Who’s to Blame? Elites and Enemies in Political Party Manifestos – The Case of Poland (2001–2023)

Overview

This study analyzes the discursive strategies of Polish political parties from 2001 to 2023, focusing on how parties construct and criticize elites and enemies through manifestos. The research employs a conceptual distinction between vertical elite relationships and horizontal enemy opposition, identifying five elite categories (political, international, state, symbolic, economic) and five enemy categories (geographical, legal, political, economic, cultural). The investigation treats anti-elitism and enemy construction as variable dimensions rather than fixed attributes, examining whether these discursive patterns correlate with parties' systemic positions and ideological orientations.

Methods and approach

The analysis examined 42 manifestos from Polish parliamentary parties that exceeded the 3% electoral threshold during the 2001-2023 period. The study developed a typology distinguishing elite criticism from enemy construction, drawing on populism scholarship while conceptualizing both dimensions as scalable rather than binary. Manifestos were coded systematically to identify critical references across the five elite and five enemy categories. The methodology assessed correlations between manifest anti-elitism or enemy discreditation levels and parties' ideological positioning and systemic roles.

Results

The research identified substantial variation in anti-elitism and enemy construction across parties and across election cycles. Discursive patterns were not confined to parties conventionally classified as populist, but appeared as variable dimensions across the party spectrum. Relationships emerged between a party's systemic position, ideological profile, and the intensity and target selection of elite criticism and enemy construction. The typology differentiated distinct patterns of blame attribution, with parties demonstrating selective focus on particular elite categories and enemy types depending on their strategic contexts and constituencies.

Implications

The findings indicate that anti-elitism and enemy construction function as strategic discursive dimensions deployed across diverse party types rather than markers exclusively characterizing populist parties. Understanding these discursive patterns offers insight into how political parties construct political conflict and mobilize constituencies through blame attribution. The variable nature of these dimensions suggests that parties' rhetorical strategies respond to systemic pressures, ideological commitments, and competitive positioning rather than adhering to fixed ideological templates. The research contributes to populism studies by demonstrating the explanatory limitations of treating anti-elitism as a categorical attribute rather than a spectrum of discursive practice.