Populist and Nativist Discourses of Political Parties in 2016 and 2020 Parliamentary Elections of Georgia

Abstract

Populist, nationalist and nativist rhetoric have an important role in Georgian politics, but despite their growing influence, there is a lack of scientific study of such narratives and discourses. Since 2013, Georgia has adopted a parliamentary system, which makes the elections of the country's highest legislative body the most important event in political life, this event has increased the role of political parties. Transfer of power after 2012, increased media diversity, which allowed more actors to enter the political arena and present their views to the public. The development of social media also contributed to the growth of populism. The changes implemented in Georgia and the growing populist wave around the world make this issue more significant. The strengthening of populist and nativist actors and the spread of their discourses had its impact on Georgian national-populism.

The article aims to identify the nativist, nationalist and populist discourses used by political parties in the parliamentary elections of 2016 and 2020. At the same time, to reveal essential differences between these discourses and messages.

In the article populism is understood as a discursive style. It is available to all political actors and it acquires multiple meanings depending on the social context. Benjamin De Cleen’s theory surrounding  relationship between populism and nationalism is explored, according to which populism is used as an instrument by nationalists. The article applies Teun van Dijk's sociocognitive approach to discourse analysis in order to analyze the programs of political parties and the political speeches of their leaders.

According to the findings, most frequently used narratives/discourses are "We are being deprived of Georgianhood", "the land of the Virgin Mary", "the country of the hundred thousand martyrs". When evaluating the ideological significance of parties' views, we find the following elements of discourse: negative description of actors, implications and presuppositions, propositions and also metaphors. They are usually used to disguise xenophobic attitudes.

Nativists focus on anti-immigrant messages and banning of sale of agricultural land to foreigners (such as, Free Georgia, Georgian March, Patriot Alliance), in order to avoid being labeled as xenophobic, try to portray their positions as anti-liberal. At the same time, anti-immigrant messages are also used by parties that are not characterized by nativist attitudes (e.g Labor Party). National-populists heavily employ anti-Western and homophobic narratives (e.g the Georgian idea). All of the above mentioned political parties use populist narratives, suggesting that global liberal ("Soros" and Masonic) forces are set to control Georgian government and subdue Georgian national (patriotic) forces. All nativist and national-populist parties practically don’t criticize Russia and focus on “malignant” influence of the west (for example NATO, USA). In many cases, it is difficult to separate the narratives of nativists and national-populists.

In conclusion, parties with a nationalist or nativist ideology use populism as an instrument. They appeal on behalf of the ordinary and oppressed people to legitimate their exclusionary nationalist positions. In my opinion, nativism (or nationalism) is the cornerstone of their ideology, and populism is a form of its representation.