As the 2024 European Parliament elections unfolded against a backdrop of geopolitical strife, immigration surges, and mounting climate anxiety, researchers turned their attention to the digital battlefield shaping political discourse. A pioneering study conducted by a consortium of European scholars, including media sociologist Professor Melanie Magin of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, offers new insights into how populist parties weaponize social media, particularly Facebook, to sway voters. Through a rigorous content analysis of nearly 9,000 Facebook posts across 13 countries, the research uncovers deliberate strategies that exploit societal divisions and erode democratic norms.
Populist parties, known for their anti-establishment rhetoric and simplistic messaging, stand out in this digital ecosystem by emphasizing contentious and polarizing topics. The study distinctly shows that these parties do not randomly engage with controversial issues; rather, they strategically foreground wedge issues that maximize emotional response and fissures within the electorate. Wedge issues—such as immigration, national identity, and climate policy—serve as critical vectors for messaging designed to stir conflict and distrust. By harnessing these topics, populists push public debate away from pragmatic policy solutions toward existential questions about societal values and governance.
Central to the populist playbook identified by the research is the use of anti-liberal language that frames political contests not as debates among equals, but as a binary struggle of “us versus them.” This antagonistic narrative framework is more than mere rhetoric; it structurally simplifies complex policy matters into stark value clashes, mobilizing followers around perceived in-group loyalty and demonizing outsiders or political elites. The “Them Against Us” paradigm resonates deeply on digital platforms, where rapid message dissemination and algorithmic amplification fuel echo chambers and ideological silos.
In dissecting the social media content, the researchers found that apart from frequency, populist parties’ framing of wedge issues typically strips away nuance, portraying adversaries as threats not only to specific policies but to the very fabric of liberal democracy itself. This process of “weaponizing” divisive subjects turns electoral communication into a battleground that challenges foundational democratic principles, such as tolerance, inclusivity, and institutional legitimacy. Consequently, the digital discourse around these issues often escalates beyond political disagreement to delegitimization of opposing voices and institutions.
The methodological rigor of the study lies in its comprehensive content analysis approach, involving the coding of thematic elements, linguistic styles, and tonal registers across thousands of Facebook posts. This quantitative text analysis allows the researchers to systematically observe patterns of communication, deciphering not only what topics are broached but how they are framed to achieve maximal psychological and social impact. This empirical foundation strengthens the claims about populist strategies transcending national contexts to present a cohesive digital communication style.
Moreover, the timing of the study during the 2024 elections adds critical contextual dimensions. War in Ukraine intensified geopolitical anxieties, which populist actors adeptly exploited by linking broader international conflicts with immigration debates and national sovereignty concerns. At the same time, the persistent prominence of climate change as a contentious issue provided fertile ground for messages that cast environmental policies as threats to economic security or identity, thereby deepening societal fault lines. This interplay of crises underscores how populist parties adapt their messaging to multifaceted and evolving political landscapes.
The digital platforms themselves play a pivotal role in shaping the visibility and traction of such messages. Algorithms prioritize engagement, often amplifying content that provokes outrage or controversy, phenomena that populist parties strategically capitalize on. Simultaneously, the format constraints of social media—favoring brevity and emotional appeals—favor the oversimplification and polarization inherent in the populist communication style. This dynamic creates an ecosystem where nuanced discussions on complex topics are marginalized, and divisive narratives dominate.
Professor Magin and her colleagues underscore the broader implications of these findings for democratic societies. By steering the public conversation away from evidence-based problem-solving toward identity-driven conflicts and institutional skepticism, populist digital communication erodes the deliberative capacities essential for healthy political processes. This “illiberal” style not only polarizes electorate groups but also threatens the resilience of liberal democratic governance, as it encourages the rejection of core democratic norms and openness.
Another striking insight from the research is the metaphorical use of migration policy as a “Trojan horse,” wherein seemingly policy-oriented discussions mask deeper assaults on the liberal democratic order. By framing immigrants and minorities as existential threats, populist actors compel societies to question the inclusiveness and openness that underpin democratic pluralism. Such strategic narrative conflation reveals the sophisticated and deliberate nature of digital populist messaging, calibrated to provoke anxiety and defensiveness.
The research thus provides a cautionary lens through which to view the digital transformations of electoral politics. The findings highlight the urgent need for democratic societies to better understand and counteract the mechanisms by which social media facilitates the spread of illiberal populist discourse. This may include fostering media literacy, enhancing algorithmic transparency, and developing platform policies that mitigate the amplification of divisive and misleading content.
In sum, the study “Weaponizing Wedge Issues: Strategies of Populism and Illiberalism in European Election Campaigning on Facebook” delivers comprehensive evidence that populist parties across Europe systematically amplify controversial issues using antagonistic and anti-liberal rhetoric to influence voter perceptions and behavior. These digital strategies, embedded in the structural logic of social media, play a profound role in shaping electoral dynamics and challenge the future integrity of democratic debate. As populism continues to evolve alongside technology, understanding its digital manifestations becomes a critical frontier of political communication scholarship.
As electoral campaigns increasingly unfold in the online sphere, the importance of scrutinizing how political actors manipulate digital platforms cannot be overstated. The nuanced content analysis conducted by Magin et al. serves as a vital resource for academics, policymakers, and the public, illuminating the urgent challenges facing democracies striving to maintain open, inclusive, and constructive political discourse in the digital age.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Weaponizing Wedge Issues: Strategies of Populism and Illiberalism in European Election Campaigning on Facebook
News Publication Date: 26-Aug-2025
Web References:
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/10718
http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.10718
References:
Haßler, J., Magin, M., Russmann, U., Wurst, A., Balaban, D., Baranowski, P., Jensen, J., Kruschinski, S., Lappas, G., Machado, S., Novotná, M., Marcos-García, S., Petridis, I., Rožukalne, A., Sebestyén, A., & von Nostitz, F. (2025). Weaponizing Wedge Issues: Strategies of Populism and Illiberalism in European Election Campaigning on Facebook. Media and Communication, 13, Article 10718.
Keywords:
Populism, social media, Facebook, wedge issues, political communication, European Parliament elections, digital campaigning, anti-liberal rhetoric, political polarization, democratic erosion, migration policy, content analysis
