ABSTRACT
This chapter compares the changes undergone by SYRIZA and the Trump campaign in their respective transitions from opposition to government. A key finding is that populist performativity did not fade once these actors took power but rather continued to constitute the main mode of political communication for both. However, they presented divergent characteristics dependent on ‘host ideology’: SYRIZA articulated a pluralistic and socially-oriented political narrative, while Trump propounded an exclusionary and nativist one. That populism ‘survived’ in government does not entail that it remained unchanged. Populist repertoires were multiply reinvented in response to ongoing political developments and obtained new meanings through context-dependent intensification, articulation with non-populist elements and bridging with other frames and themes. SYRIZA and Trump continued to generate and mobilise an array of subject affects once in government. But even then, they produced contrasting emotions, ranging from solidarity and hope to bitter hatred. Collective passionate identification followed distinct trajectories in government too: in the case of SYRIZA, it declined following the party’s retreat from its anti-neoliberal commitments; in the case of Trump, it was elevated into an ecstatic fervour, culminating in the infamous Capitol insurrection of January 2021. Considering the differences between Trump’s and SYRIZA’s discursive and emotional repertoires, this chapter assesses the varied impacts different forms of populism may have on democracy.
