Márton Bene and Krisztina Burai's latest bookchapter in The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics investigates the relationship between populism and social media. Digital platforms are often assumed to have played a decisive role in the rise of populist parties and leaders, yet the relationship is more complex than the claim that social media simply “causes” populism.

The chapter reviews existing theoretical arguments and empirical findings to clarify how, and under what conditions, social media may support populist politics. Its main contribution is to organize a dispersed body of theoretical claims and empirical knowledge along two conceptual dimensions.

First, it distinguishes three interconnected levels at which social media may strengthen populism: (1) by benefiting populist political actors, (2) by encouraging the circulation of populist discourse, and (3) by reinforcing populist attitudes among citizens.

Second, it argues that these effects can be understood through three characteristics of social media platforms: their architecture, norms, and affordances. This framework also helps explain differences between platforms rather than treating social media as a homogeneous environment.

The chapter classifies the main theoretical arguments about social media’s support for populism according to whether they concern platform architecture, norms, or affordances. This distinction is important because platforms differ precisely in these respects. However, there is no conclusive evidence that social media engagement directly produces electoral success. Populist politicians may receive more comments, shares, and reactions, but existing research does not show that these indicators necessarily translate into votes. The evidence therefore supports the claim that populism often succeeds within digital communication environments more strongly than the broader claim that social media causes populist electoral victories.

The chapter’s conclusion is therefore conditional. Populism and social media are compatible because platform structures facilitate direct communication, emotional mobilization, leader-centred communities, anti-elite narratives, and the aggregation of diverse grievances. Nevertheless, this compatibility varies across platforms and does not by itself demonstrate offline political effects. The most important claims in the field—especially that social media strengthens populism electorally or transforms citizens’ attitudes—remain the least conclusively tested. Future research must therefore examine a wider range of platforms, actors, regions, causal mechanisms, and consequences outside the digital sphere.

The blog post about the book chapter is available on PRiSMa research group's website.