Populism’s Resurgence in International Relations: From Brexit Echoes to 2025 Elections Rationale.

In the last decade, one in three European voters chose “populist” parties. This is a big change, not seen like this in the 1930s. It’s changing how we talk about treaties, trade, and sanctions.

The rise of populism grew after the 2008 financial crisis. Brexit showed that exit threats can lead to power. In April 2024, Emmanuel Macron said the European Union is “mortal.” This shows how fragile our politics are, affected by COVID-19, energy issues, and Russia’s war.

The 2024 European Parliament elections showed how big these issues are. The Rassemblement National won in France, showing how local elections can affect global politics.

This study connects domestic politics to international relations. Big EU issues like digital, energy, and climate changes are now seen through a polarized lens. It looks at how the European Parliament’s choices affect institutions and governments.

It also looks at lessons from Hungary and Poland. These countries show how populism can affect media, civil society, and checks and balances. Voter data from France and the 2023 Standard Eurobarometer show a split between national and personal concerns. This split helps explain populism’s rise and its global impact.

Key Takeaways

• Brexit’s success normalized exit rhetoric, amplifying the rise of populism across Europe and beyond.
• Macron’s “mortal” warning highlights how crises now shape international diplomacy and EU policy choices.
• EP contests function as second-order elections that feed back into national strategies and leadership legitimacy.
• The Green Deal’s digital, energy, and climate pillars are filtered through polarized domestic narratives.
• Cases in Hungary and Poland show how populist governance affects courts, media, and civil society.
• Survey data reveal a gap between national concerns and personal priorities, reshaping the political landscape.
• Populism’s Resurgence in International Relations will influence 2025 election dynamics and global politics alignment.

Case Study Overview: Why 2025 Elections Matter for Global Politics

The 2025 elections come after a decade of big changes in Europe and worldwide. People will vote based on things like prices, borders, and trust in government. Their choices will affect global politics, trade, sanctions, and defense.

At the EU level, the Lisbon Treaty gave more power to the European Parliament. This makes national parties focus more on Brussels debates. In France, European elections often feel like national votes, attracting media and investors.

There are many important issues to tackle, like competitiveness and climate change. But, many voters care more about everyday costs than long-term plans. This can influence international diplomacy, as news cycles are fast.

Research tools help us understand these issues. The 2023–2024 French panel by Ipsos and others shows what people care about. Eurobarometer trends also help us see how people prioritize their worries.

Studies show how social media and job insecurity have opened up space for new political movements. In Hungary and Poland, long-term rule has tested the limits of democracy. These experiences shape debates on joining the EU and foreign policy.

As parties prepare for 2025, they must balance talking about sovereignty with keeping good relations with other countries. Voters will hear about strategic autonomy, NATO, and energy choices. The decisions made will shape international diplomacy and the global order.

Focus of this section: explore how voter groups, media, and power in institutions affect global actions, without predicting results.

From Brexit Echoes to Today: Tracing the Rise of Populist Movements across Europe

The vote to leave the European Union had a big impact beyond the UK. It changed the political scene in cities from Paris to Warsaw. Campaigns learned to use the idea of sovereignty to connect with people’s concerns.

The rise of populism wasn’t new, but Brexit made it more popular. It made talking about leaving the EU sound like a good idea to more people.

Brexit’s signaling effect on Euroskepticism and party realignments

Brexit showed that talking about leaving and negotiating hard could win votes. Leaders from the Conservative Party to the AfD used it to show that Brussels could be challenged. European elections became places for people to protest, leading to new political alliances.

As the message spread, politicians talked more about borders, money control, and treaty power. In Italy, the Five Star Movement mixed anti-elite messages with criticism of institutions. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally used sovereignty to attract working-class and young voters who didn’t like distant rule.

Post-2008 crisis dynamics and the normalization of populist discourse

The financial crash made people distrust traditional parties and experts. Austerity and uneven recovery caused anger that social media amplified. CAP data showed right-wing populist votes peaked at 12.3 percent in 2016, with about one-fifth of Europe’s voters supporting populism by the late 2010s.

In southern Europe, left-wing movements also grew. Syriza got 45.1 percent in Greece during debt troubles, mixing welfare promises with anti-elite messages. Across Europe, populism blurred old left-right lines, framing migration, trade shocks, and regional issues as sovereignty matters. Digital networks sped up campaigns and spread grievance messages.

Shifts in voter coalitions and the decline of mainstream center-left and center-right

Traditional parties lost support as voters became less loyal. The Dutch Labour Party, France’s Socialists, Germany’s SPD, Czech Social Democrats, and Italy’s Democratic Party all saw their support drop. In Germany, Infratest dimap data show mainstream parties moving left from 1998 to 2015, opening space for the AfD to attract disaffected conservatives.

These changes changed who politicians compete for. Working-class areas and small businesses turned to nationalist platforms promising order and protection. Protest votes in European elections fed into national strategies, changing coalition math in parliaments. This created a new political landscape where Euroskepticism, identity, and economic worries meet.

Populism’s Resurgence in International Relations

Global politics are changing. People are upset about prices, borders, and trust in institutions. This anger is now affecting how countries make foreign policy decisions.

Political parties are using these concerns to take stronger stands in international talks. They often choose simple, direct gains over complex deals. This makes working together harder, but it shows voters their opinions count worldwide.

Linking domestic grievance politics to foreign policy and international diplomacy

Economic worries and fears about identity are driving demands for quick solutions abroad. Leaders are setting clear limits on trade, migration, and sanctions to win votes at home. This approach makes international talks tougher and narrows the options for agreement.

In the European Union, there’s growing doubt about shared rules. Studies by Andrew Moravcsik, Christian Jachtenfuchs, and Wayne Sandholtz highlight the importance of trust in supranational bargaining. As trust falls, countries are more likely to veto decisions and make public displays.

How right-wing populism reframes national sovereignty in multilateral arenas

Right-wing populism sees sovereignty as control over borders, courts, and standards. It opposes aligning rules and questions the role of courts in trade and security. This stance can slow down EU cooperation and change alliances in global forums.

France’s push for a stronger EU meets challenges, as noted by Tony Smith and Jürgen Habermas. Vivien Schmidt and Konstantin Bora with Friederike Schramm point out the obstacles. These issues create mixed signals that affect foreign policy and media narratives globally.

Transatlantic implications: EU–U.S. relations, NATO, and rules-based order

Cooperation between the EU and the U.S. on sanctions and defense relies on public support. When parties take harder stances at home, it becomes harder for Washington and Brussels to agree on technology, energy, and supply chains. The debate now includes not just capability but also consent.

NATO’s planning must balance readiness with skepticism about international law and migration deals. The Center for American Progress warns that authoritarian trends can weaken checks and balances and civil society. This erosion makes it harder to present a united front to allies and rivals.

The European Parliament as a Battleground: Supranational Governance under Strain

The European Parliament is now at the center of debates on shared rulemaking. Voters are deciding whether to trust the EU or prefer national control. The rise of populism has made parties take a firmer stance on issues like borders and budgets.

EP elections as legitimacy tests for the EU’s governance model

Every election is a test of whether people support the European Parliament. These votes check if the EU truly represents the public. The results are closely watched, with France’s media framing them as judgments on leaders.

Who votes affects policy decisions in areas like trade and security. These choices send signals to the world about EU unity or division.

The Lisbon Treaty’s empowerment of the EP and partisan shifts

The Lisbon Treaty gave the European Parliament more power. This change made elections more important. Now, the balance of power in the Parliament can speed up or slow down reforms.

Populism has led to more fragmented parties. This makes forming coalitions harder. It also affects how quickly laws are passed and how positions are set in a rapidly changing environment.

Institutional balance: Parliament, Commission, and Council dynamics

The balance of power in Brussels depends on the Parliament’s ability to work with the Commission and Council. When the Parliament is united, it can guide policy and push for stronger enforcement. But when it’s divided, national leaders gain more influence.

How member-states work together affects the Commission’s guidance. French MEPs often lead on security and industry issues. But, the rise of hard-line groups can lead to vetoes and rule-of-law disputes, straining EU governance and affecting international relations.

France as a Lens: Nationalization of European Elections and the RN Surge

Voters saw the France European elections as a way to judge the government. They treated Brussels like Paris, making the results a big deal at home. The Rassemblement National grew stronger as populism showed up in the votes.

Counterfactual “national election” framing and second-order voting behavior

Candidates focused on what voters wanted to say, not EU leadership. Many voted against the EU, not for it. Media made it seem like a vote on big issues like inflation and security.

RN’s strategy: criticizing Europe from within while Europeanizing party operations

The Rassemblement National criticizes Europe but works hard in Brussels. They aim for committee seats and build alliances. This helps them talk about important issues like sovereignty and trade.

Domestic policy aftershocks following EP outcomes

After the election, ministers changed their plans on big issues. The Elysée wanted to show they could reform. Parties started to think about 2025, seeing the populism and RN’s growth as signs of what to do next.

Drivers of Support: Economics, Identity, and the Social Media Ecosystem

Populism is fueled by economic struggles and cultural feelings. When jobs disappear or prices rise, people consider both. This mix makes populism spread quickly in politics, linking jobs, borders, and pride.

Studies by Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris highlight age, education, and religion’s roles. Older folks and many in ethnic majorities feel left out or threatened. This leads to a strong pull towards simple, strict messages.

Bank failures and austerity lead to more support for the far right, research shows. Five years later, parties promising order gain more votes. The impact varies but shows up when trust drops and institutions seem slow.

On social media, complaints spread fast. Platforms let messages target specific groups, turning worries into actions. This creates echo chambers that focus on identity, making populism’s drivers stronger and nuance harder to find.

In Germany and Italy, different mixes of economics and identity shape parties. Each case is influenced by history, media, and leaders’ framing of blame. These stories influence national and global politics through second-order elections.

Taken together, economics and identity interact with social media to sustain the rise of populism, with ripple effects that reach deep into global politics.

Voter Profiles and Class Dynamics: Petty Bourgeoisie, Workers, and Gender Gaps

The current political scene shows clear voter profiles shaping elections. These profiles are linked to class, job type, and education. They influence right-wing populism and its opponents across Europe and in the U.S.

Comparative research points to the petty bourgeoisie as a visible anchor of mobilization, yet not a majority bloc. Small business owners, tradespeople, freelancers, and farmers have high turnout. They attend events like Reform UK rallies and local business forums. Their views on taxes, regulations, and credit access shape party appeals.

Overrepresentation of the petty bourgeoisie and small business owners

In many campaigns, small business issues like permits and energy costs are key. The petty bourgeoisie often drives right-wing populism’s narrative. But, they are not the majority, so parties must build coalitions to win.

Male skew, lower educational attainment, and income patterns

Gender gaps are common in right-wing populism, with men leading in support. Lower education is linked to higher support, where job insecurity is felt. Parties like Austria’s FPÖ or Germany’s AfD do well in low-income areas, showing how risk and identity stress combine.

Blue-collar support and protest voting versus ideological commitment

Blue-collar workers are key in close races. Many vote as a protest, not out of strict ideology. This leads to shifts like UKIP to Reform UK. In France, the Rassemblement National wins manual workers, but it’s the party’s program and leadership that define its class character.

Methodology for This Case Study: Surveys, Eurobarometers, and Longitudinal Panels

This case study uses surveys and Eurobarometers to understand the political landscape. It combines a long-term survey with Eurobarometer data and document reviews. This method tracks changes over time while keeping measures consistent.

Scope and timing matter. We focus on waves, question wording, and sampling frames. Cross-checks ensure trends are based on official statistics and research on Europeanization and second-order elections.

Five-wave 2023–2024 French panel (Ipsos Sopra Steria/Cevipof/Le Monde)

The survey follows over 10,000 people in five waves: June 2023, November 2023, March 2024, April 2024, and June 2024. Ipsos Sopra Steria, Cevipof, and Le Monde conduct the fieldwork. This lets us see how attitudes change as campaign cues evolve.

We compare waves to see how attitudes shift between national and EU issues, vote intentions, and perceived stakes. We keep track of who stays in the survey to avoid bias and ensure we can analyze different groups by age, education, and region.

Eurobarometer insights on “country” versus “personal” priorities

The Eurobarometer Standard 100 (Autumn 2023) and the France report give us insights on trust, integration, and priorities. We look at how people prioritize migration versus cost-of-living concerns by coding items differently.

We compare items like prices, household finances, health, and education to see how individual and collective worries differ. This helps us understand the political landscape better.

Qualitative synthesis of election statistics and party strategies

We analyze election results from EU and French contests, along with party documents and media coverage. Our research on supranational governance and cleavage evolution helps us understand party strategies, including the Europeanization of the Rassemblement National.

By combining surveys and results, we clarify the story without overemphasizing cause and effect. This approach gives us a deeper understanding of the political landscape.

• Harmonize items across sources to secure consistent baselines.
• Weight survey data and test robustness against attrition.
• Code party appeals with transparent categories tied to literature.

The EU at an Inflection Point: Digital, Energy, and Climate Transitions

Emmanuel Macron’s warning marked a critical moment for the EU. The union is navigating digital, energy, and climate transitions under the EU Green Deal. These changes challenge policy speed, fiscal tools, and public trust.

Voters often prioritize inflation, jobs, and housing over long-term plans. This gap influences how leaders discuss costs, timing, and benefits. Clear goals and fair sharing are key when politics get intense and campaigns focus quickly.

Industrial policy now leads the agenda. Reports by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi highlight competitiveness. Supply chains for chips, batteries, and heat pumps link Europe’s goals to global politics and decisions in Washington and Beijing.

Regulatory design is a major challenge. Companies want predictable rules and fast permits. Households need help with higher bills and training. Without these, opposition can grow, slowing projects vital for security and growth.

Parliamentary cycles shape bandwidth. After each European Parliament vote, coalitions form and timelines change. This timing affects funding for power grids, data centers, and clean transport corridors.

A resilient path combines clear goals with social support. Programs like lifelong learning, heat-pump grants, and energy efficiency retrofits help manage the transition. This approach keeps public trust and momentum.

The EU’s choices have far-reaching effects. The EU Green Deal competes for investment with tax credits elsewhere. Its success will shape alliances, market standards, and global politics in the next decade.

“We must choose the pace that matches our means, without losing sight of our ends.”

Europeanization versus Eurocentrism: How EU Agendas Refract into National Politics

EU rules and debates influence national politics. They change how parties talk and voters decide. This Europeanization meets Eurocentrism, where leaders see Brussels as a stage for ambition and identity.

Party competition and political cleavages shift. They are now shaped by trade, migration, security, and international diplomacy.

Policy Europeanization reshaping party competition and cleavages

EU directives on energy, digital rules, and farm support change national platforms. Campaigns highlight sovereignty, standards, and budgets. This reshapes party competition and widens cleavages between pro-integration and hard skeptics.

Movements adjust their messages for Strasbourg and home districts. Some focus on market access and security ties. Others stress borders and local control. This creates a lasting split, alongside the left–right map, influenced by international diplomacy.

France’s Eurocentric leadership ambitions and inter-institutional constraints

Paris sees Europe as a force multiplier for defense, industry, and tech. This Eurocentrism aims for a strong EU to balance Washington and Beijing, while keeping NATO ties. But, coalition-building with Berlin, the European Commission, and the Council limits speed and scope.

French governments push for strategic autonomy and a bigger euro role. But, negotiation rules and veto points slow progress. This feeds debate at home, where parties argue over competence and Europeanization priorities.

Spillover effects from EU campaigns into domestic legitimacy debates

European Parliament races set agendas that echo back into national news cycles. Narratives crafted for cross-border lists later define local rallies and TV debates. This spillover sharpens scrutiny of mandates, turnout, and who speaks for whom.

In France, the Rassemblement National works inside committees while blasting the system outside. This shows how Europeanization operates alongside critique. As parties trade claims about costs and benefits, legitimacy becomes a campaign resource. International diplomacy frames amplify the stakes for voters and elites alike.

Country Case Notes: Hungary and Poland as Templates of Populist Governance

In Central Europe, Hungary Fidesz and Poland PiS lead the way for right-wing populism. Both countries, under Viktor Orbán and Jarosław Kaczyński, aim to reshape state power. They claim to follow the rule of law, but their methods are different.

Institutional capture and “illiberal democracy” trajectories

Hungary Fidesz gained a two-thirds majority in 2010. This allowed them to change laws quickly and fill key positions with loyalists. Orbán’s 2014 speech outlined his vision for illiberal democracy, seen as a way to renew the nation.

Poland PiS followed later but achieved similar goals. They reshaped oversight bodies and public broadcasters to gain control. Their aim was to secure electoral advantages through institutions, not just words.

Judicial independence, media environments, and civil society pressures

In Hungary, courts and regulators faced changes in personnel. Licensing and procurement favored insiders. The closure of Népszabadság and pressure on the Central European University showed a tough media and academic environment. NGOs labeled as “foreign funded” faced audits and stigma, affecting advocacy.

In Poland, PiS pushed for changes at the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary. Public TV became a government mouthpiece, limiting debate. Civil society groups responded with legal defense networks and partnerships to keep their work alive.

Implications for EU rule-of-law mechanisms and enlargement politics

Brussels took action with Article 7 procedures, budget conditionality, and infringement actions. But, the rule of law toolkit faced political hurdles. This led to slow action, with funds and timelines used as bargaining chips.

For countries seeking to join the EU, these examples set a high bar. If illiberal democracy can thrive within the Union, future members face a tougher path. Hungary Fidesz and Poland PiS show how right-wing populism challenges European oversight.

Issue Salience and Public Priorities: Migration, Cost of Living, and Security

Recent Eurobarometers show people care more about daily life than big debates. They often list the cost of living, health, and jobs as their top concerns. Yet, national talks can make migration a big deal, even when it’s not a daily worry.

In the UK, 2024 polls found immigration a big worry for the country, but families worry more about prices, jobs, and safety. France shows a similar trend. Areas with more immigrants tend to have more positive views, and far-right gains don’t always match immigrant numbers.

Hungary is a striking example. Despite few refugees, there’s strong anti-refugee sentiment. Political parties can make migration a big issue, even when people are more concerned about their daily expenses and security. This creates a big gap between what politicians talk about and what people really care about.

Candidates try to bridge this gap by talking about both border security and everyday costs. In global politics, leaders promise to protect communities and lower prices. But voters often judge them based on their impact on jobs, pensions, and services.

The balance between what’s in the headlines and what people live with every day shapes how people vote and who they support.

• National agenda: migration politics, border security, sovereignty frames.
• Personal agenda: cost of living, health care access, employment stability.
• Observed gap: high issue salience at the country level, steady pocketbook focus at home.

Second-Order Elections, Electoral Spillovers, and Coalition Realignments

European Parliament contests are like stress tests for parties. Karlheinz Reif and Hermann Schmitt found that these elections judge national leaders. The results quickly shape how parties show they are competent, united, and credible.

Changes in Brussels affect national politics. Research by Robert Rohrschneider shows how electoral spillover impacts fundraising and media. Populism makes these effects bigger, influencing activists, donors, and coalition brokers.

When EP results reshape national credibility and strategy

Good results can change who leads and who runs for office. In France, the Rassemblement National’s win led rivals to adjust their stances on migration and cost of living. In Germany, Italy, and Spain, parties also changed their agendas, preparing for coalition talks.

Campaign teams quickly analyze these results. They then adjust messages on sovereignty, green industry, and fiscal rules. This creates a fast cycle where EP elections are early tests of parties’ strength.

Cleavage evolution: globalists/pro-Europeans vs. populists/euroskeptics

Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan identified classic cleavages. Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks showed how these have evolved. Today, we see a new divide between globalists and pro-Europeans versus populists and euroskeptics.

This new split makes forming coalitions harder in capitals like Paris and Warsaw. Parties now mix pro-market and green policies to appeal to different groups. They need to be clear but also flexible on Europe’s rules and national policies.

Learning effects for parties ahead of 2025 national ballots

The 2024 EP elections help parties refine their strategies. They test different messages on borders, energy, and industry. They also adjust their tone to avoid backlash.

Electoral spillover makes EU and national politics more connected. Parties update their stories, knowing second-order elections will keep changing the political landscape until election day.

Foreign Policy Repercussions: Trade, Sanctions, and Strategic Autonomy

Europe faces big choices at a crossroads. Prices, jobs, and borders are key for voters. Leaders must balance these with diplomacy and NATO’s role. The rise of right-wing populism adds urgency to these debates.

EU competitiveness, Letta/Draghi economic visions, and industrial policy

Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi focus on the EU’s market and economy. They want to speed up permits and improve energy costs. Their plans aim to boost the EU’s competitiveness in a green economy.

Industrial policy is now about keeping up with global competition. Brussels is considering state aid while keeping competition fair. This approach aims to maintain strategic autonomy without isolating Europe.

Trade policies are linked to foreign policy. Tools like anti-subsidy probes and carbon border adjustments aim for supply chain resilience. They also ensure clean tech is priced right.

Russia, China, and U.S. relations amid populist pressures

Sanctions on Russia are a test of endurance. Energy shifts and budget stress are factors. Domestic opinions are hardening after Ukraine attacks, limiting diplomacy options.

Dealing with China involves screening for risks and dual-use tech. European businesses want clear rules, not a break. Working with the U.S. is key, but defense spending and standards are debated.

Transatlantic unity is critical for shared goals. This unity affects NATO’s credibility and household budgets. It’s about coordinating aid, munitions, and industry growth.

Migration diplomacy and border governance as electoral catalysts

Migration is a key issue in politics. Deals with Morocco, Tunisia, and the Western Balkans are being pushed. These agreements aim to manage migration, not block it.

Member states are testing how to share the burden. Funding for Frontex and coastal partners is a point of contention. Campaigns link these issues to jobs and security.

International diplomacy is key in this area. It connects interior ministries, development banks, and UN agencies. The outcome impacts the EU’s competitiveness and labor market.

Media Architectures and Mobilization: From Echo Chambers to Street Agitation

Social media platforms like Facebook, X, YouTube, and TikTok spread sharp slogans and short videos fast. Algorithms favor sensational content, making fringe ideas seem normal. This creates echo chambers where people’s views harden and unite.

Political parties and influencers use targeted ads and live streams to quickly rally people. When leaders adopt right-wing populism, what was once seen as extreme becomes common. News outlets focus on getting clicks, leading to headlines that stir outrage more than provide insight.

Protests often erupt online and spill onto the streets. These protests can turn violent, targeting migrants, journalists, or local officials. This kind of anger can be dangerous, as history has shown.

Media control by governments in places like Budapest and Warsaw limits debate. Laws and funding issues affect NGOs, reducing diverse voices. This affects international relations as information wars spread across borders.

Key dynamics worth tracking include who sets the agenda, how fact-checks appear, and if platforms stop fake behavior without silencing real dissent. The balance between free speech, safety, and transparency shapes what politics looks like.

• Amplification: recommendation engines intensify echo chambers and reward certainty.
• Targeting: data-driven mobilization reaches niche communities at low cost.
• Spillover: online calls convert into marches, boycotts, and flash protests.
• Governance: media ownership patterns and NGO constraints steer public forums.
• Geopolitics: campaigns bleed into international diplomacy through cross-border messaging.

Editors at places like the BBC, Le Monde, and The Wall Street Journal face challenges in speed, verification, and safety. Platform policies from Meta, Google, and X influence content moderation and ad transparency. As right-wing populism evolves, journalists and watchdogs must find new ways to report without causing harm.

Policy Responses and Democratic Resilience: What Works against Populist Drift

The rise of populism has shown us the weaknesses in global politics. To overcome this, we need specific policies that improve people’s lives and keep institutions honest. The goal is to build a strong democracy based on trust and reliable actions.

Addressing economic insecurity without conceding to nativism

Invest in areas hit by economic shocks. Raise minimum wages based on productivity, increase the Child Tax Credit, and make homes more energy-efficient. This will lower utility bills.

Link job training to new technologies and environmental changes. Get help from the European Investment Bank and the U.S. Department of Labor. Support small businesses and local suppliers, ensuring fair access to government contracts.

Keep immigration policies fair and humane. Avoid the idea that one group must lose for another to win. Enforce labor laws to prevent low wages. These steps help reduce anger and stop populism without hurting anyone’s rights.

Revitalizing democratic legitimacy in supranational institutions

Make it clear who does what in the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the European Council. Use open agendas, summaries, and easy-to-understand notes. Let citizens review big decisions before they happen.

Strengthen laws that protect courts, media, and civil society. This makes democracy stronger and allows for effective global action.

Strategic communications to reconnect mainstream politics with voters

Close the gap between politics and people with clear, verifiable promises. Explain how reforms will help with prices, jobs, health, and safety this year. Use message maps to link goals to benefits and timelines.

Use evidence hubs, platform transparency, and fact-checking to fight lies. Hold listening sessions in places like union halls and schools. Clear communication helps build a strong democracy and fights populism.

Conclusion

Populism’s rise in international relations is now a major trend. It’s changing Europe’s political scene and beyond. Economic troubles, identity issues, and social media are drawing voters to populist leaders.

This shift is affecting how countries deal with each other. It’s changing policies on trade, sanctions, and even how they handle migration. It’s also altering relationships with NATO and the United States.

Looking at Hungary and Poland, we see how strong leaders can weaken checks and balances. This has sparked debates about the EU’s rule of law and who can join. Eurobarometer surveys show a divide between people’s concerns and what politicians focus on.

To bridge this gap, politicians need to set clear goals and show they can achieve them. They’re adjusting their strategies for the 2025 elections to better connect with voters.

The EU faces a big test. It must align its digital, energy, and climate plans with what people care about. This means making sure these plans are affordable and secure. Leaders must communicate these plans clearly and honestly.

This way, the EU can regain trust, keep markets open, and maintain steady foreign policy. By focusing on real results, the EU can handle populism without losing its diversity or the rule of law.

The future looks challenging but possible. The EU can improve people’s lives without giving in to nationalism. It can also make sure decisions are fair and based on facts.

By doing this, the EU can stay competitive, win back support for shared governance, and turn populism into a normal part of democracy. This will strengthen institutions and change how we discuss politics.