Rethinking Democracy: The Urgent Need for Inclusive and Respectful Discourse
Azher Hameed Qamar
Cite this article
Qamar, A. H. (2025, June 25). Rethinking democracy: An open letter to right-wing populist parties. The Social Insight. https://thesocialinsight.com/rethinking-democracy-an-open-letter-to-right-wing-populist-parties/
In today’s political climate, where fear and polarization often dominate public discourse, the language used by political leaders matters more than ever. Across Europe and beyond, we are witnessing the rise of parties that present themselves as defenders of democracy and national unity—yet frequently employ rhetoric that subtly, or sometimes explicitly, casts certain communities as threats. This blog post is an open letter to such political actors—particularly exclusionary populist and anti-immigration parties—calling on them to reflect on the language they use, the narratives they amplify, and the social consequences they unleash.
An open letter to exclusionary populist movements: Reclaiming the language of democracy
In recent years, as societies face challenges ranging from economic uncertainty to global migration, there are political parties who have turned to populist strategies to assert themselves as champions of the “ordinary people.” Exclusionary populist movements in particular often present themselves as protectors of national identity, cultural values, and public safety.
One such example recently appeared on the website of a political party in a European country. Their statement reads:
“We want a [country] where we together rejoice in our success and together help out in adversity. We will never give space to Islamism or any other extremism; this is a land of democracy and equality.”
At a glance, this may seem like a call for unity… echoes across many exclusionary populist platforms. But upon closer examination, the message reveals a deeper concern—one that echoes across many political actors using divisive populist rhetoric.
By explicitly singling out “Islamism” before offering a general rejection of “any other extremism,” the statement reinforces a familiar but troubling narrative: that certain religious or ethnic communities are inherently suspect or linked to violence. While it is essential to reject all forms of extremism, such selective framing contributes to the marginalization of entire communities based on association or identity—not on individual action or belief.
This kind of language isn’t unusual. It’s part of a growing trend where fear is turned into a political tool and people’s identities are unfairly used against them. While claiming to defend democratic values, such language often undermines the very principles it invokes—equality, inclusion, and the rule of law.
So let us ask ourselves honestly: Can a society built on exclusion ever truly be democratic?
A democracy thrives when all members of society—regardless of origin, faith, or background—are treated with equal dignity. Solidarity and mutual support cannot flourish in a climate of suspicion. If we are serious about building a society where we “rejoice in our success” and “help out in adversity,” we must start with language that unites, not divides. We therefore call on all political leaders—especially those advancing exclusionary populist agendas. If you claim to stand for democracy and equality, then let your words reflect that promise—not selectively, but universally.
It is important to recognize that extremism, violence, and crime are not limited to any one religion, ethnicity, or cultural background. These threats can come from many directions and must be addressed as universal challenges, not as traits of specific communities. For example, the 2011 Norway attacks—which killed 77 people, many of them teenagers—were carried out by a white nationalist with anti-immigrant views. In Germany, extremist violence (inspired by divisive populist rhetoric) has risen in recent years, including deadly attacks in Hanau (2020), where victims were targeted because of their ethnic background. In the United States, many mass shootings and acts of domestic terrorism have been linked to white supremacist or anti-government ideologies—not religious minorities. In India, mob violence and hate crimes have at times been incited by political groups under the guise of religious nationalism.
When we frame extremism as a problem of one religion or ethnicity, we ignore these broader patterns and create false associations. The reality is clear: no community is immune to extremism, and no community should be collectively blamed for it. True public safety and democratic integrity require us to address all forms of violence and hate—regardless of the background of the perpetrators.
Hence, when writing statements that appears to be an agenda of the political party, consider an alternative formulation—one that does not compromise security, but affirms dignity:
“We want a country where we celebrate our shared successes and support each other through adversity. We stand firmly against all forms of extremism—regardless of political, religious, or ideological affiliation—because this is a land founded on democracy, human dignity, and equality for all.”
This kind of statement does not deny the reality of threats. It simply ensures that our responses do not reproduce the same injustices we claim to fight. It is possible to be vigilant without being exclusionary, to be secure without being discriminatory.
Populist movements have gained significant influence over public discourse. That influence carries responsibility. If you wish to lead, lead with integrity. If you defend democracy, do so by embracing its full meaning—not just for some, but for all.
History will not only remember your policies. It will remember your words. Choose them wisely.
The Social Insight