The mirage of "anti-system" statements: a chronicle.

Every week Clement Victorovich brings us back to political debates and issues.

Sunday, November 26:

• Javier Milay's election in Argentina
• The victory of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands

-two people who call themselves "anti-system".

Published on 11/26/2023, 09:01. Reading time: 5 min.

In recent years, we have witnessed the undeniable success of so-called "anti-system" positions not only in Argentina with Javier Miley and the Netherlands with Geert Wilders. Donald Trump in the US and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil can also be added to this list. Interestingly, the origin of the term is sometimes difficult to trace. Sometimes candidates emphasize the term themselves, such as Javier Mealey. But in other contexts, the term is used in journalistic commentary, even if politicians do not use it themselves.

There is a very famous definition in political science that dates back to the 1960s and belongs to the Italian researcher Giovanni Sartori. He believed that anti-system parties are those that challenge the very legitimacy of the political system in which they function. The problem here is that this definition applies very poorly to the parties we are talking about, because they do not seek to overthrow political regimes, but instead seek power. Today, the term "anti-systemic" has a different meaning. This is no longer a political proposition, but rather a rhetorical stance.

These politicians have one idea in common: the idea that the candidate stands up against a small elite that is at once political, economic, and media, and that is organized to confiscate power from the people and usurp the public debate, chained to a dominant rhetoric or even a single thought.

From a strategic point of view, it is clear: it allows to unite the feelings of citizens by pointing to a timeless and disturbing culprit of responsibility. The problem is that, once defined in this way, the rhetoric of the anti-system is not limited to the candidates we are trying to censure as anti-system.

In France, of course, such rhetoric can be found in the speeches of the National Front and then the Parti nationale consolidated, it is their symbol there. One can also find it in some manifestations of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, as well as in Nicolas Sarkozy in October 2016, at the height of the preliminary campaign among the Republicans, or even in Emmanuel Macron in July 2016, when he announced his candidacy for the presidency.

But if everyone claims to be anti-systemic, the word doesn't make much sense anymore.

The problem is that this rhetorical fictional story has political implications. It acts as an unfair shield, turning setbacks into advantages. When cases happen that plague these candidates, instead of being evidence of their ineligibility, they become evidence that they are troubling the system! Moreover, this is now seen in the example of Donald Trump, whose cases against him are not interfering with his presidential campaign. On the contrary, they only confirm his rhetoric about being a target of the "American Establishment." In France, we have the example of François Fillon, who has made claims about the existence of a supposed "black cabal" behind the Penelope affair. This rhetoric not only allows us to manipulate citizens' anger (which, incidentally, is sometimes justified), but also provides politicians with a convenient cover for trying to avoid accountability.

Maybe we should be a little more careful with this term, thinking it through before we use it. And political leaders who resort to this rhetoric, including those in France, would do well to reflect on the emotions they evoke and the speeches they justify.