Science and Populism - The Case of “Objectocracy”

Giuseppe Martinico

Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna

Recent comparative research has shown how populisms have tried to politicise the pandemic (as they usually do with crises), but they have not entirely managed to benefit from the public health crisis. The pandemic has, on the one hand, revealed some of the fallacies of populists, contributing to the end of Trump’s presidency, for instance, but, on the other hand, it has also paradoxically reinforced the direct link between populist leaders and the masses. Think of the shocking image of a short declaration given by Donald Trump at the White House on 3 November 2020, in which he claimed his victory over Biden. On that occasion, without wearing a mask, he was speaking to “his people”, who did not respect social distancing and did not wear masks either. That declaration was in perfect continuity with Trump’s approach (and also with the one endorsed by Bolsonaro and other populist leaders) to the pandemic from the beginning, an approach which is characterised by a conflictual relationship with science and scientists.  

As Graber pointed out “COVID revealed the extent to which attacks on evidence-based politics are part and parcel of the right-wing populist challenge to constitutional democracy in the United States and elsewhere”. Indeed, populist leaders question not only what they call the “mainstream narrative” but also scientific evidence. In doing so, populist leaders target those scientists who try to challenge the disinformation produced by them. In this sense scientists are targeted by populists who claim that scientists lie when they question the narrative endorsed by the populist leader because the leader is the only source of truth. The American case is again emblematic. The Trump presidency has produced a legacy by contaminating the political debate. For instance, recently, former Trump White House trade adviser Peter Navarro cited a conspiracy theory calling COVID-19 the “Fauci virus”.  

As I will try to point out in the central part of the post, these attacks are due to the particular way in which populist movements construct the truth. It can also be argued that the pandemic has only given more relevance to a phenomenon that finds its roots in the pre-pandemic relationship between populism and science. To analyse this phenomenon, I mainly focus on the Italian case, particularly looking at the MoVimento 5 Stelle (Five Star Movement). Italy has been characterised by various populist waves; indeed, it has traditionally been a real laboratory for those interested in populism. Italian populism is interesting to comparative lawyers. The country has a long-lasting tradition of anti-parliamentarism over the course of its history as a unitary state. After the end of WWII, populism characterised many of the new parties and movements that came to the forefront in Italian politics. In fact, members of the “Common Man’s Front” (Fronte dell'Uomo Qualunque), the first populist movement in Italy, participated in the work of the national Constituent Assembly. 

Even today, it is possible to find “multiple populisms” of various natures in the spectrum of Italian political forces. The Five Star Movement has been defined – along with the Iceland’s Pirate Party – as a prime example of digital parties, for their use of the internet as a tool for disintermediation. It is no coincidence that the start of this movement is due to the launch of the blog of its charismatic leader, the comedian Beppe Grillo. The internet is also used to choose lists of candidates through a complex procedure of online primary elections. Online consultations are also used for “debating the approval or repeal of bills (or again, for deciding whether an MP must be excluded from the Movement); and the direct involvement of the constituents in a range of activities”. 

Indeed, in order to explain the relationship between disinformation and populism Nadia Urbinati coined the term objectocracy: 

“I would therefore propose to coin the term objectocracy. Before becoming the engine of the M5S, Grillo’s blog was a platform that collected and diffused news; it vindicated a “true” or “objective” assessment of problems against opinionated media and established journalism. The myth of objectivity was, from the beginning, a distinctive mark of the movement and, as mentioned above, a possible implication of anti-partyism. Based on the potential of the Internet, among the ambitions of this post-party populism was the essential goal of dismantling parliamentary politics (Grillo’s attacks, for example, on free mandate representation, have been persistent in these years)”. 

Objectocracy has evidently a lot to do with the way in which the Movement uses the Internet to create alternative information and foment conspiracies, but it applies to other populisms as well.  

The myth of objectivity was, from the beginning, a distinctive mark of the Five Star Movement and a possible implication of anti-partyism”. Other scholars stressed that “by construing themselves as the finders of ad hoc solutions to specific problems, M5S representatives undercut the very possibility of an ideological confrontation between competing visions of society”. 

Politics, for Grillo, is essentially vain ideological contention. In a visionary documentary titled Gaia - The future of politics, the late guru of the movement, Gianroberto Casaleggio, imagined a world without political parties. This is consistent with objectocracy. If it is possible to find and apply an objective truth, why should we waste time in political discussions? It is no coincidence that for populists “political mediation appears as a source of inefficiency and corruption”. Following this reasoning, if political mediation is inefficient and if political discussion is a waste of time, the conclusion is that political parties are just factors of political fragmentation and paralysis and that professional politicians are not needed, according to the logic “everyone is worth one” (uno vale uno), meaning that every member of the political community has the same value.  

Populists vindicate a “true” or “objective” assessment of problems. Not only against opinionated media and established journalism, but also against science. In order to understand objectocracy one needs to recall one of the ingredients of populism, i.e., identity politics. Identity politics consists of presenting the majority as a monolithic entity vested with moral superiority, as opposed to the elite, which is frequently depicted as corrupted. “Populists combine anti-elitism with a conviction that they hold a superior vision of what it means to be a true citizen of their nation”. Here one can see again the reductionist attitude of populism, which tends to depict all those who cannot be traced back to the majority as the “others”. This dichotomous approach and this need for the enemy has led Müller to stress the Schmittian flavour of populism. As Abromeit pointed out when commenting on Müller, populism appeals to a “mythical Volksgemeinschaft” and constructs “imagined communities” by searching for political enemies. This also explains the “bombastic” approach that frequently characterises populist rhetoric. Populists need “walls” to mark a border between what they claim to be the “real” people and the others and construct identity by excluding the political competitors from the circle of legitimacy.  

According to this narrative, scientists were seen by populists as part of the “others” and have a role in the alleged fabric of fake news aimed at undermining the virtue of the populist leaders.  

Giuseppe Martinico is a Full Professor of Comparative Public Law at the Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa.  

Suggested citation: Giuseppe Martinico, ‘Science and Populism - The Case of “Objectocracy’ IACL-AIDC Blog (18 May 2021) https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/2021-posts/2021/05/16science-and-populism-the-case-of-objectocracy.