination of the Climate Change Division of the Foreign Affairs
Ministry. The Division for Mitigating Climate Change and Stopping Deforestation, both part
of Ministry of Environment was also eliminated. During June 2019, the first year of his reign,
the destruction of the rainforest increased by around 88 percent, as per data collected by the
National Institute for State Research. Further data shows that deforestation is increasing
every year. Both Bolsonaro and his Environment Minister, Ricardo Salles have denounced
the reports as false and the Director of the Institute have been fired. (SPECKTOR 2019)

His disdain for scientific research reflected in the way the Coronavirus pandemic was
handled in the country. After a meeting with Trump, Bolsonaro adopted the same approach of
minimising the impact that the pandemic could have had. He attempted to dismiss the threat

PAGE | 15
of the pandemic. He claimed that the lockdown couldn’t be closed down as it would be
disastrous for the economy. When some Governors in provinces, imposed lockdowns, he
vocally opposed it, and participated in anti-lockdown rallies. He advocated for the use of
chloroquine even though it was untested, and called for herd immunity. He himself tested
positive in June. The pandemic ravaged the country, leaving more than six-hundred-fifty
thousand dead, second most after America, where Trump indulged in similar behaviour. In
2021 a Congressional Panel called for criminal charges to be brought against the President for
his actions during the pandemic, including crimes against humanity.

PAGE | 16
 REASONS FOR THE RISE IN RIGHT WING POPULISM

The cases that we have seen so far, contain many similarities. All four countries saw right
wing parties come into power, on a populist platform. All four countries are seeing increasing
levels of democratic backsliding, opposition to environmentalism, increasing hostility
towards minorities, and xenophobic anti-immigration discourse. Policies have been
implemented in the name of economic development, and societal progress. Nationalism,
militarism has also increased.

“David Harvey recently described as “universal alienation.” People all over the world have
been alienated from political processes, from their jobs, and the way the state apparatus is
working, all that oppressive bureaucracy. One can see this extremely high level of alienation
everywhere.” (THE RISE OF "AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM" IN THE 21ST CENTURY: FROM
ERDOGAN'S TURKEY TO TRUMP'S AMERICA 2017)

What is happening in the economy for the past 30 years, in simple terms neoliberalism, gives
us an answer in terms of what is causing this widespread alienation. Since the late 1970s, the
living standards of the working people did not improve, and in many places real wages
dropped. Various responses introduced by the governments, under the neoliberal restructuring
policies, made the situation much worse by opening the door to upward re-distribution of
wealth by various tax reductions and all aspects of financialization. The crushing effects of
neoliberal austerity, combined with the decades-long decline of manufacturing industry, have
created a new audience for the far right. Mainly disaffected, alienated working classes have
experienced increasingly harsh economic and social conditions. The impact of the 2008
financial crisis has been brutally asymmetrical with the poor and working classes paying the
overwhelming burden. Since 2008, almost all recovery has benefited the pockets of the top
1%.

In economic terms, in America, Brazil and Turkey, economic growth declined, after the Cold
War ended, Living standards stopped improving, the salaries, wages of workers didn’t
increase in the same proportion as the cost of living, this has created a dissatisfied class of
people who have experienced harsh social and economic conditions for some time as the
manufacturing industry has been declining for some time. and these people have become the

PAGE | 17
base for these right-wing populist movements. The same goes for the 2008 financial crisis of
which, the brunt was borne by these working-class people. Given such harsh conditions, the
urge to blame someone, or somebody else, usually “outsiders” has led to intolerant
xenophobic discourse has easily permeated into wide society. The right-wing parties have
managed to most successfully capture this anger and discontent. They have used this to
launch protest-politics by claiming to fight against the “establishment”, as this is more
effective. Meanwhile, the left, has been focused on aspects of policymaking. This was
majorly the platform of Bolsonaro, Trump and even Erdogan in the beginning. Modi’s first
campaign was successful due to numerous reasons, as there was a fatigue within the
population with the Congress party, and its corrupt governments. Modi felt like a way out, to
most of these parties. The platform was more economic development, as compared to the
second one, where it was very similar to Trump’s and Bolsonaro’s campaign.

Social Media is another reason why these parties have managed to ascend to power. Trump’s
use of social media, with his controversial comments on major issues got him much more
publicity than what traditional media could have gotten him. His presence was so huge, that it
forced news outlets to cover him. Even though he was not supported by almost any media
house except Fox, he still got more coverage than any other candidate. American media
houses are in a constant battle for audience ratings and covering him, gave them a ratings
boost, more than the other candidates could. He basically bypassed traditional media. If he
had just stayed to press-conferences he wouldn’t have gotten nearly as much attention as he
did. (SCHROEDER 2018)

Modi’s first campaign was limited in terms of use of media, as India was not highly
digitalised then, however compared to the rest of the parties and opposition members he had
much more social media presence. By 2019, due to several policies being implemented and
the launch of Jio by Reliance, India had seen high levels of digitalisation. Modi was one of
the most followed people across all social media platforms, and his reach was immense. It’s
also a fact, that Modi is more well-liked than all the other leaders that we have seen and Modi
doesn’t face any viable opposition at the national level even after 8 years into his reign. His
dominance has also to do with the fact that he is widely supported by almost all the major
media outlets in the nation, that propagate his party’s ideology for him, and can be easily
called biased.

PAGE | 18
 CONCLUSION

In this paper we have discussed the rise of right-wing populism across the world. We
observed countries like Turkey, USA, Brazil and India, in this study. All these countries are
very important in the world order. With America being the world’s most powerful leader and
the other three been among the most powerful in their regions and among the Emerging
Powers in the world. All of them have seen the growth of right-wing parties, and leaders
being appointed on populist discourse.

Turkey and India’s political journey seem to mirror each other, with their countries being
founded by secular leaders, who laid down the foundations upon which the countries social
and democratic fabric was built. Both saw the rise of populist leaders, who rallied the
majoritarian religion, and have consolidated their power. And with that, both countries have
seen increasing violence against minorities and their marginalisation. Increasing militarism,
civil liberties being curtailed under the name of national security, and dissent being curbed
sometimes by brute force and on other occasions by legal sanctions. Journalistic integrity of
both the countries has also declined, as the state’s control of media has increased. But both
countries have seen pushback against authoritarianism, as AKP lost Istanbul and Ankara in
2019 local elections, and the BJP lost Rajasthan and Maharashtra state elections as well.

On the other hand, America and Brazil have seen very controversial leaders come into power.
Both Trump and Bolsonaro were outsiders whose ascent to power as outsiders have been very
surprising. Their governments, have been pro-business and have scrapped much of the
environment administration of their countries. Amazon is being destroyed at unseen rates,
and Trump quit the Paris Agreement. Queer rights in both countries have declined and
violence against queer groups have faced increasing violence in both countries. Abortion
rights have also taken a hit as multiple pro-life legislation has been implemented since the
arrival of both the leaders. Both dealt with the pandemic in a very unscientific way, and their
countries recorded the most deaths in the world. However, both leaders faced major
opposition in their country, with Trump having been ousted from power, and Bolsonaro
getting major flak for his handling of the pandemic.

PAGE | 19
The rise of right-wing populism in these countries is reflected worldwide not just in their own
country. Boris Johnson came into power on a platform similar to Trump’s. Right-wing
populist parties have come into power in many European countries and have started enforcing
anti-immigration, anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ laws. Poland has passed laws making it near
impossible to get an abortion whereas in Viktor Orban’s Hungary, transgender people have
been stripped of most of their rights. Sweden Democrats, a right-wing populist party is
becoming increasingly powerful in the country, with its anti-immigration rhetoric and use of
alternative-media.

We have entered a new decade and the fate of these parties in their country will have major
implications on the world and their regions.

PAGE | 20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANNAPURNA, C.R. 2015. “THE THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF COMMUNALISM AND ITS

GROWTH IN INDIA.” INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE QUARTERLY AUTUMN 2015, VOL.

42, 25-36.

BOBBIO, NORBERTO, AND ALLAN CAMERON. 1997. “LEFT AND RIGHT : THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF A POLITICAL DISTINCTION.” UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS (UNIVERSITY OF

CHICAGO PRESS) 68.

HAMEED, USAMA. 2020. “FOOTPRINTS OF FASCISM IN INDIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL

MUSLIMS.” POLICY PERSPECTIVES 2020 VOL. 17, NO. 2 27-46.

OKTEM, KEREM. 2016. “AN ISLAMIST POWER GRAB DERAILS DEMOCRACY IN TURKEY.”
CURRENT HISTORY (THE MIDDLE EAST), DECEMBER: 331-336.

SAHOO, NIRANJAN. 2015. MOUNTING MAJORITARIANISM AND POLITICAL POLARIZATION IN

INDIA. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE.

SCHROEDER, RALPH. 2018. “DIGITAL MEDIA AND THE RISE OF RIGHT-WING POPULISM.” IN

SOCIAL THEORY AFTER THE INTERNET , BY RALPH SCHROEDER. UCL PRESS.

SPECKTOR, BRANDON. 2019. LIVESCIENCE. 7 AUGUST. LIVESCIENCE.COM.

2017. “THE RISE OF "AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM" IN THE 21ST CENTURY: FROM ERDOGAN'S
TURKEY TO TRUMP'S AMERICA.” JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FAULTLINES 3-6.

PAGE | 21